"Science Proves God" Lmfao

[@theoriginalKland]

Assuming that god is responsible for anything is a non-sequitur. Because "god" is just a vague woowoo placeholder for "i don't know" So when someone says "god is responsible for X". They are really saying "I don't know what is responsible for X".

[@somersetcace1]

No, the universe is not fine tuned for life. Life managed to exist within the universe. What makes our version of life on Earth so objectively special it matters? I could just as easily say "If the universe didn't unfold exactly as it did, the present universe would be different." Okay, and? Why does it matter? Humans? We just got here, and probably wont be around long, relatively speaking. Tiny specs of briefly animated carbon that feeds on the carcasses of other life, reproduces and dies. Gee, that's the pinnacle of existence, because for the brief time we're alive, we have the capacity to say so? It's an arrogant notion.

[@Robeebert]

If anything, life exists in spite of the universe. Life, uh, finds a way.

[@Steelmage99]

If the universe is finely tuned for life, it logically follows that there is a finite number of ways that the universe can sustain life. Subsequently there is a limit to the number of ways God could create a universe capable of sustaining life. So there are standards or rules that God has to follow (in order to create a universe capable of sustaining life). Rules that God must follow. Rules that dictate the possible actions of God. Rules that are beyond God. Rules that God are subservient to. I have yet to meet a religious person, whose eyes aren't about to pop out of their heads at this point....

[@baronessvonesad0110]

Here's a little fun fact (please double check me it's been like two years since I looked this up) Any given person has a 1 in (approx) 280 million chance of winning the Powerball... Just google how many people win the Powerball... This is why "chance based" analogies aren't that great

[@thedrizzle21]

I love when this guy gets put in his place by Dan McClellan... And now by Peterson!?! Love is good.

[@FeliciaByNature]

Apologists are selling a product to a specific group of people that are desperate for what they're selling. It's marketing 101 and apologists are fantastic at it.

[@jimmiebarrett2866]

Did you mean "fanatics" by any chance?

[@darkyodd]

Isn’t this vid the exact same but for atheists 👀

[@ThorsDecree]

​@@darkyoddNo. This is a critique on reasoning where the work is shown, as opposed to asserting bias confirmation in order to preserve dogma of people who already believe the presented proposition. They're categorically different. Different content, different goals.

[@dems000]

​@@darkyodd no and you thinking that is going to seriously lower your quality of life. You are choosing to lack basic logic and common sense for your feefees about "god".

[@darkyodd]

@@ThorsDecree most atheist content I see is full of confirmation bias. The content rarely goes beyond some TikTok atheist trouncing on some bottom-of-the-barrel theist talking point.

[@babotond]

"what if..." this guy: "uNgH, yOu hAVe nO evIDencE foR thAt, UngH!"

[@bgiv2010]

Why is it obvious that a "spaceship" is created by martians but the same logic doesn't hold for the planet Mars itself? What is the hallmark of design?!

[@kaseydoodleydoo]

For all the things that are insufferable about Brooks, the number one thing that irks me is his “alright, let’s hear it” that he stole from Dan McClellan 🙄

[@CharlesPayet]

IKR???? As if Brooks could even understand Dan’s doctoral thesis.

[@lemmyhead8578]

The Universe is not "fine tuned".

[@cajohnson130]

Fine tuned for hydrogen atoms.

[@Jo-JoandTaffy]

Until they get fused into helium atoms. ​@@cajohnson130

[@RanEncounter]

​@@cajohnson130 Not even that...

[@madara211000]

@@cajohnson130 Nope, try again.

[@cajohnson130]

@@madara211000 I was being funny. No the universe is not fine tuned. What a awful argument.

[@guitarizard]

Wiggle wiggle wiggle, wiggle wiggle, Yeah!

[@LanceHall]

Baby Chad stole all his bogus arguments.

[@SlowMotionAtheist000]

Gigachad atheist destroyed him in 2 milliseconds.

[@alexritchie4586]

So many of these dumb apologist arguments that depend on people being bamboozled by particularly large or small numbers are premised entirely on an absurd scaling factor. When you examine atomic structure or fundemental forces from a human scale, of course any pertubations will be incredibly miniscule. I put it like this. When I'm walking around in my flat it takes a fair number of steps to travel from room to room, but if we examined my movements at the scale of the solar system, then me moving a mere 1 × 10^-whatever AU has moved me from one room to another. That infintisimally small movement when measured against a cosmic scale has resulted in me occupying very different states, but from the human scale me lifting a finger or flicking out a toe isn't going to allow me to move between rooms.

[@CeezGeez]

it’s adorable when apologists try to science. sad part is, this guy probably thinks he’s cooking 🧑‍🍳

[@madara211000]

It's so oxymoronic for someone to suggest that science can support or even prove the supernatural. Just like Peterson said, it's impossible in principle. If the supernatural can be empirically proven, then it's not supernatural anymore by definition.

[@wilhelmschmidt7240]

Seriously, although I hear very few people making those claims that can even understand scientific terminology. They literally have no idea what they are talking about.

[@ianchisholm5756]

Brooks looks and sounds likes he's just reading straight off a Christian apologetics website. He doesn't give much impression of actually understanding what he's saying.

[@rylanasher4756]

Just started the video. Liked your comment due to the statistics of apologists.

[@Robeebert]

Sometimes you can look at somebody and see they just don't have a spark of intelligence behind their eyes. The type of person that'd just keep their mouth open and drooling.

[@andyh3065]

Like so, so many of them. I’ve heard the exact same words, almost verbatim, from so many other dumb ass apologists. They hear it from one then they just parrot it with zero thought or intelligence.

[@johns1625]

That's called being homeschooled

[@Tenebris_Sint]

But “look at the space-trees…”

[@Youtubehater17]

There was a sci-fi story that had Ygddrasil as a space ship?

[@Tenebris_Sint]

@@KZbinhater17 Allegedly

[@dwightfitch3120]

@@KZbinhater17Was it Hyperion?

[@Youtubehater17]

@@dwightfitch3120 Yeah, it may have been? Read it nearly 40(?) years ago! Included some diverse "pilgrims", and the, er, remarkable "Shrike"?

[@johns1625]

​@@KZbinhater17Hyperion. Best 4 part science fiction series ever. I wish I could wipe my memory and listen to the audiobooks for the first time again 😂

[@-_-_-_-_]

Shuffle a deck and look at the order of cards. The probability of the cards being in that exact order is 1/52!. Therefore a God must have ordered the cards that way.

[@gowdsake7103]

A TAD higher than that you gave the probability for just 1 card

[@-_-_-_-_]

@@gowdsake7103 the exclamation point denotes the factorial

[@dwightfitch3120]

We know the probability of getting poker hands because we know how many cards there are, what each one is and all the possible hands. We don’t have comparable info for the universe

[@martin2289]

Good catch on the circularity of his "fine tuning" argument.

[@sarbnitrof4663]

Videos like this are very important. It's always good to understand why an argument is bad and how to recognize the sociopath using it

[@tysongalloway5700]

I don’t think it’s “stupid” so much as “simple”

[@-gearsgarage-]

13:33 even a broken clock is right twice a day

[@markcostello5120]

Well if the broken clock is on a planet that's tidally locked then it's never right.

[@celiand2618]

"The universe is fine tuned for life." OK, but then humans are not the chosen species. From observation, the creator deity is all about cockroaches. And humans are just here to feed and export cockroaches. Totally explains the Van Allen Radiation Belt, set there to turn astronauts into cockroach food.

[@Steelmage99]

If the universe is finely tuned for life, it logically follows that there is a finite number of ways that the universe can sustain life. Subsequently there is a limit to the number of ways God could create a universe capable of sustaining life. So there are standards or rules that God has to follow (in order to create a universe capable of sustaining life). Rules that God must follow. Rules that dictate the possible actions of God. Rules that are beyond God. Rules that God are subservient to. I have yet to meet a religious person, whose eyes aren't about to pop out of their heads at this point....

[@celiand2618]

@@Steelmage99 excellent. I can imagine that, because it also applies to objective morality and so far it leads the strong believer straight into cognitive dissonance.

[@830toAwesome]

Achilies and the Tortoise is just Zeno's Paradox explained way less clearly.

[@DoctorX101]

But with a tortoise and an emo warrior with Mommy Issues!!

[@williamcozart8158]

God it annoys me when young guys try to project their voice lower and deeper to try to sound like they're not still in puberty.

[@arefallout]

What makes you think he is doing that? His voice isn't crazy deep or anything lol it's a normal voice

[@claudiustapper5941]

Yaas queen? 9:40. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@milkdoves]

I'm so glad for this video.

[@theoriginalKland]

I'm sorry, but id 99.99999999999999999% of the universe would kill any form of life almost instantly.. How exactly is the universe "fine tuned for life"? If it was fine tuned for life.. there'd literally be life everywhere you look.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

science: The professional way of extracting knowledge of reality. god: The ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. LOLZ

[@SlowMotionAtheist000]

Literally 🤣

[@gregsanich5183]

I never understood this strawman of a receding God. How would knowing and understanding the nature, mechanisms, and processes of how any particular design functions, somehow mean that it is not designed? That makes no sense. If anything, revealing how something was designed to operate would only confirm the design? Is there anything that theists no longer think god is responsible for bc we have learned and understand it scientifically ?

[@SlowMotionAtheist000]

@@gregsanich5183 it's not a strawman argument if you understand it. It's not saying there definitely isn't a god, but the more we understand, the less we need the placeholder of "god" to hand-wave the apparent gap in our knowledge away.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

@@gregsanich5183 Zeus was a "god" throwing down lightning bolts. Science proved him false. The bible says the Earth is flat; Science proved it wrong. The bible says the Earth is 6000 years old; Science proved it wrong. Science can not disprove "My Invisible Sky Daddy CAUSED this" type of assertions.

[@gregsanich5183]

@sanjeevgig8918 theists still believe god is the reason for every natural phenomenon, including lightning, even though they now have a comprehensive scientific understanding of electiricty and the processes and mechanisms that produce lightning. Gaining a scientific understanding of the phenomenon did not result in them no longer believing God to be responsible for it. There was no gap.

[@Robeebert]

I'm watching a dude on youtube rebut a dude on tiktok rebutting another dude on tiktok rebutting the first tiktok dude.

[@kristopherfisher2517]

you dont even need to go back to the big bang to disprove Christianity

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

On the evil god question, the Mindshift channel has the best rebuttal: Imagine the Canaanite god Moloch proved himself real and demanded infant sacrifice because he's the only true god; would you worship him? Answer that before criticizing atheists for not worshipping a god alleged to have created Hell.

[@jesuskrishna8020]

You should also react to papi capone 💀

[@zanicnight]

I always like how people forget that some sects of religion are athiest (ex: Buddhist). They are spiritual, and some also don't believe in a scientific origin. So they have a spiritual universe creation without a God. But... sure... keep lumping all athiest under the same group.

[@MarcoKrieger]

Yes, science proves God....does not play any part in science. You should always read the sentence from start to finish.

[@edisoncarter3841]

The universe is tuned for life like a petri dish in a sterile room. 🤦 Theists with their special pleading arguments are so boring as they try to escape reason.

[@UnlimitedLives1960]

One way we could apply science to determine if something is magic as well as it's properties would be if we had a way to mute that magic source. Just like seeing what a certain gene does by turning it off and observe what changes. Given that this has not been done ever it appears that either magic does not exist or there is no way to mute it or study it.

[@louseveryann2181]

I always thank them for admitting science is superior to a fairy tale.

[@jaymikesmovienites3452]

His cadence and how bad he is, is very reminiscent of Eric Dubay

[@jakstrieder]

the universe is not finely tuned for us, Evolution has allowed us to Adapt to our world.

[@jackcinephile7554]

They brought up black holes during the fine-tuning argument. I feel like black holes, alone, prove that the universe isn't fine tuned. Why would God design the universe for us to live in, while also allowing the pure cosmic horror of a black hole to exist?

[@suelane3628]

Stephen Hawking approached why parameters of the Universe enables life to happen. Only without even considering the existence of a creator God. (A recent New Scientist Article.)

[@NolenGYT]

This kid sounds like he may be a psychopath.

[@louseveryann2181]

Haaaa.... another high schooler "defending his faith"...

[@alucarderipmavtube]

There's also this KZbinr with a Hate Boner for AronRa named President Christopher.

[@LegendGamer-dj8om]

Why do they always say that?

[@boblol1465]

2:15 ok but like the catholic church has had some "proven" miracles but Christianity still logically doesnt make sense to me

[@lemongavine]

I wish you could pause all of your guests instead of them talking-over you constantly

[@DonutofRengokuEdits]

32:03

[@Eraser18574]

Well I disagree that we aren’t capable of scientifically test god. If I pray for a gold brick and the gold brick would appear, I would accept that as evidence for god. If prayers to a specific god would work reliably, that would be evidence for that god.

[@OfficialBrainTheory]

Ngl I hate scummy people who don’t respect other peoples personal beliefs…..stop pointing fun at believers have respect if you want a name for yourself

[@Code20Man]

@Planet Peterson I'd love to have a debate about theism, science, and philosophy with you. I don't have a TikTok, however and am not super willing to get one just for that purpose. Would you be willing to chat with me on MDD or some other KZbin-based platform?

[@planetpeterson2824]

I have a discord, link in description

[@Code20Man]

@@planetpeterson2824 Unfortunately seems to be broken still.

[@planetpeterson2824]

@@Code20Man discord.gg/Yh7qZmth

[@neodinson9928]

This might be the only time I've ever completely disagreed with you. The universe is infact finite, and is measurable.

[@dwightfitch3120]

How do you know that the universe is finite?

[@neodinson9928]

@@dwightfitch3120 Because it has a begining. The Big Bang.

[@dwightfitch3120]

@@neodinson9928 The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion and it wasn’t the beginning

[@neodinson9928]

@@dwightfitch3120 Agreed, it isnt an explosion. The Big Bang is the expansion of the Universe from an infinitely small point, meaning that space time, and matter, began to exist. (To make it clear, I do not claim that matter comes from nothing)

[@neodinson9928]

@@dwightfitch3120 I agree, the big bang wasn't an explosion, however, it was the beginning of the universe because there was no universe before it had started expanding. It was infinitely small, and then, for an unknown reason, started expanding at the speed of light, marking the beginning of the universe.

[@ryanlerouche5122]

You only get hints or reflections of GOD in the empiricism. When you see order beauty. Love laughter infinite. Your seeing only reflection. There is no scripture in the world that I know of that claims you can find GOD in empiricism. Show me one please. All way through devotions and mystical practices.

[@dwightfitch3120]

Some ppl think or say they see hints or reflections of god in empiricism (do you mean nature?). Doesn’t mean they actually do

[@ryanlerouche5122]

@@dwightfitch3120 atheist seem not to be explaining 1st principles 1st attributes 1st forms first concepts very well. You need a first for something for anything to exist.

[@steveyuhas9278]

Saying 'faith is confidence' is useless and answers nothing about what the contention is. You're answering half of the question, and mind you, the half of the question we already know the answer to. You can say "faith is trust" or "faith is hope" but you STILL haven't answered the question. You're still not giving the justification for having the confidence, you've just kicked the can down the road. So now we have to ask "confidence based on what" until we get you to admit that whether it's hope, confidence, trust, or whatever...it's held with a dearth (and sometimes in spite of) the best evidence available. That's the key, and THAT actually answers the question. If you don't give the complete explanation of what it is combined with the justification for having it, you are just preaching and not adding anything substantive to the discussion. But let's be honest... If I believed crap in spite of evidence, I would want to dance around the issue as well cuz that's embarrassing af.

[@jaredwilliamcrouse7715]

🤬broccoli heads are so annoying

[@tehspamgozehere]

"My god does everything good! Everything bad is because of SATAN!" Yeeah. I'm sick of hearing it also. Laying claim to all-good-things doesn't mean it's true. And even if it were true that an intelligence created our reality, what makes them think it's their specific god that did it? (And as I type the end of this, our host here responds with this. I need to stop responding before watching the whole vid.) And of course, the fine tuning argument is just pathetic. In order to say "Wow! This is so unlikely!" you first have to prove that it can be anything other than it is. You need to prove alternatives are even possible. So much fail on so many levels.

[@HisZotness]

Synonyms exist. Two distinct words can have the same meaning. Poor argument here, Mr. Peterson. Also, the Achilles paradox is solved through the concept of limits.

[@wilhelmschmidt7240]

Synonyms do exist, which is why specific definitions are important. It's also why you can't switch between scientific, legal, or colloquial meanings.

[@HisZotness]

@@wilhelmschmidt7240 Synonyms are defined as multiple words with the same meaning. You're arguing they the same word can have multiple meanings, which is true, but irrelevant to my point. Peterson stated that if two words meant the same thing, there would be no use for the redundant word. While this may be technically true in some alternative reality wherein fanatical linguistic austerity is highly prized, it is obviously true in our reality that such redundancies exist.

[@louseveryann2181]

​@@HisZotness And therefore your personally preferred imaginary friend exists OUTSIDE your head?

[@HisZotness]

@@louseveryann2181 I don't have an imaginary friend. Checkmate, theists!

[@kushy2508]

if God doesn't exist, who wrote the bible?

[@ivancliff2514]

And who is Jesus’s dad?

[@gryph01]

Humans wrote it

[@Boneworm852]

If Abdul Alhazared didn't exist, who wrote the Necronomicon?

[@cajohnson130]

Anonymous writers over hundreds of years way after Jesus would have been alive. Copies of copies of translations of copies of oral traditions.

[@-gearsgarage-]

I hope this is a troll question.

[@darrendelaney8161]

"satan is a christian" what? no dude, knowledge of a thing does not imply participation. no more than learning that space exists makes one an astronaut.

[@planetpeterson2824]

Christianity is the BELIEF that Jesus is whatever they say he is. Satan knows this for a fact. Therefore, he's a Christian.

[@darrendelaney8161]

@@planetpeterson2824 "belief"? hmmm i would say its a doctrine of practice of worship. being a member of the group requires participation not simply the acknowledgment of the existence of the deity.. but what ev

[@EricusXIV]

There isn't a unanimous agreement on the definition of a Christian. Peterson's assertion that it can be defined as a belief aligns with one perspective. Conversely, another viewpoint posits that a Christian is someone who "follows Christ". In religious studies, we contrast "substantive" and "functional" kinds of definitions. The former concentrates on the intrinsic nature of the religion (such as belief), while the latter emphasizes the religion's purpose or function (such as providing meaning or guidance).

[@darrendelaney8161]

@@EricusXIV no man not at all that is silly. being aware of something creating a "belief" is not the same as participation in a practice of worship. y wrdz so hard?

[@planetpeterson2824]

@@darrendelaney8161 Which of these people is a Christian (or is neither of them): A sinner who believes in Jesus, goes to church, does everything their supposed to but also some things that they're not (sins), or someone who doesn't even know Jesus exists but commits no sin at all?

[@tonypringles2285]

i like you planet peters but i cannot watch a channel that constantly tries to clown on religion. sure i get that you dont believe in it, thats fine but to constantly look down on it as if your views have any more proof is laughable.

[@mojomusica]

Can't spell the name of the channel, has no understanding of what the channel is about, comes here to make it obvious that you have not the slightest clue about what the channel is for. Hint: it's for taking all religious apologist's lies apart, whatever their religion. ALL apologists, ALL the liars. if you are an apologist for Xtianity, you're in the wrong place. If you think you have empirical evidence for God, Creation, young Earth, or any of the other nonsense peddled in churches, feel free to debate him and show him and us how wrong we are. You won't.

[@tonypringles2285]

yeah because an ordinary dude with no platform is gonna debate him. idk who xtianity is and he sounds dumb. real religious people know their earth is billions of years old. im just saying there is also zero proof for evolution as well and every experiment they have tried has failed. believe what you want but acknowledge that the other side has just as much eviedence as you do which is none@@mojomusica

[@louseveryann2181]

​@@tonypringles2285 Silly frightened child can't adult...