One of the strengths of Meyer is the precision of the language he uses. He's really good at conveying his points.
@mikebutler76053 жыл бұрын
I am constantly flabbergasted at the mind that sits within Stephen's head. Just the memory of so much information is foreign to me, let alone the ability to recall it and fit the pieces of information together in a coherent way. In a word, the man is brilliant and humble in the same breath.
@ChazMcMahon Жыл бұрын
He's the complete antithesis of the modern neodarwinist scientists.
@jean-marclamothe88592 жыл бұрын
I love this guy, so difficult to dismiss what he's saying. Creator and creation will always come together.
@andrewwatson98055 жыл бұрын
"It's like saying that the latitude and longitude lines on a map are responsible for the rise of the Himalayan Mountains..." Love it!
@eliasarches25755 жыл бұрын
I'm so excited for Stephen Meyer's new book! Stephen is, no doubt, one of the greatest intellectuals working today.
@turbohead9715 жыл бұрын
Stephen Meyer is on his game.
@stevenwiederholt70004 жыл бұрын
(As Always, I...Could...Be...Wrong) It appears to me the more we learn about the Universe and Life the more reasonable Intelligent Design becomes.
@philippawesterman88435 жыл бұрын
Good to have someone credible who can explain things in common English. Thank you.
@sanjosemike31375 жыл бұрын
Even Christopher Hitchens admitted that "fine tuning" is the "best argument for the existence of God." Hitchens died before many of the design attributes were becoming more mainstream and disclosed. Even Dawkins has had problems with this and is a big proponent of the "multi-verse." He is even now facing difficulty with "problematic" questions from his University audiences. He had a stroke not too long ago. I assume he will state that THIS is the reason why he is no longer proselytizing atheism at colleges. Sanjosemike (no longer in Ca)
@Amor-Fati.4 жыл бұрын
Excellent...finally, I can feel confident in what I always questioned and now feel confident that the answers are what I had expected. Thank you
@winstonowen20543 жыл бұрын
Brilliant stuff, Stephen. You speak to us as a philosopher and a scientist.
@marcusaurelius56524 жыл бұрын
Stephen, you’re brilliant! Now go get a camera stand.
@robertmicelli2946 Жыл бұрын
Dr. Meyer is my hero. thank(the intelligent designer) God for men like him.
2 жыл бұрын
I simply love Stephen Meyer. Using scientific terms and explanations, he destroys the fundamentals of atheism and materialism so strongly that he leaves them no space to defend their stupid ideology.
@calonstanni2 жыл бұрын
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640 Жыл бұрын
Stephen Meyer never said anything about god, only a vauge “higher power” of some sort. A higher power doesn’t necessarily mean something is a god.
@davidrichmond21 Жыл бұрын
Well he is demonstrating that a higher intelligence was behind the created of the Universe. This we can call God if we want to. We can deduce a lot through what he created. But since it is obvious that there is a God it is not where a Christian would like to start a discussion of faith. But because there is such a strong atheist presence in this world the Christian has no choice. If we are talking about evidence I would prefer to start with the evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
@hism3rcy445 жыл бұрын
This is sensical, rational, sane and informative. Thank you for sharing this.
@scottdetter4 жыл бұрын
Meyers Rocks!!
@petroniaskho4 жыл бұрын
Insurance Agent: What caused this fire? Fire Chief: Oxygen. Insurance Agent: Where did the oxygen come from? Fire Chief: Don't ask those questions, you God freak.
@alexvargas52584 жыл бұрын
Amazing. I would like Stephen to have a debate with Sean Carroll about fine tuning
@adamfena66984 жыл бұрын
A FINELY FASHIONED WORK of ART NECESSITATES the ARTIST -Risale-i Nur Collection
@MrSpiritsurf5 жыл бұрын
Awesome scientist! He really understands his stuff! No wonder he can present it effectively to ordinary folks like us.
@acortes77715 жыл бұрын
Vincent John, Dr. Stephen Meyer is not a scientist, he's a Philosopher of Science. Of course, understanding the science is vital in his field.
@denvan31433 жыл бұрын
Fine-tuning is the smoking gun for Intelligent Design. The multi-verse is an attempt to turn the smoking gun into Russian roulette without any bullets.
@bapet56145 жыл бұрын
A designer must exist for a design to come out. I myself is a biology student and I can see how complex life is specifically the nucleotide sequence that any alteration will result to major changes of the entire organism. Common sense.
@garycottreau84425 жыл бұрын
Cool. I see Hawkins and Sheldon Cooper lost it. Cheers. [ I knew all along]
@jordibassas17136 ай бұрын
The concept "fine tuning" recalls me my tunings of the "English by Radio course from the BBC when I waa a teeneger long time ago (now I am 84 years all). My radio device was an ancient one on which I were obliged to tune the station by short wave and the dificulties came precisely from the finesse of those tuning. My name is Jordi Bassas, and I live in Barcelona Spain,.
@KenJackson_US5 жыл бұрын
Excellent. The fine details of creation itself give glory to God!
@thetruthchannel3495 жыл бұрын
'the laws of physics alone can explain where the Universe came from' - Thats a remarkably dumb statement to come from someone as intelligent as Stephen Hawking. Its equally as ambiguous as the 'Natural Selection' abyss of Neo-Darwinism. It sounds like it means something but it really doesn't mean anything at all as far as a mechanism goes.
@jannyjt2034Ай бұрын
You'd be surprised of how much ambiguous language is in science.
@davidanful5 жыл бұрын
Awesome video !! Thanks so much for sharing
@seddikmed4113 жыл бұрын
At least the best explanation of the origin of universe and life on earth that I could even heard 🙂 Thanks God 🙏
@ds5252525 жыл бұрын
Zero comments? Over 6.5K views. Great points and the lat/long example was perfect! Thanks for this video.
@arkangelnorthman4 жыл бұрын
THANKYOU!!
@bugatifans5 жыл бұрын
thanks for this beautiful and useful video
@vaishnavitiwari5353 жыл бұрын
Amazing ... great explanation.... you're brilliant....Hari bol 🙏
@ant10105 жыл бұрын
Great vid,thanks for posting. There was a big fanfare when the so called God particle the Higgs boson was finally identified by the LHC , what was less publicized was that a lot of particle physicists were a bit disappointed because it too appears to be fine tuned,its perfect value for the job it does cannot be explained by the standard model.and seems to be another lucky shot.
@sleepwalker77555 жыл бұрын
Thank you Stephen. This helps in debates.
@AndrewKnightMIT7 ай бұрын
thanks Dr. Meyer!
@Pato-ot3hf3 жыл бұрын
Some people just don't want the existence of a creator, no matter the cost. What is the problem of accepting that there could be something bigger than us?
@eltonron15584 жыл бұрын
Another note for God living rent free in the head of the atheist. If they're up to speed, they will lose sleep.
@johnnowakowski40625 жыл бұрын
I don't see why the notion of the "multiverse" would change the fine-tuning argument at all. It's just a matter of "scale". Let's just say that our solar system is like one "atom" within some "larger" system. Then we have to ask the question as to how "finely tuned" an atom needs to be in order to exist, which could be a "constant" all the way down the "tuning" chain from the macro to the micro...
@gabrielfernandes55455 жыл бұрын
This was extremely remarkable, Dr.Meyer. There are, however, some proponents of the ID derivatives who defend a "young universe" theory, based on the alternative interpretation of the red shift in the galaxies and the unexpected abnormalities observed on it. Dr.Adauto Lourenço summarizes a few of the inconsistencies of the "Big-Bang interpretation" of this data: Many interconnected galaxies have different shifts (which would lead us to the weird conclusion that they have different speeds despite the connection), the quantization of the values of speed (the proportion values of the wavelengths always assuming multiples of the conjunct [0.06, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.4, 1.96], like if galaxies had "favorite speeds"). Some propositions were made in order to offer alternative explanations to the red-shift observed: Tired light mechanism (Zwick, 1929), the proportion to the universe's curvature (Segal, 1995), a shift on the speed of light itself (Troitskii, 1987). Also, the background radiation, other of the pillars underneath the Big Bang Theory, has received some divergent and not commented explanations (Like the thermic equilibrium of the cianide interstellar molecules or the result of the accumulation of thermic radiation out of the uprising entropy since the beginning of the universe). My point is: Even though the design is clearly necessary in order to sufficiently explain universe's tuning in a Big-Bang-originated scenario, have you personally considered the possibility of "getting rid" of the Big Bang? Do Hawking's theorems depend on the interpretation of galaxies' red-shift as an expansion of the Universe? Another question: isn't the Weak Anthropic Principle just a circular argument? Anyway, congratulations for all your work and knowledge. I am a med school student and also a researcher, and I've been struggling to teach on ID here in Brazil. It's been amazing, and I would really like to have some conversation with you, specially on the Cosmology topics. If you get interested, please email me on gabriel.jcd@hotmail.com. God bless you!
@ShadesofViolet85 жыл бұрын
Wow. ❤️
@susanpepper1485 жыл бұрын
If science continues to accidentally discover a designer and then creates more theories to refute it ... How in the world will they ever come to the knowledge of truth ? Its like playing monopoly and only one player being allowed to change the rules so that he wins every game. Does he really ever win ? He will never know unless he stops stacking the deck...
@1RedneckCajun Жыл бұрын
Whew, this is awesome.
@troycampbell74083 жыл бұрын
I’m reading Signature In The Cell, and Privileged Planet. Put together it’s just layers upon layers of improbability that we’re here. We are only here because God made us and loves us. He made us and then put us in the perfect spot to observe and learn from His creation.
@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Жыл бұрын
I watched the movie version of Privileged Planet. I would like to get the book some day, but I thought the movie was interesting. You should check it out if your interested.
@think-islam-channel3 жыл бұрын
Muslim here. Excellent video. Well done Stephen
@PInk77W15 жыл бұрын
The sun comes up on time everyday for billions of years. But materialist say there is no purpose to that. Yet if I crash into a police car at 7:30am 5 days in a row, I will be in trouble for doing it on PURPOSE
@bobfree12265 жыл бұрын
Amazing deduction.God is Real.
@dbmail5455 жыл бұрын
The weak anthropic principle is a tautology. The strong anthropic principle is equivalent to religious belief. A good resource is "Modern Physics, Ancient Faith" by Barr.
@beowulf.reborn3 жыл бұрын
I need a 5+ hour lecture on this, that goes through all the "dials" in the fine-tuning argument, and then into the multiverse hypothesis and its problems in way more depth. And then perhaps finish it all off with a series of debates. XD
@ProfessorPicke5 жыл бұрын
wow great video
@Hollywood4Fun3 жыл бұрын
The ending presents a humorous paradox by positing that a universe created by an unintelligent random quantum anomaly can only be suggested by administering the self-restricting boundaries of an equation produced with large sums of organized information. Thus, if information is necessary to create the explanation of how the universe came into existence, then information is also required in advance of the created universe. Subsequently, this information cannot be provided without a provider.
@Roscoe049411 ай бұрын
I did not follow his last comments on the quantum problems but I have heard Lawrence Krauss discuss his something from nothing theories which get into how quantum fluctuations in space, essentially his version of nothing, create enough energy to ultimately create matter. And yes it raises a lot of questions including where the space came from in which these fluctuations took place.
@michaelgonzalez90582 жыл бұрын
I used a tuning fork to see apply all tuning of body
@arthurwieczorek48942 жыл бұрын
To say that the universe is fine tuned is to say that the universe could have been other than it is. On what basis do we make that assumption?
@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Жыл бұрын
True, whenever I talk to my dad about God sometimes we talk about arguments for God. Whenever we talk about "fine-tuning" he often says there is no way to know. There is no way to determine if it is or isn't. He said there is no way to gather data or go back in time. Then there aren't any other universes to observe "we don't know how to do so, or if a multiverse exists". If a multiverse exists though, how can we tell if all these other universes are "fine-tuned"?
@kenandzafic3948 Жыл бұрын
1. Based on two things. 2. The bounded principle of indifference says that if we have no reason to prefer some outcome over others then we should assign equal probability to all of them, in this case we have a huge landscape of possible constant values and since we have no reason to think that the other constants are impossible we assign them equally probability that makes our universe utterly improbable. 3. Even if we assume that, for example, these constant values are physically necessary, other values are still metaphysically possible, so that will move the fine-tuning by one nifo, that is, from the universe to the laws of physics, but the problem will still remain unsolved.
@peterjongsma27793 жыл бұрын
Steven says Fine Tuning. Materialists say Pure Coincidence. Materialists are INVINCIBLY IGNORANT.
@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Жыл бұрын
Whenever I talk to my dad about God sometimes we talk about arguments for God. Whenever we talk about "fine-tuning" he often says there is no way to know. There is no way to determine if it is or isn't. He said there is no way to gather data or go back in time. Then there aren't any other universes to observe "we don't know how to do so, or if a multiverse exists". If a multiverse exists though, how can we tell if all these other universes are "fine-tuned"?
@Gatorbeaux5 жыл бұрын
This absolutely proves Gods existence- as well as Intelligent design-
@user-k2295 жыл бұрын
Stephen, a mind blowing analysis of our Universe. Thanks for bringing the highest level of logic to the issue. The issue being that to negate a Creator, all that scientists are doing is compounding the obvious with even more improbable scenarios. By doing this they are making matters worse or furthernore, even more complicated. Why not just acknowledge that the Universe is so finely tuned that it is obvious there is some kind of Creator. Lets not debate what that Creator is, or what it looks like, because we can never comprehend It. I am reminded of verses from the Last Testament, the Quran: "We shall show them the Signs in the heavens, in the Earth and within themselves until it becomes manifest unto them that this is the Truth ( That there is only One Creator." "We (God) , has created the universe from NOTHING and it is We Who are expanding it." "We have created the Earth the Sun and the Stars each floating in space in an orbit." " We have created the Earth round like the shape of an ostrich egg." (how could anyone 1400yrs ago know that the Earth was the shape of an ostrich egg??).
@HappyBoyProductions3 жыл бұрын
Love the video and information, but the cameraman needs some help keeping things steady..
@gives_bad_advice2 жыл бұрын
At 2:46 or so he says that list of conditions have to be just so "for life to exist." Obviously a fundamental error that undermines his thesis. He might be correct if he said "the particular kind of life that currently exists." For all he knows there are potentially a billion unimaginable other forms of life that could exists under a billion variations in conditions.
@kenandzafic3948 Жыл бұрын
This is one of the worst objections atheists can make because a universe that does not have these conditions will consist only of hydrogen so no form of complex life is possible.
@jimcolegrove54425 жыл бұрын
Creator, Father, singlarity, God Almighty whose name is Jehovah now has one more title (job title ?)
@michaelgonzalez90582 жыл бұрын
There is only one space curvature at the warp because of being
@TifleTifle-xd2pf Жыл бұрын
This was outstanding!! Don’t forget about Antony Flew. He died in 2010. During his time he was the worlds most prominent atheist, and he wrote numerous book. Then he became a deist. Not a Christian though, but a deist. What changed his mind? He said the discovery of fine tuning. But don’t tell anyone, the atheist hate the mention of his name. Shhhhhh.
@rizdekd3912 Жыл бұрын
Some may, but I don't think most atheist 'hate' the mention of his name. I sure don't. I just realize that despite how famous he was, he just hadn't thought it all the way through and had based his atheism on faulty reasoning. It would be how you might think of a person who claimed to be a Christian theist for many years but when some tragedy struck, they became an atheist. That would suggest to you that they had been basing their Christian theism on a twisted world view that maybe held God up as some sort of 'make everything all right all the time' magician. I had to think through fine tuning before I could conclude I no longer thought God was the best explanation for the world as I knew/know it.
@PeterParker-vi2nl3 ай бұрын
@@rizdekd3912I’m curious what convinced you otherwise? Or what was faulty in his reasoning? You give an example of how the “Christian” was at fault but not yours. (No offense, I know your comment says this was a year ago, but saying he “didn’t think it through” without explaining why seems arrogant). His research may have made him change his mind. He was drawn towards something, not pushed away from a “disingenuous” worldview or practice. The example you gave however is a very real thing. But the consistency there was a commitment to the self and not to God, even under the guise as a Christian (the Bible acknowledges this problem strongly). Regardless, I’m very much open and curious as to why you came to the conclusion you have about fine tuning (hopefully neither of us tune out change🙏🏻)
@khurramhkhan2 жыл бұрын
Brilliant
@i0use0reason4 жыл бұрын
Excellent
@calebasomaning1428 Жыл бұрын
This guy really took his critical thinking assignments seriously 😂
@vincentrusso433211 ай бұрын
I reckon Professor Dave was smart enough to sit this one out..
@doctorsfaithcorner49173 жыл бұрын
"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and I separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? " The Quran - chapter21, verse: 30
@kenandzafic3948 Жыл бұрын
I hope you are not promoting the fairy tale that the Quran somehow spoke about modern scientific theories.
@tedgrant23 жыл бұрын
Fine Tuning is the best evidence for the existence of God. Without it, I would have trouble believing that the Bible is all true. Take, for example the number pi, which has an infinite number of decimal places ! If pi was just a tiny bit bigger or smaller, circles would be impossible. Thank God for pi
@kristypickett42273 жыл бұрын
Look up Jason lisle fractals video too. It may be something like “seeing God in fractals” or something similar. Can’t remember the title exactly, but amazing
@TREVORALLEN-tl4yt5 күн бұрын
Fine tuned for what,the formation of black holes with asteroids and meteors flying hither and thither?
@LahSouljacutzup3 жыл бұрын
Camera man is driving me nuts.
@BradHolkesvig5 жыл бұрын
Only our Creator can create all the visible illusions that created men believe are real.
@cenewton32214 жыл бұрын
Wow.
@ca3ca3774 жыл бұрын
the multiverse doesn't disprove that the multiverse is also designed.
@effectingcause54846 ай бұрын
Is Pi equal to 3.14 because of fine tuning or because of chance or because of necessity? Let's think... The number is incredibly precise in order to allow for the existence of circles. 3.141592653589793238 is to the 18th decimal and for example if that last 8 was off by just one point, let's say it was a 7, then no circles would be possible in the universe. Instead all "almost-circles" would just spiral inwards into a big crunch onto the center point. If that last 8 was too high, call it a 9, then all circles would spiral outwards to infinity and beyond! So now, should we consider this incredibly precise number we measure to be Pi as possibly a product of intentional design or a product of incredible odds? Is there a multiverse and we just happen to find ourselves in a rare universe where Pi just exactly equals 3.141592653589793238? Or, is Pi exactly equal to 3.141592653589793238 because that's how many times the diameter of a circle fits perfectly around the circumference of the same circle? Should this precision be fine tuned by an intelligent designer, or just by pure luck of the odds? Or is it in fact, because of necessity?
@JimCvit3 жыл бұрын
If nothing existed, the laws didn’t exist. If the laws exist, they were “created.”
@cmhardin374 жыл бұрын
What if they are wrong and the tuning really doesn't have to be (and isn't) finely tuned? How certain are they that the universe is finely tuned?
@mondopinion37773 жыл бұрын
I have a problem with the whole materialism/non-materialism thing. Water is 'material' but the amazing water experiments of Emoto and Benveniste prove it is highly responsive to consciousness, and also can conduct complex information across the passage of time. I don't think we yet understand what material is. Thingism might be a better term for the "dead stuff" view of the material world.
@namasi70703 жыл бұрын
John Lennox debunks the notion that laws can create in one of his debates
@TheLamboman6405 жыл бұрын
Putting what we already know into logical arguments from a scientific perspective. It is practically impossible for everything to exist without a creator. God is the only logical, reasonable answer, and the most probable.
@Mike__G Жыл бұрын
Why is the concept that metadata must always be more information rich than the structure of the data it describes so difficult for physicists to understand? The same must consequently be true of any “meta universe” or universe generator.
@Del-Martinez-2 жыл бұрын
Thank you Lord for Stephen Meyer
@goliath2575 жыл бұрын
Lovely 😊
@markj.t.16335 жыл бұрын
Great video!
@DJTUNE17705 жыл бұрын
If everything has to be so fine tuned that the possibility of humans existing is very, very, very slim than there must be a creator.
@tv33BSN8 ай бұрын
@fabianfase77094 жыл бұрын
Well spoken. Terrible camera movement
@SUNofNY5 ай бұрын
4:28 Sorry you are way off, and you know it. It is not a question of "multi-billions" of other universes needed to solve the problem, it would require more universes than there are atoms in this universe. Don't deceive people about the magnitude of the problem.
@m.ssharma5353 жыл бұрын
Minute 3.10 "speed of light not too fast not too slow" _ I thought speed of light is constant anywhere in the universe. Does he mean what it is constant but in a good way? not clear to me.
@zilefn92125 жыл бұрын
Stephen is very clever and very good, particularly at identifying flaws in materialist and other arguments critical of an ontology which includes a Creator. But there remains something deeply unsatisfying in a scientific sense in an explanation which posits such a Being, as that conclusion (a) leads to no further questions - it feels like an epistemological dead end; and (b) isn't falsifiable, which is itself profoundly contrary to the scientific method.
@salomemalherbe6772 жыл бұрын
Could Earth have Come "Down out of Heaven" like the New Jerusalem? Confirming the amazing INTIMACY between the Spiritual and Materialistic dimensions?
@hasanshirazi95354 жыл бұрын
The hypothesis of infinite multiverses presupposes that Quantum Mechanics laws which are evident in our universe, in fact, transcend this universe and form the basis of all the infinite multiverses. The question which then arises is that if quantum states are the basis of existence of multiverses, then who created these quantum states in the first place and who bound all the multiverses to exist according to one of these states?
@drt53115 жыл бұрын
Materialist: There is no evidence of design in nature. Steven: Hold my beer.
@bobfree12265 жыл бұрын
Fred Hoyle coined that term Big Bang
@timothyweakly24963 жыл бұрын
How great is our God!
@Jack-wq1slАй бұрын
Here's the thing that gets me. What is the meaning or purpose between the laws of physics and the fine tuner? Since God created everything, he also created physics, mathematics and the mechanics behind the fine tuning. But why did he decide to make the universe behave and act in this way? Since he created physics and all materials, he makes the rules and has no restrictions. But why these rules? Did God create the universe in a particular way to show us his glory and power? Hmm.
@mikhan51915 жыл бұрын
Very logical explanations.
@captivedesk31682 ай бұрын
If the universe was different it would be different, thanks Capt Obvious.
@BrainDamagedBob Жыл бұрын
Dr Meyer is being very inconsistent here. The fine tuning argument assumes 99% of the materialist view to be correct. Fine tuning says we live a goldilocks universe that had the precise constants for the elements needed for life to fuse within stars. So the first living cell supposedly happened through random chance billions of years ago because the finely tuned universe made that possible. After that, the tree of life arose over the course of eons as Natural Selection did its thing. But Myer's two books "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt" soundly refute the notions of materialist abiogenesis and of evolution explaining the vast tree of life found in the Cambrian layer. . Why, after writing those two books, would Dr Meyer advance the fine tuning argument?
@bigblukiwi3 жыл бұрын
Surely it is not correct to say that the conditions necessary for life are 'incredibly unlikely' or 'improbable'. To be so they would have to be compared to other universes. We know only one universe and will only ever know one universe.
@robertmicelli2946 Жыл бұрын
the multiverse is so beyond ridiculous, you have to feel pity for these poor bastards
@rizdekd3912 Жыл бұрын
'poor bastards' Ok. Why would someone who imagines multiple universes be a poor 'bastard?' Do you think someone's believe about cosmology has moral implications? Is (your) God unhappy with people who misunderstand the natural world? Was God unhappy with the RCC church in the middle ages when they were resolutely against thinking the earth moved and orbited the sun? Is God unhappy with folks who believed the earth was flat? Does God care what people think about the age of the earth? or whether they believe the continents drift or are fixed?