Fine-tuning is a good argument for God - Richard Dawkins
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2022
- Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins discuss the argument for God from the fine-tuning of the universe's fundamental constants for the development of intelligent life (aka The Teleological argument / Design Argument).
Watch the full Big Conversation between Richard Dawkins & Francis Collins: • Richard Dawkins & Fran...
For updates, bonus content and more conversations sign up at: www.thebigconversation.show
The Big Conversation is a video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
I always appreciate when Athiest are this honest. It’s refreshing.
Really? I don't find atheists to be dishonest. Why would you say such a thing?
He still doesn’t think it’s a convincing argument, just the best of a handful of bad options
@@MoNtYbOy101 A handful of bad options? So you consider the evidence for Jesus Christ’s resurrection, the Ontological argument, the argument from Morality, The Kalam Cosmological argument and the argument from Contingency to be bad options as evidence for God’s existence?
@@dylansheridan2892 the argument from morality is probably the worst tbh, just because it literally is not an argument or logical proof for the existence of God. It essentially just argues that without the existence of God, objective morality would have no grounding, ergo there must be a God. In no way does that demonstrate that either objective morality or God exists. It’s basically just an argument that appeals to our intuitions and emotions (i.e., it’d be really uncomfortable and bad if we had no ontological foundation for moral values and duties). It’s essentially like the problem of evil on the side of atheism, which in no way disproves the possibility for the existence of God, it just appeals to our emotions (i.e., look at how much suffering there is in the world, there can’t possibly be a God). If the argument from suffering and evil is invalid for an atheist to raise as an objection to the existence of God, the argument from morality is likewise not a great argument for the theist either.
@@dylansheridan2892 yes I do
Brave thing for Richard to say in public.
He may never be a convert but may not be as harsh as he usually is.
Kudos to him.
All he said was that among all the bad arguments for god, he thinks fine tuning is one of the better ones. Of course, it still fails, and he knows that. He's being polite in a discussion with a respected scientist who has a weak spot, nothing more.
@@chikkipop I know that , I don't expect him to convert if he does that's his own business.
I have seen John Lennox being gracious to RD .
Most of the atheists I have listened to say the same.
The moral arguments do not cut it.
I am RC so trying to convert or evangelise is not my thing.
@@adastra123 *"I am RC so trying to convert or evangelise is not my thing."* I don't mind when someone attempts to explain why they believe something, because if it's true I want to know about it. Unfortunately for all religions, there are no sound reasons to believe. The conclusion we're left with is that people have either been indoctrinated from an early age, are deceiving themselves due to emotional needs, or both.
@@adastra123 RC as in Roman Catholic? I'm not sure how that would make you inclined to not try to evangelise.
@@unnamed4063 It's not a thing so to speak. We don't go around the streets preaching or door to door which is actively encouraged in other religions.
Return of the God Hypothesis by Meyer…is a genuine contribution to these matter.
No it isn't. It's more of the same nonsense creationists always come up with.
I found this to be very uplifting and energetic conversation , thank you guys..
Really enjoyed this and really warmed to Richard Dawkins who has a sense of humour and a twinkle in his eye.
Richard is correct. The fine tune argument does not get you to Jesus. It seems he does not understand the design argument's goal is only to show there is a creator. Once that is established then you can look at other evidence for who that may be.
It does. According to the Bible, the Christian God is a God of divine order. He is the author of Order and Jesus Christ is part of the Triune God.
Jesus’s ministry does not focus on scientific experiments, physics etc. His minstry is more focused on morality and preaching of the gospel to help the life of people and not about thr forces of nature. Thanks
@@Truthmatters- Utter nonsense.
@@Truthmatters- don't get me wrong. I believe Jesus is the creator as well. You just have to look at other evidence to get to that conclusion.
@@christophercowan1645 Right. I think Jonathan McLatchie (serious scientist and Christian) tries to cram too many steps in his presentations going from a standing start all the way to the resurrection, and I've told him so.
Yes and you will eventually find your way to Islam, if you are being honest to yourself
Nice to see Richard has softened up and has become more open minded. I pray he seeks God before he dies. He's a brilliant man.
Which god?
Yes, which God?
Dawkins and Collins friendship is quite nice to see
Richard is our brother, we all should pray to our God Almighty
Jesus Christ for him to see the truth.
Nothing fails like prayer . See dan Barker's song on YT.
@@VaughanMcCue You don't even know how wrong you are.
@@onedirection2301
You are an answer to prayer and restored my faith in miracles. To think I could have remained uninformed without your comprehensive and well-considered feedback.
Thank you.
This is why I always say the debate about whether there is a god or first cause is completely separate from religion. (And why prefer to label myself Agnostic rather than Atheist.)
Well, in materialistic point of view then you are probably correct. But the reality is, there are immaterial aspects in this life that science cannot explain. Therefore, the debate about God’s existence is a discussion that require both scientific and spiritual approach. Stay safe
So U are not muslim?
@@asgerhashim3913 Trying to trick him!
I'm not religious but believe in some form of higher power out there
Great to see you here Hassan, I love your videos! I hope you're doing well!
My respect for Richard Dawkins went way, way, way up. I've never met an atheist who will even admit that this is a strong argument, and who came up with a legitimate response other than to just wave away this argument.
Try Cosmicskeptic.
I think Mr Dawkins is seeing a faint light, I hope God is working within him.
Pondering on Richard's comment about Jesus:
Getting to know God through Jesus Christ is our Creator's intention for mankind. He made this happen so we could get to know Him through our Saviour. This all fits together like one glorious jigsaw puzzle, and makes total sense to me, unlike other religions who seek God in other ways. Christianity is truly God making Himself known to man in the most wonderful way through His Son, through the Holy Trinity. Our Creator wants us to know Him, and here He is in person as Jesus Christ, for those who take this wonderful gift from our amazing God. This to me is everything, and nothing else makes sense of our existence.
I wish Mr Dawkins well, and pray that he will begin the most wonderful journey to God, the journey that doesn't end in death and is wonderful beyond measure. 🙏
You are delusional about Dawkins, in addition to your delusion about a magical invisible father figure.
How old are you? I ask because it continues to astonish me that people can grow to adulthood, yet still be prone to childlike emotional needs resulting in self-deception. Time to grow up?
I am obligated as a Christian to agree with your prayer, but he's deliberately caused a lot of spiritual harm and I'd like him to pay for that first.
Read Jonah, The Prodigal Son, The Sermon on the Mount. And then look at the Apostate Paul, a man who formally persecuted the Church and then repented and had faith and was saved! And then did tremendous work for the kingdom. Remember that all fall short of God’s glory. We want people to repent and believe rather then perish in their folly and wickedness. At the same time if he doesn’t repent and believe justice will be served. And hell will be his punishment.
@@20july1944 *"spiritual harm"* Love that one! You do come up with some doozies!
@@jesusisking5209 Why do you believe an ancient myth?
Am glad Dawkins clarified his position on the fine running arguments. It was Professor Lennox who took that argument and went and told some gathering up in Scotland that Dawkins is converted which was quiet dishonest of Lennox.
Wow, is that on YT somewhere?
Do you have a source? Havent heard about that, interesting.
That’s what you’d expect from an Armagh man
Lennox was presumably saying that Dawkin's acknowledgement of fine tuning amounted to acknowledgement of theism -- I doubt he claimed Dawkins "converted."
fine running arguments.?
Dawkins seems to be becoming a bit more pleasant in his older age.
When was he unpleasant? He has always reacted strongly to stupidity and unreason, and still does. Nothing unpleasant about that.
@@chikkipop 😣
@@rhydyard Are you sad? Can I help?
@Jaden Almeida Ah..now we know 😣 Thank you so much for your erudite and defining insight as to what does, and does not constitute 'nonsense' in the affairs of mankind.. What on earth would we do without you and your obviously revered high priest, Mr Dawkins!? 🙄
@@chikkipop You least of all people, by the sounds of it.. but thanks anyway 😏
It's nice that they are so cordial.
Fine tuning means you must have intellectual capacity, can produce logical procedure and the key is a Information.
or nature did it because that's the only way it could be. all this talk of probabilities falls flat cos A) we only have ONE universe, we have no idea how likely that is and B) you're saying your amazing god chose the LEAST LIKELY values for life? seems a bit silly to me. besides god only really needs souls, why not fine tune purely for souls? he needs all whole universe that looks random, dangerous and natural for his purpose? religists really have trouble thinking i think. those are the questions you ought to be asking, why is your god so stupid?
Professor Dawkins has finally hit the nail on the head - the answer does not lie in science 🧬 but rather in the validity of Jesus Christ, his life, death and resurrection! If they happened then the case is made…If not, then as St Paul realized, we may as well go to the pub with Richard.
It never happened, obviously. Relax and enjoy your beer.
@@MrAuskiwi101 Obviously 🙄 = what exactly? “Nothing is obvious without evidence or its destruction thereof” Dawkins, Oxford 1997
@@MrAuskiwi101 How do you explain the founding of Christianity?
When was it founded, and on what basis?
@@oliveralexandre3607 Clear thinking will show you 'obviously'
Speaking of evidence, there is none for "his life, death and resurrection! "
If you have some, lets hear it. Be the first in humanity to do so, Thanks
@@20july1944 Are you pretending that because Christianity exists, it is true?
Damn, Dawkins has really softened down…
Interesting to watch.
Nice to see honestly. More opened minded
Earth narrowing
"Do they not see that I am gradually narrowing the circumference of the earth's surface, yet they are the winners!" (Surah: Ambiya, verse: 44)
*Big bang theory quran (simple editions+ evulation from water Concept ) ask me if you have issues
Quran (21:30)
Did the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living being out of water?
*Relativistic Time Dilation
Al-Ma'aarij (70:4)
The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years.
*Quran On Expanding Universe
Surah Dhariyat (51: 47)
And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander
*Theory of relativity (Simple motion)
Quran (27:88)
Now you see the mountains, thinking they are firmly fixed, but they are travelling ˹just˺ like clouds. ˹That is˺ the design of Allah, Who has perfected everything. Surely He is All-Aware of what you do
*Surrogate Mother
(Ask me if you want beascue long to elaborate )
*Identity In Finger Tips (unique fingerprints )
(Qiyamah 75:3-4)
Does man think that We will not assemble his bones?
Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips.
*A fire From tree (oxygen)
(36:80)
He is the one who placed fire in the green tree, from which you kindle it.
*Iron is not the earth's material
(Quran 57:25)
Hy
@@rehmanosru1737 * I request everyone to read the whole thing first. And then share your comments. I think 90% of your complaints will go away after reading it. You must have scientific knowledge to understand them now read Below
Earth narrowing
"Do they not see that I am gradually narrowing the circumference of the earth's surface, yet they are the winners!" (Surah: Ambiya, verse: 44)
*Big bang theory quran (simple editions+ evulation from water Concept ) ask me if you have issues
Quran (21:30)
Did the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living being out of water?
*Relativistic Time Dilation
Al-Ma'aarij (70:4)
The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years.
*Quran On Expanding Universe
Surah Dhariyat (51: 47)
And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander
*Theory of relativity (Simple motion)
Quran (27:88)
Now you see the mountains, thinking they are firmly fixed, but they are travelling ˹just˺ like clouds. ˹That is˺ the design of Allah, Who has perfected everything. Surely He is All-Aware of what you do
*Surrogate Mother
(Ask me if you want beascue long to elaborate )
*Identity In Finger Tips (unique fingerprints )
(Qiyamah 75:3-4)
Does man think that We will not assemble his bones?
Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips.
*A fire From tree (oxygen)
(36:80)
He is the one who placed fire in the green tree, from which you kindle it.
*Iron is not the earth's material
(Quran 57:25)
We have already sent Our messengers with clear evidences and sent down with them the Scripture and the balance that the people may maintain [their affairs] in justice. And We sent down iron, wherein is great military might and benefits for the people,
Good discussion
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"... As a devout Christian, I really love the fact its hard to prove GOD on a scientific scale just like metaphysics and parapsychology. It shows the significance and importance of faith.
*"As a devout Christian, I really love the fact its hard to prove GOD on a scientific scale just like metaphysics and parapsychology. It shows the significance and importance of faith."*
That is SO absurd! The "significance and importance of faith" is nothing more than believing what you *WISH* to be true. No one should have "faith," and no one should *prefer* a magical story with so many assumptions about humans needing an unseen father figure who "judges" them and has "plans" for their lives, as though we don't have our OWN plans.
Religions like yours - and there are many of them - are examples of humans having poor taste, like eating at White Castle and buying Velvet Elvis pictures at flea markets. Learning about the real world and understanding the incredible story of how we actually got here is light years beyond an ancient story written by superstitious men.
"It shows the significance and importance of faith"
- PATHETIC! What you're admitting is; there's no evidence, so it's vital to just believe anyway'.
god has all the properties of mythological characters, i think that's worth bearing in mind. also, fine tuning, god picked the most unlikely set of numbers it seems.
@@chikkipopwhy, the anger? Chill out man. Respect a different opinion to yours!
@@edmundburke8490 *"why, the anger?"* Why the *COMMON* claim that anyone who criticizes a bad idea is "angry"?!
*"Respect a different opinion to yours!"* Opinions are respected when they are well supported; we have no obligation to respect ideas simply because they're different. A bad idea should be called a bad idea. Chill out, dude.
The leap from atheism to a Creator was very easy for me. It's just more plausible that there's a creator, than the almost impossible odds of a random explosion creating such complexity and order. The leap from a creator to Christianity is definitely one that took me the better part of 2 decades before I finally believe is to be true. So Hawkins makes a lot of sense there, but I hope he spends some time studying scripture very hard, and he discovers the truth in it.
How did you leap from a creator to a personal god ? What convinced you ?
@@philipcoriolis6614 whew there is sooo many things that aided me, that I can't even come close to fitting it in a comment. A few things tho are all of the prophecies that were fulfilled. From how Jesus would be killed, which was prophecied before crucifixion even existed. This was also further backed by the shroud of Turin, and finding a Pontius Pilate stone. Another is from ancient historians like Josephus who wasn't even a Christian, described Christ and of how some of his disciples were also persecuted. It was a step by step realization. From first no doubt there is a God / supreme intelligence. Then looking at other religions, but finding the bible to have so much fulfilled prophecy. Then it came down to was Christ truly the son of God. God in flesh. To this day, no body was ever found, but it's pretty likely they did find his burial shrouds. Also, his followers who fled right after the crucifixion were so emboldened to preach and spread the news after they saw him resurrected that they were willing to die for it. This just barely scratches the surface, seek and you will find Him.
@@justinb2374 How Jesus was allegedly killed is quite gruesomely well known. Where is is described ?
Oh my word, someone needs to study philosophy.
Most Christians make the mistake of studying the scripture and not understanding the history of religion. If you do you will find Christianity is simply a composition of other religions. Bible is not the word of god but word of other “gods” and man. Seek knowledge not myths
There was a debate with Dawkins and John Lennox where Lennox did this. Lennox was having a pretty good time of it discussing at this level of creation/fine tuning, and then in his last minute or so started saying, therefore Jesus died on the cross for our sins, yadda, yadda, yadda, as if he’d made the case for all that.
So good.
I don’t understand what they are referring to when they talk about “fine tuning.” And, I agree with Richard that a “fine tuner” must be equally fine tuned to what it fine tunes, meaning that it doesn’t explain anything.
He's paraphrasing to avoid saying intelligent design
@@denenterpriesesorwhatsleft6386 ID has been debunked too, look up the dover trial. why we are still arguing this crap beats me, religists are really determined to stay in that empty tomb.
@@HarryNicNicholas Please check out Dr. Hugh Ross, he's an astrophysicist and ex-atheist, who realized that God exists precisely because of the scientific evidence. After that, he analyzed the holy books and saw that the bible is the only one that accurately describes the chronology of the early Universe/Earth, etc. (17/17 of the criteria). The others didn't even come close. Then he looked into the evidence for the bible, Jesus, etc. Other ones to look into are Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel. They all have videos on here, sites, and books. I pray that you look into all of this and come to the Truth one day, God bless!
@@avastone5539 What about the multiverse hypothesis? If there are many universes, there may be enough that some would happen to allow for life. And, nobody would find themself in the universes that don’t allow life because of the fact that they don’t allow for life.
@@avastone5539 What about the multiverse would be complex?
I would love to see Jordan Peterson debate Dawkins
dawkins vs hue ross pl0x
JbP's streams of consciousness are unsuitable if we want to hear the other person speak. It would be interesting if the moderator had an audio switch to cut off word salads. It reminds me of someone who said too much in a letter because they did not have enough time to keep it short. And I like his stuff in its place.
Jordan Peterson would not be a good person to argue this. He is too set in his opinion that he cannot accept any other possibility.
@@Beanpvp Dr. Hugh Ross, yes!
I think Peterson would win. He knows all tricks to win a debate.
Fine tuning is actually the best argument there is.
What about Abiogenisis?
@@redx11x What about it?
And it isn't a good one.
@@chikkipop This response automatically, randomly generated itself on an randomly generated Android.
I'd say the problem of the origin of matter is the best argument, and it is more easily grasped.
It’s almost as if existence is improbable whether or not you believe in god 🤯
Edit: also, I completely agree with what Dawkins said, 100%. My sentiments exactly. The moment you bring religion into the equation after mentioning fine tuning, you full circle from being logical to utterly illogical
Kalam cosmological argument...
I'm surprised that they didn't discuss the practical importance of god in a system of existenial anguish, because I am a pragmatism and believe in it's theory of truth I'm also a christian.
What is the pragmatic theory of truth?
*"the practical importance of god in a system of existenial anguish"* Existential anguish is a system? The "practical importance" of a god matters only to believers; to doubters, gods are neither necessary nor likely.
@@chikkipop Do you know why the heat death of the universe is 100% certain? That's a huge part of my basic argument for God.
@@chikkipop What I meant by system is the structure behind existential angst. To me it seems to be fundamental for all people in the world, if it was intentional or not I don't know.
You need something else other than god to center your life upon to fill that void and it's only now that we have it so easy we can turn to hedonism to fill that void. It doesn't work in the long run tho, just look at the psychosociological state of America.
Todays society is feeding of the christian past & the past is disappearing fast.
@@20july1944 What is your "basic" argument?
THANK YOU JESUS! Even though I’m still struggling to put groceries in the refrigerator. I STILL TRUST YOU LORD! Faith is trusting in God durning hard times. Faith is what is getting me through my hard situation. I’m still struggling to providing for my two autistic children since losing my job over declining the vaccine. I declined due to my pre existing health condition (Lupus) and Heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption from Forsyth Hospital. My husband passed away three years ago, so I’m all alone. Both of my sons are non verbal so things are more hard on me. Every month I don’t know how we are going to make it through. Every month is a struggle, a battle to not end up on the streets. I’m so depressed and embarrassed by my situation. I’ve been put down and mocked over my circumstances. I’m so ashamed and overwhelmed. BUT because of my faith God shows up every month and provides. He has even sent strangers to help me, thank you Father. Even as I face homelessness with two young children seemingly every month!
I know that God will provide abundantly. Thank you Jesus. I BELIEVE!
Jesus prayed to God (in the bible). You should pray to God, not to Jesus.
@@redx11x What god, and how do you know of it?
@@redx11x That is true, Jesus's prayer is to "our Father in heaven."
On the other hand, Jesus promised to give us the things we ask for in His name -- so we have warrant for both but I pray to the Father by default.
@@chikkipop Are you an atheist?
There are two categories of evidence for two different issues:
1. science, mainly physics, to show there is a Creator.
2. history to point to Jesus as the Divine Messiah.
Hit me up if you want to chat about either or both.
@@20july1944 I'm an atheist. Science does not show any sign of a "creator." Even more obviously, no history could possibly show an ancient character held an absurd job title.
I would like to introduce electromagnetic force into the equation. It seems that a hormonal imploding force is involved in genetic alterations. Like the higgs pulls in nuclear parts this hormonal force pulls dna together and that's important.
crikey.
Well I feel it is self evident that if your debating a person who believes in God. They have also tried to work the issue of “which god” until they believe they have found the most rational God they believe in to be true.
Which god is the next step once you have reasoned your way to believing in God.
As former Christian, I find that fine tuning is the only the that comes close to a good argument for a creator. But could it be that intricate constants of the universe, in ways that no-one yet understands, can only exist at their particular values? If there is no way for the constants to possible exist at a different value, then the existence of the universe has to exist in this state only. On or off - existence or no existence.
No, some scientists argue that this finetuning may simply be because our universe is just one of very many, each with its own finetuning, or that universes appear cyclically and each cycle has a new combination of finetuning.
@XEinstein but you can't have an infinite regress of universe formation. You still end up needing a non material cause for the material, and a timeless cause for time.
@@mahones981 I can't deny that that is a logical thought process, but such topics can easily go well beyond logical human thought.
He literally said it’s a good argument (towards the end), but that virgin births and resurrections are ridiculous... So if God could exist, that is , someone or something powerful enough to create the entire universe from nothing, why WOULDN’T He also be able to raise someone from the dead?
Why concern ourselves with what *might* be the case, when it is the more *unlikely* of the options? There is no evidence for a "creator" other than nature itself, and nature has clearly shown its power to design, unguided by intelligence. As someone long ago said in regards to gods, "I have no need for that hypothesis."
He may have meant it's a good argument but not good enough to be convincing. And we need some access to the motives of this creator, other than the "just so" stories from some ancient book. If this creator's not a Jew or a Christian, you're out of gas.
@@chikkipop bruh you talk to much fr
@@dingusdingo2926 I don't talk enough, dood. What I say is important. Wanna talk about it? 😉
@@chikkipop nah ghee why don't you use you scientific insight to get some bitches
I learned that one cannot argue with faith because faith is the absence of reason.
Sir Richard but these constant work only in the Electro-Magnetic field of Earth .. 🌎 Could you help me understand the constants which work in a Spacetime where GRAVITY varies and Electric filed depends on mood of Electrons Left in Past..... .... ........ 😅
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."”
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
I never saw Dawkins so happy. He looks like a kid on Christmas coming to the realization his creator is out there and is a scientific and mathematical genius and in fact the creator of such things.
I think Dawkins next needs to read Eugene Wigner's 'Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.' Ask the Prophet Jeremiah, once God's spirit gets a hold of you there is no resisting it! Come on Richard!!!! We are all praying for you my friend, accept the Lord and embrace our creator!!
You are seriously delusional. Dawkins smiles and seems happy, and you think he's gone all superstitious?! Please.
Obviously I don't live with Dawkins 24/7, but I have watched a lot of Dawkins videos big Dennis, I don't think I ever saw the guy smile in my life. He is always angry and upset. Be happy for him. Wigner wrote an essay that adds a few more points to the Teleological argument that Christian apologists even miss, it was probably the most compelling logical argument I have ever heard for an intelligent creator.. Give it a read Dennis and we might even get a smile from you my friend!
@@davidbobalik4864 *"I don't think I ever saw the guy smile in my life. He is always angry and upset."* What you've obviously seen is Dawkins tearing into silly superstition. This is what he is asked to do, and he does it well. When criticizing bad ideas, people don't usually sit there smiling and laughing. You folks *ALWAYS* attempt to paint atheists as angry, and you're full of sh*t. Our ordinary lives are ordinary lives, but when we're taking down silly superstition - which negatively affects many who fall for it, we are justifiably angry sometimes.
Sorry, but your silly stereotype is laughable. You guys try every trick in the creationist book to make us look bad, but that's no defense for your misguided belief.
*"once God's spirit gets a hold of you there is no resisting it!"* Uh huh; except for all the people who once believed, but grew out of it.
@@chikkipop I will let your response speak for itself. I only spoke on Dawkins and based it on what I had seen. I prefaced my comments by saying I am not always with him, I am sure there are moments he expressed happiness. I said nothing about any other atheist. I have plenty of friends who are atheist, we eat together, workout together, watch sports together and I would not categorize them as perpetually upset or angry in life. You, seem a bit upset in messages however, why not feel happy for a man warming to the idea of an intelligent mind behind the universe we live in? He did look happy, he was smiling and the others seemed genuinely happy for him. He was not making a leap to automatically accepting Jesus of Nazareth as his Lord and Savior, but realizing that to accept that finely tuned constants and mathematical axioms existing before a celestial event brought time and space into being is not a reasonable position logically when you add to the fact that humans evolved with the cognitive ability to understand those pre-existing entities billions of years later, which is what Wigner also concluded.
With regards to being an angry atheist Dennis again, I will let your messages and tone thereof speak for themselves. I, on the other hand will chose to be happy for Dawkins and this epiphany he has experienced later in life.
@@davidbobalik4864 *"You, seem a bit upset in messages however, why not feel happy for a man warming to the idea of an intelligent mind behind the universe we live in?"* That's hilarious! If I "seem a bit upset" maybe it's because I have to suffer the witless comments believers make, like that one. First, he is *NOT* "warming" to the idea, and second, why would I be happy to see an intelligent man falling for bad arguments?
You are certainly rather dense. Like so many magical thinkers, you desperately wish to see Dawkins and other reputable thinkers appearing to entertain your fantasy. They don't; just as Einstein is constantly quoted out of context, you actually have the gall to say *"I, on the other hand will chose to be happy for Dawkins and this epiphany he has experienced later in life."*
Speaking of laughing, Dawkins would have a good chuckle if he read that, as I did.
*"Lord and Savior"* Adults, in the 21st Century, actually think there is such a thing. Astonishing what people will believe, especially when you get to them when they're young.
“The laws of physics” are just a concept we use to describe the consistent effect matter has on each other(unless I misunderstand). So, if you say that they are “fine tuned” do you mean that every motion, of matter, is directly caused by God, himself, or do you mean that there is an unknown mechanism, which he designed “in the beginning” and now does the work for him of causing matter to have consistent movements? And, since this “mechanism” is unknown, how do we know that it’s precisely arranged, as opposed to reducing down to straightforward reasoning(similar to evolution by means of natural selection)?
Well, that's not what he means by the laws of physics. The laws of physics in reference to fine-tuning are talking about the four basic fundamental forces of physics: gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force. These forces alone are responsible for all observations of forces in nature.
@@theoverreactor8731 Right but, did God design matter, energy, and space-time in such a way that they would act in the consistent ways that we observe them to and label as “gravity” electromagnetic force,” “strong force,” and “weak force”? Or, is God, himself, continuously directly causing matter to move in a consistent way?
@@Homo_sAPEien No, I don't think God is continuously still causing matter to move. He created the Universe so it can allow life to exist. I think the first option is mainly correct.
@@theoverreactor8731 Then, how do we know that the underlying mechanism, by which the laws of physics happen, is a complicated thing, requiring an intelligent designer, as opposed to being a straightforward mechanism, similar to how many things, which people used to believe required gods, are now known to happen through natural processes?
@@Homo_sAPEien By looking at the explanatory scope of the evidence and using Bayes' Theorem to calculate which hypothesis best explains the fine-tuning data.
For example, the cosmological constant refers to the acceleration of the Universe. This is one of the biggest cases of fine-tuning. This constant is an extremely small number. It’s 1.35*10^-123 (Planck units). Or, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000135. According to physicists, the cosmological constant could have been anywhere between -1 Planck units and +1 Planck units. American theoretical physicist Steven Weinburg revealed that if the cosmological constant was 1,000 times bigger than what it actually is (If > +1/10^120), then the Universe would have expanded too rapidly for galaxies, stars, and planets to form. This is a huge issue because all of the chemical elements (except simple elements like hydrogen, helium, and lithium) only get produced by stars. No stars means no life. If the cosmological constant was even bigger than that, then those 3 simple elements (hydrogen, helium, and lithium) wouldn’t even interact with each other. This would make the Universe barren and non-life-permitting. If the cosmological constant was smaller (If < -1/10^120), then the Universe would collapse too soon for life to come into existence.
And that's only one constant, there are dozens more. The Q constant is caused by the uniform temperature of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation being evenly distributed to one part in 10 to the 5th power, or 1/100,000. The Weak Nuclear Force is fined tuned to one part in 10 to the 9th power, or 1/1,000,000,000. Without the weak force, which is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, there would be no supernovae and therefore, no life-essential elements. The Omega Constant, the mass-density of the Universe is finely tuned to one part in 10 to the 24th power, or 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one out of one-septillion).
I know you didn't make this claim. But if someone said I was in violation of the God of the Gaps fallacy because people used to believe that gods were the cause for known natural things would be false. That's like playing a game of Poker, and your friend gets dealt a Royal Flush for 20 consecutive hands and saying, "there has to be a naturalistic explanation other than human intentionality".
Science (to know) is the best evidence of God’s existence!
I finally agree with Dawkins on something -- the physics is where the best objective evidence for God resides, although I would say the origin of matter from nothing is the clearest problem.
The origin of matter from nothing is not a problem because, by definition, there is nothing for a problem to exist.
Kalam cosmological argument...
I'm surprised that they didn't discuss the practical importance of god in a system of existenial anguish, because I am a pragmatist and believe in it's theory of truth I'm also a christian.
I would say all the sciences are very good evidences for God.
The very existence of the Universe os the best evidence for God. The laws of nature, the fine tunning, the tangibility of the Universe, the mathematical structure of the Universe, the order, complexity, harmony and beauty of the Universe and nature, the existence of billions of Galaxys, Solar Systems, Planets, Black Holes, SuperNovas, particles, attoms, cells, etc, the existence of life, the existence of counscious, the existence of objectives moral values, the existence of rationality and love, the existence of information on nature.
Where all those things como from? Who gives being to all things? Why made the Universe um such a way? It could be in every other way.
From a theistic perspective, you're still left arguing over which specific "god" did the deed. People need to know where to send their donations.
Gravity is negative energy. E = MC^2 Matter/Energy equivalence.
No argument will ever be good enough for Dawkins. "The kingdom of God is not a matter of words, but of power," (1Cor 4:20).
I'm more optimistic that Dawkins can reason his way through to theism, and I think he's a douchebag!
Thank you, you get it.
“And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”
1 Corinthians 2:1-5
Too many Christian’s are evidentilist in their apologetics which outright contradicts scripture. No matter how well you reason with the person, if God doesn’t regenerate them, They. Will. Not. Believe.
Your bible quote is meaningless because it comes from Paul, not your jesus figure. And we cannot take the bible seriously until someone proves that all of it is true. That's not been done yet. In the world we live in science tells us how things work. The question of why we are here is not a science question. But if you invoke supernatural explanations then you have to show that the supernatural exists. The invisible and the imaginary look very much alike.
@@danbailey2964 thank you for proving my point and the passage that I quoted. Also you seem to misunderstand that just because Paul wrote that therefore God didn’t say it. The entire Bible is inspired and breathed out by God which is Gods words. Who said that passage Paul or God? The answer is yes. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write 1 Cor. along with the other letters.
@@Niko-zg6uq So everything in your bible is true and correct and the world should take every word in that way? But you have not proven the bible is really inspired by a god, let alone the god you have invented. Quoting a book without any foundational demonstration of it's veracity is foolish. Get out of that loop if you want to have meaningful arguments. Prove to me that Paul was inspired by god. Untili you do it is just words in a book that you have given way more credence too than it deserves. Why don't you quote Leviticus 25, 44-46? That must all be true too, right? Slaves, not servants. Or servants who did not have the freedom to leave when they wanted....still slaves. Lets talk about that too.
Can someone explain to me how this is different from the teleological argument
Some people will never know, in this life ...
just because you convinced someone through the fine-tuning argument, doesn't mean they have to believe in Jesus
the origin of the universe has very little to do with christianity, MY god could've created the universe, you can 't prove me wrong.
@@HarryNicNicholas Where has "your" god given information on how he created everything?
@@davidhewes9809 just how your god did
It's virtually impossible to argue the existence of God because its so personal and relational. It would be like trying to explain to someone that my wife is the most wonderful woman in the world by using scientific evidence and expecting them to agree without having the relationship we have for me to be able to make that statement.
The existence of your wife would be the equivalent question, and it is extremely easy to see evidence for God.
The existence of something is impersonal. Your wife can be confirmed to exist; whether or not she is wonderful is not the issue.
But nobody is trying to argue that everybody should view your wife as the most wonderful woman in the world. Most people would accept you see her as that and others would choose other people.
So when people claim they want laws to reflect what THEIR personal god wants, should we all be subject to those laws? This is the problem presented when any unproven, subjectively created god is introduced into our civil lives.
@@danbailey2964 personally I have no expectation that non Christians should live like Christians. How can they?
Why do people refer to the fine tuning, of the laws of physics, as an event that already happened, in the past, rather than something continually being done all the way up to now? Is “the fine tuner” directly causing every movement, of the universe, or did he design some sort of “mechanism” which now does the work for him in making the laws of physics happen?
Good question - but either way…?
@@oliveralexandre3607 If there could be an unknown mechanism, which now does the work for God, then how do we know that it isn’t a straightforward thing, were we to know what it is, which doesn’t require fine-tuning?
Like other commentators I found Dawkins pretty endearing here. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he's less sneering in his maturity but I did wonder if it was that his interlocutor is a scientist of indisputable eminence.
This is pretty massive though. I have a great deal of admiration for Dawkins, who concedes the fact that the Fine Tuning Argument is sound. He seems to also be on the edge of atheism, teetering past agnosticism and toward deism. That is pretty substantial. The guy that wrote the God Delusion perhaps becoming a deist.
I find the Moral argument to also be very sound. Atheists can find arguments in the seams, but overall, there has always and will always be a strong inclination for humanity to believe in a creator as it has incredibly impacted society. It makes sense. It works. I believe it is true.
If Dawkins dies a deist, that would be a colossal victory for theists everywhere. I hope he comes around :)
Richard Dawkins says, “ I think you might convince somebody like me to be a deist but then you suddenly say okay well... you've got either you're going to stick with a fine-tuning argument which is a good argument or you've got to produce a really good argument for Jesus but don't think that because you've convinced somebody of the by the fine-tuning argument to be a deist that therefore he's then got to believe in Jesus.” -- " I think you might convince somebody like me to be a deist..."
I think Dawkins was being honest when he felt that introducing God as the ultimate cause was only moving the problem further away. What he’s missing though is that his materialistic mind assumes God to be made up of matter too and that God then has to be even more complex than his creation in order to be more powerful. Both assumptions are wrong. God isn’t complex (as meaning “made up of sub parts”), God is spirit.
Exactly, which is why the heart of the God Delusion is based on circular reasoning.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 Nonsense.
*"his materialistic mind assumes God to be made up of matter too and that God then has to be even more complex than his creation in order to be more powerful. Both assumptions are wrong. God isn’t complex (as meaning “made up of sub parts”), God is spirit."* Annnnnnd..... you know this how, exactly?
You know what they call creationists who finally realize how silly they sound? Atheists.
@@chikkipop , I don't claim to "know" this in any absolute factual sense, I'm simply referring to how Christians, Jews and Muslims view the nature of God. We could probably include other religions too. Separating the spiritual word from the material world is common practice within religions, but not in Mr Dawkin's head :-).
The explanation does not refer to complexity or otherwise. Explanation has to do with what properties this God has (and it does obviously have some) and which he doesn't have. You are misportraying Dawkins' views because your way of thinking itself is limited.
Constants are a sign that there's a unifying principle below the appearance of the constants. For example, the corners of a square are all 90.00000000 degrees, this is a consequence of a square.
Is the 90degrees a consequence of the square
@@redx11x Four cornes all 90.000000 degrees is fine tuning. The square is geometry.
@@avastone5539 Fine scale geometry.
@@avastone5539 Simulation is ruled out because of the universe size.
@@avastone5539 Unfortunately for you, universe size measurements have already proved that this universe is too large to be simulated. Please do keep up with the state of the art.
By “constants” do they mean consistency?
They are talking about the constants that are part of the laws of the universe, like the gravitational constant, speed of light, and so on. Please check out Dr. Hugh Ross, he's an astrophysicist and ex-atheist, who realized that God exists precisely because of the scientific evidence. After that, he analyzed the holy books and saw that the bible is the only one that accurately describes the chronology of the early Universe/Earth, etc. (17/17 of the criteria). The others didn't even come close. Then he looked into the evidence for the bible, Jesus, etc. Other ones to look into are Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel. They all have videos on here, sites, and books. I pray that you look into all of this and come to the Truth one day, God bless!
Over the millennia, connotations of the word "God" have become so deteriorated. The terms Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence seem more scientifically relevant for these types of discussions. It seems that the concept of God is not scientifically testable. 44:30 However, evidence for the effects of Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence are scientifically demonstrable.
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciousness /intelligence. ...
_"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complimentarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behavior of the genes."_ (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com)
_"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_ (Wikipedia: Digital Data)
*”The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.”* ( “Genetic Code - National Human Genome Research Institute” Genome . gov)
*_”Genetic code is the term we use for the way that the four bases of DNA--the A, C, G, and Ts--are strung together in a way that the cellular machinery, the ribosome, can read them and turn them into a protein. In the genetic code, each three nucleotides in a row count as a triplet and code for a single amino acid. So each sequence of three codes for an amino acid. And proteins are made up of sometimes hundreds of amino acids. So the code that would make one protein could have hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of triplets contained in it.”_* (Lawrence C. Brody, Ph.D., Genome dot gov)
Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of ALL Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is NO biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
@@moses777exodus Nonsense.
@@chikkipop "Nonsense."
Wow, you sure know your science. All you a nitwit like you has to do is know that one word. You must be so proud of your doofus self.
Dawkins makes a relevant point that the fine tuning of nature's constants might point to the existence of an Intelligent Designer but that does not automatically presuppose Christ t the ransom Saviour.
For that we need Scripture not Nature.
Nature confirms God to us. Scripture aline connects God to us.... through Christ. 2Cor.5 ¹⁸ Why should Richard consider carefully the Bible?
If a woman found a lovely bouquet of flowers on her doorstep one morning she would be impressed and deeply touched. But what would she instinctively search for that should accompany the exquisite gift? Naturally! A card! Explaining the WHO the Giver, WHY the gift...and HOW to care for it.
The gift of life in this awesome universe comes also with an accompanying "card"- the Bible. Sad she who enjoys the gift but 'discards' the card!
Bible is useless and full of man made bs.
Is this discussion after he had stroke?
Illnesses and deathbeds have a way of doing numbers on you.
Great progress, Richards! Keep working at it, you'll get there soon.
If you listened to the full audio, Frankenstein Collins made it clear it was the opposite with Christopher Hitchins.
Aside from other problems like sample size pointed out above, I'm always struck by the failure of imagination that goes with fine-tuning arguments. Yes, it's true, having the Earth turn out just as it is, with precisely the values of the physical constants we have may be quite unlikely (although we certainly are not sure that those constants are in any way arbitrary rather than products of a deeper physical law). Our existence is just one outcome in the set of all possible forms of intelligent life, and we just don't know how big that set is or what it looks like. Further, when we think of the events leading to our own existence, we have to acknowledge that any long causal chain will contain lots of unlikely steps, whether it leads to an interesting outcome or not. A happy accident is just that, literally, and it shouldn't surprise us.
In biology, we used to say that all ecosystems *must* have access to sunlight as an energy source...until we discovered deep-sea thermal vents and chemosynthetic bacteria. Are we really arrogant enough to think that we have a grasp on all the possible ways life could evolve, to the point of estimating its likelihood? Again, estimating a probability (which is the essence of the fine-tuning argument) requires knowing how many of all possible outcomes satisfy the condition "contains intelligent life." My humble guess is that there's *lots* of ways to get some kind of integrated, intelligent life, even with bizarrely different laws of physics.
@@avastone5539
WHAT!?!?!?
“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”
― Bertrand Russell
@@avastone5539 Is the counter-counterargument. a double negative?
@@avastone5539 as Dawkins said that it is a good argument but still fails to prove God's existence. I agree with him.
@@avastone5539 Yes, every time you can replace a god with a unicorn and there is a possibility but not necessarily a probability.
@@avastone5539 Well, I agree with Dawkins on a lot of things but not everything and I do have MS in applied math.
"The difference between a unicorn in the garden and a god is that one is testable and one is not" Neither of them is testable. How do you know that unicorns are in the garden?
"unfortunately we still have a pocket watch that needs explaining." Packet watch, clock, Watchmaker, and some other similar ones. They are still at the end assertions and still not evidence.
Sure, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t get you the Gospel but it does by definition get you a creator. From that starting point you get God because this creator must have certain attributes. Then from God you get Jesus and the Gospel.
Nonsense
Yes and who created your creator? Do you need a special exemption on your logic for that?
The fine tuning argument does not get you a creator.
You've exposed your intellectual weakness with this post. Evolution can be considered an agent of fine tuning over eons. That does not get me to a god. And because you are willing to insert a god, even though none has been demonstrated and linked to the development of our universe and planet, that just makes your claims that much more silly. Think like an adult, not a child. Just because you want the god mythology to be true doesn't mean it is.
I would approach it that we have a Creator and Christianity's founding is impossible to explain without a resurrection.
I don’t have a high enough a level of understanding in physics to understand this argument but, I think if it really proved that a God exists, there would be a scientific theory by now, which states that a God exists, rather than philosophical views based on scientific facts.
I think the strongest atheist like dawkins has an agnostic mind. He couldn't reject design and fine-tuning. The strongest atheist Antony Flew became theist...
The Fine-Tuning Argument is my favorite argument for God's existence.
Here are some explanations for the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe:
1. Chance
2. Natural processes
3. Multiverse
4. God
1-3 don't necessarily discount 4.
Just my opinion.
They don't, but they can also be true without the 4th. The first three options can work without each other, or in combination, but none of that proves the 4th. So you are back to square one.
What always baffles me is that people can make statements about something that is litteraly supposed to be outside our universe, and therefore outside the human mind and human reason. Couldnt there be an infinite amount of reasons for the big bang, when it was before our universe and what we called reason/science? All we know is, that we cant know anything?
God may not be the way we think.
I thank Prof Richard Dawkins for enlightening atheist and Science all the way 👍👍👍👍👍
5:16 like if it also annoys you that the shelves in the background don't line up
Conversion is not about finding the truth but rather accepting it.
not really.
@@HarryNicNicholas even the devil knows the truth.
Check out Dr James Tour the scientists are nowhere near knowing how to make even the simplest of cells in a fully equipped Lab, let alone explaining how a cell would be produced on an early Earth.
@@AwesomeWrench Yep, a lot more research. Check out Dr James Tour BTW he is seriously impressive 700 patents I think it was, some seriously impressive number of citations. He is no one's dummy and he says we are hundreds of years away maybe from the ability to create the very simplest of cells. He explains in his videos if you watch him, he is very patient. I studied a bit of chemistry at Cambridge Uni, UK and he impresses me with his arguments of just why it is so tricky to make any progress, as far as we march forward in our knowledge, as fast or faster away the target becomes as that simplest cell becomes more and more complex.
Anyway please check out Dr James Tour.
There are large numbers of very clever people trying to solve this, and whoever does gets a Nobel Prize!
The point is the fact that we are so far from the simplest cell is not widely known. Many people think we already created a primitive cell from some primordial sludge and a lightning strike. Even I thought that and I was studying Natural Science at Cambridge, so I should really have known the truth way back then.
@@AwesomeWrench Yep, we need loads more research. Just check out Dr James Tour, he can explain it all far better than I can. He is a serious qualified and cited research Scientist.
@@AwesomeWrench Dr James Tour is a qualified synthetic Organic Chemist with a massive published literature in the field. 700 Patents and thousands of citations, I think he is qualified to critique other more specialised synthetic Organic Chemists. I recommend people who as far as I can tell are qualified and who have the patience to try and explain it all to the lay person. Dr James Tour is the only guy I know of in the field I follow, but I will do a deal with you, if you follow Dr James Tour's Science a bit, I can follow your favourite atheist alternative for you, a bit anyway. So you and I both give a bit to the other side.
Deal?
I meant the his Science vs his Science debate. We should both look at both sides.
"You are not far from the Kingdom of God"
Jesus Christ of Nazareth
I'm not. I meet Jesus every night in my dream. He gives me a blowjob each time.
What।।🤨
here are three nails, can you put me up for the night.
When I was born, I didn’t have a Texas accent. Now, I do, because of the environment I grew up in. The world is the shape it is because the universe it grew up has shaped it. If these forces were other than they are, these things would be different. I don’t understan why this argument could convince anyone of anything.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
One of the best Richard Dawkins videos ever.
Richard clearly understands that if there is a God, He has a personal relation to creation and that's an intimidating thought. I can understand why he is so slow to go that direction with his previous claims
*"if there is a God, He has a personal relation to creation and that's an intimidating thought."* Why?!
@@chikkipop Do you respect God, IF He exists?
@@20july1944 *"Do you respect God, IF He exists?"* Of course not, just as I would not respect anyone else who *might* exist, since I would not know anything about them.
@@chikkipop Well, you've answered your own question -- Dawkins doesn't respect God IF He exists, either, and he realizes that that is pretty likely to anger God IF God exists.
If you were suddenly confronted with God, you would shit yourself and fall on your face.
@@20july1944 *"Do you respect God, IF He exists?"* So, no comment on my response?
Theists could always claim fine tuning, no matter how rough tuned the universe might have been. Rough tuned universes which produce life could be almost infinite in number, but against a backdrop of infinity, that enormous number shrinks to almost nothing. As usual, believers are playing ‘heads I win, tails you loose.’
Do you understand why the heat death of the universe is 100% certain? That's the beginning of my favorite proof of a Creator God.
@@20july1944 can you explain more?
@@kentclark9616 Sure, but it entails you answering about 6 questions.
Do you understand why the heat death of the universe is 100% certain?
@@20july1944 indeed I do
Check out Dr James Tour the scientists are nowhere near knowing how to make even the simplest of cells in a fully equipped Lab, let alone explaining how a cell would be produced on an early Earth.
I do not know of any mainstream Christian apologist who relies ONLY on fine-tuning to prove Christianity.
It's nice to see a rare ounce of humility.
It's not about god of the gaps but let's face it, we don't know the origin of energy, we don't know the origin of the universe and let's not forget, there's trillions and trillions of galaxies, we don't know what most of the universe is made of, we don't know the origin of life, we've barely scratched the surface of understanding the human brain, the human body and our own planet, let alone consciousness.
To believe that somehow complex single celled organisms just appeared and then somehow evolved into the millions of complex and diverse lifeforms, along with organisms that sustain their lives as well as complex ecosystems requires someone to ignore everything we know about science.
And again it's not God of the gaps, granted most theistic belief systems must be wrong for the simple reason that they can't all be right which doesn't help the argument and the person doesn't have to believe in God because science can't answer 99.9% of the most important questions but it's a reminder of how incredibly ignorant we all are, how humble we should be and how open we need to keep our minds to try to understand more.
I don't think the Bible should ever be just dismissed because of a predisposed bias: it describes the earth once being all water and covered in a thick cloud, life beginning in the oceans, humans last on the list of creation and made from the dust of the earth and the Earth being a sphere Suspended upon nothing, all of which happens to be scientifically accurate and we could say OK whatever, just a bunch of good guesses but the odds of guessing all that correct are at the very least one in several million.
Luke 10:21, ...you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children.
What this means is, it doesn't matter how much a person studies the Scriptures, if they aren't humble, God is going to hide the truth from them because they don't deserve it.
On the other hand, he's going to reveal it to young children, in other words, those who sincerely want to know the truth.
Richard Dawkins is a perfect gentleman, a brilliant scientist and a great writer.
He is true
@@dianashepherd3241 correct, I saw that too. He was telling the audience to mock and ridicule the believers in public regarding issues of faith.
Dawkins "gave an inch and you took a mile". And you did the same as the guy Dawkins mentions with this disingenuous title.
What’s disingenuous about it? This clip actually helps Dawkins set the record straight. You can call something a good argument (which he does at 5:35) without being persuaded of the conclusion (which Dawkins also makes clear such as at 4:00). As for asking “could this convert Dawkins?” that’s just asking a question, to which the answer could be “no”! :)
Are you a science-educated atheist, or just a liberal pussy?
"Good God !!"
Dawkins isn't accepting of the doctrine of what is accepted as the existing religions of the world. He is simply stating that the case of the fine tuning of the natural laws of nature, of cosmology, gravity, the speed of light, the space time continuim, the theory of relavtivity, the precise configuration of all that is physics, cosmology and biology, are the best and strongest argument for a designer. We have an obsucure approach to dealing with the answer of who is it that fine tuned the constants. We have filled in the gaps with an ideology so ancient and illerate, which is unwilling to turn its head on itself to admit that it does not know. Faith is essentially a dogma that is at its core, an illiterate cognitive defence mechanisim for our ego and identity.
Where did laws of physics come from? God. Where did God come from? He was just here. The special pleading God of the gaps argument.
You have a brute fact or a brute event (some emergence from nothing).
What is your brute fact or brute event?
My brute fact is God.
man created God,when we created Language
@@robertjsmith You have a brute fact or a brute event (some emergence from nothing).
What is your brute fact or brute event?
My brute fact is God.
@@20july1944 nature
@@marquisinspades1 What does "nature" consist of? Matter/energy?
If I'm not mistaken Einstein answered that he believes in the God of Spinoza when asked if he was religious - and it is about that far you will get with fine tuning or other cosmological arguments.
You will need separate arguments that goes further to get all the way to Christianity.
Einstein said he didnt rule out God, but he didnt believe in a personal God as far as i know
Excuse me if I come off rude: I absolutely hate it when people take the Kalam or Fine-Tuning argument and think Christians mean that the argument gives evidence for Christianity. IT DOESN'T! All the argument is meant to do is give evidence for deism, Christianity is another story.
@@gatlinogle771 100% agree
Educated Christians agree with you we need more arguments.
Do you accept theism but are not a Christian?
@@gatlinogle771 Didn't I just say exactly the same as you or is there something I don't understand?
I really enjoyed the conversation between these gentlemen. Dawkins may not convert fully to Christianity, but hearing that he considers the Fine Tuning Argument a good argument causing him to slightly waiver from his atheism is moving in a positive direction.
Not even a slim chance he is waivering. 4:26 "you haven't explained anything!". This gets you all warm and fuzzy?
The magic diversion was mentioning Jesus, the virgin birth instead of the word God who is the closest description to the designer.
Who makes that diversion? Do the theists take us from pointless conjecture about the universe, all the way to a specific god?
Can’t see the wood for the trees… Still needs proof (which we will never have) for the miracle (which is all there is).
What was that supposed to mean?
@@2fast2block... Dawkins - he can't see the perfectly obvious - he still needs that little beige man's boring and ugly 'logic' - 'scientific' proof for something beyond science - right in his grey idiotic face - namely the dazzling God-given miracle that is NOW. He's still getting everything back to front... It's not important what he thinks - it's whether his Creator believes in him... and it's rather sad to see him still peddling his dark, nihilistic crud while deviously wrapping it for kids in the words like 'elegant' and 'beautiful'. Christ is Eternity.
@@2fast2block I don't know what he meant exactly, but I'll say that every model of reality relies on an origin miracle.
If you think yours doesn't, please share with me.
@@20july1944 The origin of the universe and life had to be a miracle, just to name a few.
@@2fast2block Yes, I agree with you. I thought you were an atheist.
Lol Richard Dawkins making such a sour hold on being anti-Christian at the last part.
A "sour hold"?! Everyone should be anti-Christian, because everyone should oppose bad ideas.
being an atheist isn't the same as anti Christian.
@@soothsayerbh1038 It isn't *necessarily,* but it should be, because everyone should be against bad ideas.
@@chikkipop yet your morale is set upon those values Lmao why do you care?
@@808Castro *"yet your morale is set upon those values"* Nonsense. Prove it. And why do you laugh? Why *shouldn't* I care?
Damnnn Richard dawkins has some drip
It is interesting to hear an atheist say the fine-tuning argument is better than all the other arguments, especially the moral argument. For about two decades, design arguments in general were less convincing to me than most other arguments, including the fine tuning argument. It wasn't really until maybe the last three years or so that I've started to come around on the fine-tuning argument. The moral argument seems utterly convincing and is the only argument that really gets you something resembling a personal authoritative God as oppose to a nebulous supernatural force or an indifferent tinkerer.
Can you sum it up in a paragraph
@@redx11x the beginning of the universe + its fine tuning would lend great evidence to Deism.
The moral argument lends great evidence to cross the bridge to theism.
I believe theism is also supported by the beginning of life and the existence of higher life forms like animals and Ofcourse humans.
Deism would be theres a creator who started the universe then sat back and watched. Theism is an involved Creator who interacts with His creation.
@@redx11x The moral argument? It can be summed up in three sentences: (1) There can only be a universal and transcendent standard of right and wrong if there is a God. (2) There is a universal and transcendent standard of right and wrong. (3) Therefore, there is a God.
@@philochristos That is convincing?! It's an obvious fail!
@@chikkipop Oh, well thanks for coming along and correcting me.
Fine tuning is an assinine attempt at inventing a comparative model without any comparison. It's purely "what if things were different, therefore I insert a gaps fallacy" nonsense. Unless you have all three states to demonstrably evidence, you can not make a comparative model.
You would need a control universe, a universe where you had life invented, and a universe where there are different constants and completely devoid of any life. You would also need to model time (have scope of all time within those universes to demonstrate that life could never be naturally forming in all three). Since this isn't remotely possible, the "appearance of fine-tuning" is dismissed as pure egotisim and nonsense from any scientific standpoint.. which is why there are no papers published in any established and respected peer reviewed scientific journals on this subject. Note that the only people who make this "argument" are theists. And as usual, we can deflate all apologetics with a single three-word axiom. Kind of telling.
You have a brute fact or a brute event (some emergence from nothing).
What is your brute fact or brute event?
My brute fact is God.
@@20july1944 only a guess...
@@20july1944 "My brute fact is God." Show it or shut it.
@@frosted1030 First, what is your brute fact? I'm not going to merely present mine.
@@wtvhdentertainmentpro6064 Do you have a different guess?
Why isn't GOOD gathering the Words Whole measurement useful?
Step by step.
Dawkins already knows God exists and suppresses the truth in sin. Rom 1. Presuppositional apologetics is way more biblical and effective, generally speaking.
So I guess you also know that Allah exists
@@ATOK_ No, the idea is that everyone knows that a Creator God exists; Paul doesn't claim we all know Who He is.
@@20july1944 well obviously Paul was wrong
You already know that your god doesn't exist. You're, ultimately, just scared of the finality of death.
See, I can do that too. Quite shitty ain't it?
Check out Dr James Tour the scientists are nowhere near knowing how to make even the simplest of cells in a fully equipped Lab, let alone explaining how a cell would be produced on an early Earth.
Macro evolution is laughable and takes an absolute believer to embrace it. You need an original archetype to actually be able to select from. In the beginning God created the original kinds.
What are your qualifications to make this statement? Please tell me about the depth and breadth of your study into evolution. Or are you just spouting off from an article you read on the internet.
What "god" and how do you know of it?
Macro evolution is simply micro evolution over very long time spans. It is not 'laughable'.
@@danbailey2964 sure, you nitwit. Oh, are you going to run from me like you always do? You sure are afraid of me, you nitwit.
Let's start with something real simple...the law of biogenesis...life only comes from life. Do tell how you got past that for your evo fairytale to start.
And who created “god”, some mega god? The idea that everything needs a creator, accept a creator, is what is “LAUGHABLE”. 😂🤣😆
He didn't answer why moral argument is weak for him if not because it is not under science domain, or did I missed the answer?
You do realise this is just a clip from the full episode?
It's true that it doesn't prove the existence of a god, but it makes arguing against it a bit harder... don't it?
@Gun care.Health control. when you have an ass for a 🧠
the contingency argument essentially proves God. It shows There must be something non contingent and self existent.
Agreed!
I think the contingency argument proves SOMETHING, but why a God?
@@philochristos It proves a Creator, to be precise. Do you understand that?
@@20july1944 No, I don't think it does prove a creator. To prove a creator, you have to show that something came into being. The contingency argument doesn't say the universe came into being. It only says it's contingent. To be contingent only means it depends on something else for its existence. But since it's possible for the universe to depend on something else for its existence without having been brought into existence, the argument from contingency doesn't prove a creator.
@@philochristos OK, do you understand why a star is hot and bright and doesn't last forever?
The limiting factor on the universe is the amount of matter, which can't be created but definitely can be converted irrevocably into energy (stars do it all the time).
Do you understand that?
Who cares? Why do we need to convince Richard Dawkins of anything? I'm not in awe of these foolish 'intellects'. He will still have to answer to God directly whether he believes now or not.
Only in your imagination
@@MrAuskiwi101 Only one of us is right. I have everything to gain if I am right and nothing to lose if I'm wrong. You, on the other hand, have nothing to gain if you're right and everything to lose if you reject Christ. Think about it. God bless you.
@@petalblossom96 A cowardly response.
You life a lie yet you pretend you have nothing to lose. Reality is what you have lost..
I agree, I question the wisdom of Justin posting things like this because it suggests Dawkins has greater insight.
On the other hand, I know Justin is trying to have a dialog and the fact Dawkins is changing towards the God issue will likely open other minds.
@@20july1944 Of course Dawkins has greater insight than a god fantasist.
But Dawkins is only one man.
All by itself logic says gods are imaginary.
I think that the universe and the physical constants are a brute fact. Without another universe to compare them to, then it makes no sense to say that they even CAN be different. If theists/deists insist that god is not contingent then atheist insist that the universe is not contingent. Asking why, why, why eventually bottoms out at “because it just is” - either at god or at the universe.
Ahhh, the fresh air of reason! Always needed.
Why do we even have brute facts? Doesn't that point to real truth?
@@konroh2 What "real truth" does it point to?
@@chikkipop When we recognize that we have to resort to brute facts it points to the fact that there are truths, inevitable, self-sufficient, brute. We do have truth. We have reality, and ultimate reality.
@@konroh2 Of course there are things that are true, but that doesn't mean we've confirmed or even discovered them all. We know we have reality, but we don't fully understand all of it, and may never. It's not a matter of "resorting" to brute facts so much as recognizing that nature appears to have regularities which could not be any other way, given conditions.
I don't put as much weight into the fine tuning argument as these guys. Dawkins hit the nail on the head when he said, at best it can only get you to Deism. But that is true for just about every theistic argument, such as the Kalam. They all only get you to Deism and you have to shoehorn in Jesus or Muhammad, or whatever.
My car's license plate reads 187KNV: the odds of that happening by chance is astronomically unlikely, as there are ten Arabic numerals (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and 26 Greek/Roman letters. My license plate therefore shows that the Motor Vehicle Department is God.
Are you serious? Because if you are you might want to be get better informed.
@@brucebuyer9156 ; Perhaps some remedial high school science education might help you. Good luck.
I see, so you actually don't understand what you just said. The first thing to note is that your licence plate is intelligently designed, purposed and manufactured. So just consider how much your statement demonstrates that intelligent design is necessary for such high odds. Primary school for you I think. @@Desertphile
@@brucebuyer9156 ; "Woooish!" went the simple concept right over your empty head.
You think so? Then why don't you explain it so that we can see how clever you are. @@Desertphile
What if I can prove that speed of light is not a constant? And I am serious.
but, like, i think in the way that, if the constants where little bit different we wouldn't be here to tell that they are different. so, we are here because they are what they are, and if there is multiverse (in way of roger penrose cyclic universes or some paralel universes it doesn't materr) then in every one of the universes they will be slightly different constants and only in some of them life like humans or physics etc would develop and in others there would be no one to tell they are different or weird.
mabye someone will understand sth from my 'river' of words xD
(the constants are not fine tuned because of god or other fine tuner but, they are just random and it just happend that they allow humans and universe to develop so now we can ask what magic fined tuned them when they are not fine tuned and we just exist because they are what they are xD
Watch the gine tuning dice example Justin explains on CZcams. The chances are 1 in trillion of trillion in trillion and goes on and on!!!!!
Roger Penrose is a piece of (YT schoolmarms won't let me post) who knows he can't complete the cycle of his "cyclic cosmology." He's one of the worst liars, because he's lying about his own field.
2:46 I wonder who he is talking about here
Richard Dawkins makes a pertinent point. How can we possibly reason our way from the plausibility of the fine-tuning argument to the implausibility of religious figures and events? It seems to me that Richard is implying here that there must be a more elegant explanation of the FTA than the calling into existence of a deity. An argument based on observation and data, one made by a technologically advanced civilsation, is indeed difficult to align with an argument based on unreliable sources and ideas opposed to physical laws, made by a bronze age civilisation.
Maybe, but this is way more profound than just a scientific problem, because science by its own nature doesn't explain why the laws of the Universe are the way they are; science assumes there are such things, that can be studied through empirical methods and evidence, but is unable to give a metaphysical answer for them. Dawkins, in my opinion, isn't very aware of how profound this philosophical problems are. We can't expect to give purely scientific answers to every issue.
Ofc you can discuss about the reality of miracles and supernatural events, and also about established religions and theology, but that's one step ahead.
Naturally if your saying that All Powerfull, Supreme Creator, had a son, and the son was required for a blood sacrifice to forgive humanity. And that son, is actually the same as the father, and the son died. Then you will think its unreasonable.
There is only one supreme creator, he has sent guidance to making for their benefit. Now that is more reasonable and simple.
@@redx11x No, no one argues Jesus is "the same (Person)" as the Father, but like any Father-Son duo, They are ontologically equal.
@@20july1944 your lies are seen. Two 100% gods are two 100% gods, not one. You're so used to lying you can't even admit that clear math.
@@fabiangonzalezreyes You cannot decry science because it does not to the thing it is not tasked with doing. Science will tell you 'how' and does not seek to establish' 'why'. Science is not concerned with answering people's strong desire to understand why they are here. The god mythology was invented to scratch that itch. Science does a great job of telling us how things work. Mythology does a poor job of explaining the truth behind why.