Prager U Says Atheists Have Faith in the Multiverse
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 07. 2024
- Prager U just released a video called, “What's a Greater Leap of Faith: God or the Multiverse?” where they claim that atheists have faith in the multiverse. If there’s anything Dennis Prager opposes more than liberalism, it’s atheism. I’d say they should stick to politics if those weren’t about as bad as their science videos.
SUBSCRIBE for more videos on pseudoscience, skepticism, and atheism!
This video contains 100% therapeutic grade skepticism.*
-----------------------------------------SUPPORT-----------------------------------------
Patreon: / geneticallymodifiedske...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/GMSkeptic
------------------------------------------FOLLOW------------------------------------------
Twitter: / gm_skeptic
Facebook: / gmskeptic
Subscribe: czcams.com/users/subscription_...
*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Prager U. The apologetics are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the points will go over a typical viewer's head.
Crushed it with this one Drew. Very well done! Your videos are greatly appreciated.
A high IQ or just access to google and a willingness to fact check
The Rick and Morty clips were hilarious! Do this more often!
I think all they're doing is hoping small minded people will hear faith and think religion, and they added in a watchmaker analogy for good measure. They're hoping the viewer won't look into it more, so it's just assertions of falsehoods as fact with a 'cross your fingers' mentality.
IQ has little to do with this.
I've seen North Korean propaganda that's more subtle than PragerU.
@Zuriel 883 dude I’ve seen Buzzfeed videos that are more subtle than PragerU
@@herpydepth1204 oof
PRAGER U - Propaganda paid for by giant corporations and religious loonies.
I upvoted your comment partly because it's true, but mainly so it can have exactly 666 upvotes. You're welcome.
@@ArkadiBolschek Much appreciated
The universe is not perfectly tuned to fit life, life is perfectly tuned to fit the universe
Shhhhh - you know that common sense upsets them.
@@williamchamberlain2263 oh no, what have i done.
@@unimornnbr1 ... do you remember that scene in Gremlins when the kids splashes water on Gizmo? ....
@@williamchamberlain2263 no, Never watched gremlins to the end, srry
@@unimornnbr1 it's not a film that's aged well
Dennis “If God didn’t say not to murder I totally would” Prager
I think there are one or two people I could just about bring myself to murder, if the money and circumstances were right. Since I don't have a list, perhaps Dennis would be a suitable primary candidate...!
As Penn Jillette says I've raped and murdered everyone I've ever wanted to, no one.
czcams.com/video/AwebTX3rk3E/video.html
don't forget
"fear male sexuality" or
"if I read a study and if doesn't confirm my common sense its mistaken"
"We don't have proof but they don't either. So, there you have it.. There is a God."
Asakii Masato i think the argument is if there is no creator them who started this entire existence in the first place. If we are random and other multi verses exists who started it anyway.
And theyre arguing God is the beginning.
Like the when atheists asks what started the big bang.
Thats just my thought
@@jacksbob8746 "if there is no creator then who started this entire existence in the universe" = An Appeal to Ignorance.
This immediately shows that their argument is based off of a logical fallacy.
Light Yagami
if matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Who or what created matter?
I mean science cant even answer that yet.
Im with Jordan Peterson on God. God has no form yet he can have form we cannot see him but we are in his image. He is in every where and existed all time. You see one day for a god maybe billions of years for a human.
an atheist a non belief in a supernatural entity.
The beginning to time and space a a supernatural force since it existed before it. So big bang maybe a supernatural entity.
I think the question of beginning of time and space is a legit question. Specially if you’re an atheist.
If were just a random ball of water spinning around a ball of nuclear furnace somehow had life and made our consciousness.
@@jacksbob8746 1) "who or what created matter? I mean science can't answer that yet", again this is an Argument From Ignorance fallacy.
The reason this is so important is because when you have an argument with illogical premises, then Any conclusion is possible (which includes true and false conclusions).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2) You've made Many incredible assertions in your reply. So I'm going to give you a more general answer to those assertions, then hopefully we can understand each other better and move from there:
A) Many Athiests proudly acknowledge they don't know what happened before the big bang (if that's even a reasonable question)
B) Religious people make tons of assertions for their beliefs; but "they can offer no indisputable proof for belief" (quoted from Prager U, in the video you're defending)
C) Those same religious people have their arguments riddled with logical fallacies (as seen in 1).
D) Given then state of B & C, Atheists Cannot Reasonably make a new conclusion different from A.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PS : I obviously can't talk for 100% of all atheists but hopefully this provides clarity for why I (and many other atheists) don't find those claims compelling or convincing.
@@jacksbob8746 > the question of beginning of time and space is a legit question
Absolutely.
> if matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
That's actually debatable. Despite the popular misconception, the conservation of energy(-momentum) is not an uncontroversial truth of physics. It works perfectly in flat spacetime, it sort of works in asymptotically flat spacetime, but the very notion of energy-momentum becomes delocalized, and our spacetime is probably not asymptotically flat.
> Who or what created matter?
That's not a legit question, though. If matter can't be created or destroyed, then the answer is: no one and nothing created it. Spacetime and matter could have existed for eternity in some shape, for all we know. Again, despite a popular misconception, physicists don't claim that time and causality "started" at the Big Bang, only that the existing theory fails to describe what happens at the singularity itself.
It's also a question that betrays anthropomorphic reasoning. Our brains are wired to think in terms of agency, but that's not how nature works.
> somehow had life and made our consciousness
The origin of life and consciousness has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Theists like to conflate these two questions, but there's no reason for them to be related. Again, this is anthropomorphic reasoning - a failure to comprehend the sheer mismatch of scale between these two events.
Prager U: "The universe is so hostile! How is life possible?"
*30 seconds later*
Prager U: "Well, since life exists, the universe must be fine-tuned for it."
Me: *facepalms out my 5th story window*
Wouldn't it be facecurbing, or, facehooding if landing over a car?
What does any of this have to do with the multiverse? This is classic apologetics from the 14th century catholic church.
Super fvcking easy, barely an inconvenience
Face palm to the next deminson
Scott Humphreys It had nothing to do with the multiverse. They wanted to toss in a lie about the “odds of life” while they were rehashing old “fine tuning” arguments.
PragerU = Buzzfeed for conservatives
Couldn't have said it better myself.
As a conservative who enjoys most of PragerU videos, I’ll admit you’re pretty much right. I think Prager is more earnest in their aim to provide useful and meaningful content (buzzfeed wouldn’t know what that sentence even means) but I can definitely see why someone who doesn’t agree with their messages would consider it pandering at best, and propaganda at worst.
As a centrist this is too accurate. Both are extremely cancerous
PaleBear It is propaganda.
Even the comments have propaganda and say things like a npc. BuILd ThieeE WaLl! GeTT oUt oFF muh Countriii
Pacifist: I’m a pacifist
PU: You fight against fighting therefore you are wrong
@Miami Gaming Hoodie Yes... That was the point.
🤯
I think i had a stroke reading that...is this what prager feels when they try to think?
“Where did the universe come from?”
*theists* “god”
*athiests* “we don’t pretend to have a definitive answer, we are working towards finding one though.”
*theists* “hahaha! GOTCHA?”
*athiests* “ummm... no, no you did not...”
*agnostics
@@frocco7125 Honestly atheists and agnostics are the same thing. Atheists don't believe in religion because they believe there is not enough evidence to warrant such a belief. ... And that's basically a restatement of what agnosticism is.
Someone who says "unicorns don't exist" isn't arguing that unicorns are impossible or cannot exist. They simply state that there is not enough evidence and that unicorns do not fit the framework of what is logical. Given enough evidence, an a-unicornist would begin to believe in unicorns. Atheism is analogous in this regard.
Edit: Also, sorry for the long reply.
@EM P strawmam
@Enjoy and Travel The World! Did you read my second comment about unicorns?
If not here's the premise: I'm a staunch non-believer in unicorns. However, I'll be the first to admit that don't know 100% whether unicorns exist. The reason I claim that unicorns don't exist is 1) there is absolutely no evidence of unicorns existing and 2) there is no evidence of magic (99.99% of what I don't know has been shown to have an explanation based on science rather than magic, making science quite good at explaining things and magic seem rather bad at explaining anything) which is required for unicorns to exist.
It would be different if I were to make the claim "one-eyed, albino seagulls don't exist". Both albinism and being one-eyed have existed in various animals and they are not mutually exclusive, thus a one-eyed, albino seagull might exist. It may be improbable, but it fits what I know to be possible, thus I won't claim that "one-eyed, albino seagulls don't exist".
All of this is under the logic that nobody knows anything for sure. 2+2 _could be_ 5, Santa Claus _could be_ real, but based on what we do know these things are not true and we claim them as such. Based on this, agnosticism (I'm going to assume xyz is not true but I don't know for sure) and atheism (I'm going to assume xyz is not true but I technically don't know for sure) are one and the same.
See also: Russell's Teapot.
"The universe is a hostile place"
30 seconds later
"Perfectly tuned for life"
Hmmmmmmmm..............
*insert swirly face here*?
Of course the video just glosses over how the entire finetuning concept depends on assuming naturalism which their theory explodes, such that the very fact that we can talk about finetuning at all is strong counter-evidence against God in a way it isn't against the multiverse.
Because honesty is for chumps who don't make fake universities.
Professional Meme Enthusiast 1 prime example of cognitive dissonance
Okay, suppose we make this addition: "The universe is a GENERALLY hostile place..."
in the same way as I might say "my house is a hostile place for ice cubes." And then 30 seconds later, I'll say, "My freezer is perfectly tuned for ice cubes."
This is a non-argument attempt at hair-splitting and gnat-straining. If we have to stick every qualifying term into everything we say, we end up talking like the legal jabber that follows every medicine commercial.
It's easy to understand. There are a lot of things working against our existence in our universe, nevertheless there are many properties that our universe posseses that, individually, are absolutely necessary for life and yet could have been otherwise. The question is how did all these fortuitous life enabling properties to come to be. Right now the only answer is pure chance. And to make the mind-numbingly low probabilities, indistinguishable from a miracle, seem less miraculous, the multi-verse is proposed without evidence.
What pisses me off the most is an actual scientist, blatantly lying about things, he must know better! He's not only discrediting himself (which would be embarrassing but OK, since it is self-inflicted), he's also damaging science and its hardly compiled methods, which is unforgivable.
Scientists are purchased each and every day my friend.
To add insult to injury, the guy is a *BIG BANG COSMOLOGIST.* He demonstrably knows that all the misinformation he spewed about the Big Bang is factually incorrect. I could understand it when they bring a dentist or a mechanics engineer; You know, people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about; But this is just craven.
Usually with these videos a quick Google about the presenter will tell you everything you need to know about where there loyalties lie
@Miami Gaming Hoodie Even if it is not money being scared of being called Atheist is enough for some people to blatantly lie about anything, as long you are doing it in the name of god you can be forgiven.
@@CteCrassus Extra points for using the accurate word craven.
A week in a children's cancer ward will cure you of any intelligent design theory.
But you might score thousands of dollars from desperate parents looking for a miracle, which you can then use to fund your church's private jet - so the week is totally worth it!
Everybody know that it is in god's plan to kill these children. Because Character development
their parents probably didn't pray hard enough, duhhh
well, benevolent intelligent design but yeah
@@judewaide8328 Cruel intelligent design would be immortality, complete inability to die.
Scientists: "Here's an idea that might be true."
Theists: "Oh, so you have faith that it is absolutely true! Checkmate atheists!"
Also, the irony that they are implying that faith is bad is palpable.
Jeff C when I tell people I’m atheist sometimes they say so how do you know god isn’t real as if I can’t just not believe in god
@@clashsupreme9394 Right. I don't know, therefore I don't believe. They have also defined their god to where we _can't_ know, so it's kind of their own fault we don't believe.
@@clashsupreme9394 i tell them i invented my own god, he says their god is false. then ask can they prove their god is GOOD, and can they prove my god isn't real. they generally grumble while running away.
That's the way theists think. If you state that there is a tiny possibility that something might be true, they think you have faith in that, like how they have faith in their god.
Once, I met some missionaries who said that Jesus coming back to life in the Bible is the proof that his is the son of God, I half jokingly told them perhaps it's because Jesus was a vampire. Then they asked "Why do you believe Jesus was an vampire, but not the son of God?"
"Perfectly tuned for our existence"
Malaria, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, etc dont seem like things that were perfectly tuned for our existence..
The fact that we can only live in a narrow band on the surface of one planet, surrounded by lightyears of inhospitable space, also makes the fine tuning argument weird.
Well don't you know it's God punishing us for our sins? Duh
Cameron Dodge
They/you (can’t tell if that’s sarcasm) have zero evidence if that’s actually the case
@@brysonsirus7747 it was sarcasm lol
Don’t forget spiders
There's a multiverse where GMSkeptic works for PragerU
OH SHIT
There's also a multiverse where PragerU works for GMSkeptic
And a multiverse where Prager U makes sense... 🤔
Perhaps not.
No, the idea is that everything that could possibly happen does. Not the impossible, like you working for Prager or Trump keeping a promise.
Kevin The Bold, so no Genetically Modified Apologist, then? SAD.
Atheists: "I don't believe in god."
Creationists: "You like Lord of the Rings?"
Atheists: "Sure. It's pretty cool."
Creationists: "Checkmate, Atheists! Your Orks aren't real. Hahaha"
Keating: "The universe is a hostile place and life is rare."
Also Keating: "The universe is finely tuned and must have a designer."
A contradiction I detect indeed.
1:41
Person A: What is 6726194694983 times 1464918681649?
Person B: I don't know.
Person A: I think it is four.
Person B: I don't think that is correct...
Person A: Oh yeah?! Well at least _I_ have an answer!
AndDiracisHisProphet exactly
Noice!
You aware that the answer to the random numbers you just wrote there is 4! x 4.1055534e+23 Or you did that on purpose??
That's a pretty good way of putting it . . .
no, i just smashed some buttons. what is so special about 4! x 4.1055534e+23? is there a joke i'm not getting?
The label "University" on Prager is a huge insult to centuries long endeavor of human intellect.
Well said.
Prager U is spot on when it comes to a lot of there Econ vids
@@crunch9876 Nope. You think it's spot on because you are libertarian and PragerU is libertarian (and you 99%+ watch a lot of the IDW bullshit). It purports a laissez-faire system which can be thoroughly debunked.
They need to be removed from CZcams
Oh don't kid yourself. The actual universities are mostly dogshit too. ESPECIALLY now. SJW indoctrination camps.
I love how he says "the universe is juuuust right" showing a picture of Earth.. Earth is not the universe dude wtf
I'm actually surprised that Prager didn't just show an image of the United States during that part. Props to Prager for thinking globally for once!
And the Earth isn't just right either. Volcanos, plagues, flooding, ice ages, desserts, earthquakes - it's unbearable.
The earth is fine tuned and just ri- *Series of natural disaster, plagues, temperature change in summer that somehow make Thailand hotter than United state (god helps me it's hot as fuck in summer here, luckily it's rainy right now.)* -Okay, maybe not that fine tuned.
Hot universe: Doesn't exist
Cold universe: Doesn't exist
PragerU: reality can be whatever I want it to be
Like BRO. ENITRE UNIVERSES aren’t like porridge; you don’t have a “too hot” or “too cold” universe, the universe is so vast and diverse that, even if it isn’t infinite, it very nearly seems so. And we KNOW that the universe is large enough to have more than one “just right” planet, you don’t need to invent a whole multiverse just to prove your point! We already have more than enough star systems to find habitable planets! Arghhh!
"absent of a creator, how do they account for the existence of the universe?"
I don't have to. There is nothing about my existence that requires me to account for the universe's existence. I can, and do, throw up my hands and say "I don't know". And I still live a life worth living. The requirement to understand the universe, therefore, is not a requirement of existence, but one of hubris. And that speaks volumes to that of the theists who demand it.
Yeah but if you say “ I don’t know” don’t you think that in the afterlife when you discover you’ve been lied by the devil that maybe objective laws were written in our heart for a reason? God is outside space and time. God is a spirit so don’t you think the spiritual realm had something to do with this and we are walking in flesh but after we die we turn into spirits and go one of two places?
@@LuisAguilar-mo5fb there is no such thing as afterlife, unfortunately, atleast there is no evidence of that, and it is impossible physiologically, because our brains is us, if brain die we will die permanently.
Никто: I think the important thing is to live like there is no god or afterlife, because there’s no way to prove it, especially to prove any specific kind of god.
@@LuisAguilar-mo5fb so much assumption based on baseless human ideas.
@@LuisAguilar-mo5fb You are assuming too many things without proper basis. Conversely how do you know everything you said was not whispered into your subconscious by the devil? When you begin to argue that we have to assume something unproven, something beyond nature as a default, logic will break down because there would be no reason not to come up with a supernatural explanation for anything. Sure, maybe I tripped and fell while walking simply because of a rock snagging on my feet and causing the inertial motion of my upper body to be unbalanced from that of my lower body, which is halted by the rock, causing my body to shift its angle from being right angle to slanted and making the gravitational force pull on it even more as I get closer to the ground, but it could also be all a lie and septillions of magical pink unicorns in the Andromeda galaxy could be holding hands together to cast a spell that makes us perceive as if there is gravity in the universe. The default assumption for anything is nonexistence, otherwise we will end up with an infinity of unfalsifiable clutter because there are an infinity of alternate explanations.
I like how he starts out with one of the major points against the fine-tuning argument (the hostility of the universe), then goes on to make a fine-tuning argument.
Cosmological lol
Exactly. If I remember correctly, they made the fine-tuning argument in a previous video, so they would have been hypocritical either way.
Well obviously if one part of a gradient is perfect for Life there must be some omnipotent creator that fine-tuned that specific part of the gradient
Just couldn't resist.
Cosmological Atheism is mental disorder, just look at Joseph Stalin, an atheist who killed more people than any other world leader in history.
Oh yeah? He didn't kill people because he was a atheist/marxist who hated religion? Tell that to your own PHD's and Professors who have studied that man and are experts in their field. Call up on your own University and argue with them, not me I'll take their expert opinion over yours buddy.
Also, arguing that Stalin would have done the same thing if he called himself a Muslim, or Jew or Christian is a cute little "what-if" scenerio but it holds no weight.
If a human being is crazy, and confused and thinks they can pick and choose what is "right" and what is "wrong" is, they are potentially genocidal morally confused maniacs waiting to explode regardless of what they call themselves. If he was a Muslim and wanted to take his religion seriously then no, he would NOT have done the same thing because the Quran doesn't teach you to go around killing upwards of 60 million people. This isn't rocket science buddy and it ain't going away just because you atheists call it "straw-manning" when ever someone brings up Joseph Stalin as an example to prove that atheism is a mental disorder.
ATHEISM and subjective morality has killed more people in the last 100 hundred years than all of the religions combined since the beginning of recorded history and it's not even remotely close either.
If you don't like these facts then you can go argue with Universities and Professors and figure it out buddy. I ain't interested in baseless interweb opinions which cannot be backed by evidence, and reality, and REALITY ain't interested in it either just like how gravity never stops existing just because you are confused about it, correct bud.
Prager U is so dishonest in there arguments that, it puts you of even wanting to have a rational debate.
czcams.com/video/EM7BgrddY18/video.html
They are propaganda.
me: gets prager u ad, also me starting a rant about how prager u is wrong on all their arguments.
Oh.
Oh.
Oh.
This isnt a very good video.
Good channel, but here,
GMS didnt perform well.
In (roughly) the words of Mark Twain
Winning an argument against an intelligent person is hard, winning one against an idiot is impossible, for they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
-Mark Twain (roughly)
How dare he dishonor stephen hawkings R.I.P
Edvin Storlind rip stephan hawking even though I’m a Christian god bless him
@@MasterporkyMinch all of the people I know who are Christian accept science and arent dishonest dont worry I and many others dont associate every Christian with these idiots.
PragerU is political BuzzFeed.
Oh.
Oh.
Oh.
This isnt a very good video.
Good channel, but here,
GMS didnt perform well.
Thats just not very good answers
and he’s sometimes missing the point.
@@jeannedarc7533 PragerU is basically BuzzFeed but for the right
Why is "We just don't know" not a good enough answer? It's more honest than "God dun did it" and it leaves open the possibility of learning the real answer.
Humans resist the "We just don't know" conclusion. What is this? I don't know, I just do. I just enjoy having a conclusive statement about things.I don't need to make moral judgments about this. I just accept that I am a person who likes to have conclusions.
Some people like blue, some red. I like black. We all have our preferences.
So just make up an answer because it gives you warm fuzzies? Sounds totally reasonable.
@@thethrashyone Yes, kind of. You exaggerate, but basically there are questions so big that the answers cannot be based upon pure logic and evidence. Why do you love your wife? Why do you only like Heinz Ketchup and no others? I just accept that there are limits to knowing and that we like to speculate beyond those limits for fun, fulfillment, or just preference. So far as I've observed nearly every higher conscious being does this.
@@Boxerr54. I'm encountering this line of thought more recently, "things are just too complicated and we'll never know/science can't answer" and other similar variations of that. Just because you find a deep question profound does not mean it has any relation or relevance to reality itself, it's not the answer that you need to be worried about in this case. Why wouldn't you trust science based on how it's elevated us? What sense does it make to assert that something is truly beyond scientific understanding when science is adaptable and strives to actually provide evidence for its claims? Why should we resort to faith-based thought just because we haven't been able to pinpoint the existence of an uncertain demiurge for sure with a system that actually produces results? This concept is basically an unfalsifiable hypothesis and a god-of-the-gaps argument.
@@thethrashyone Yes, At some points we do this all the time and I just accept that this is what we do sometimes.
10:17
It's certainly a much smaller leap of faith to believe in the multiverse. We already know that it is possible for at least one universe to exist.
VitalVampyr yep. We can definitely prove it exists. Can we definitely prove God exists? Has anyone ever held a piece of god, or looked at it through a microscope? What does god smell like or taste like?
I hope its as good as these chips...
VitalVampyr
Is there a universe where I am the best?
No, there is always one better.
Lol that seems more likely?
An infinite amount of universes to encompass all possibilities and decisions that spawn from the second every choice I make is made? It's infinitely growing... Fucking wierd ontological theories expanding on relativity which will undoubtedly be debunked tp an extent when we discover the dark forces.
And then there's and infinite number of realities completely different from ours moving on past the 6th dimension.
Lol I don't see how you can consider that more probable, is it possible sure, but alot of this is ontological theories with no basis other than meagerly umderstanding the 4th - space time.
At least a god explains uniform efficiencies within the universe... Inner workings of living beings on earth are similar, and planets are circle..
What could've defined what will be efficient? Lol even if a multiverse.
VitalVampyr No, actually. There is not even a shred of even circumstantial evidence to support the multiverse theory. You say possible. Well anything is possible. But everything is probable. And probability depends on evidence. As such, we cannot say that that the multiverse exists, because there is no evidence to back up the probability. The Multiverse Theory is nothing more than that, a theory.
Jeramy Gutierrez Exactly. Though true that the evidence is circumstantial, it at least lends a lot more credence to the probability of God certainly existing, than it is does a supposedly infinite sequence of realities. That in itself is strange, by the way - scientists talking about an infinite amount of realities as true. So I guess that temperature infinitely decreases, then? /sarc
Jeramy Gutierrez and Joshua Fogg :
I'm surprised both of you missed it. What the OP is getting at is a slight tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that, in order to demonstrate a group of something exists, it is necessary to demonstrate at least one member of the group exists-which we do by the fact our universe exists. When it comes to the existence of a creator (or creators plural), we don't exactly have a first, concrete step down pat.
_That's all._
Also, kind of a side note, but just because an idea seems weird, improbable, unintuitive, or whatever adjective desired, doesn't entail it's untrue. That was the entire purpose behind Schrodinger's Cat and quantum mechanics yet here we are building quantum computers.
Again:
Prager U: “it takes a bigger leap of faith to believe in Multiverse Theory than it does to believe in God”
ALSO PRAGER U: Regularly uses Multiverse Theory to describe God as “Maximally great” in order to prove God....
So.... it takes a bigger leap of faith to believe in the reason you give to believe in God? Interesting...
Also whats puzzling is... atheism is only the position on one subject. You can be an atheist and believe that flying ponies streak across the sky.
@@yamayam1389 More often, atheists would wish it true (the flying pony part)
PragerU is basically "love the US, love the military industrial complex, love capitalism and love the prison system - and God forbid you have any personality beyone being a Conservative"
Oh.
Oh.
Oh.
This isnt a very good video.
Good channel, but here,
GMS didnt perform well.
Thats just not very good answers
and he’s sometimes missing the point.
@@slevinchannel7589 He explained literally everything
@@Alpha-zx8rr My comment remains unchanged. Please watch other PragerU-Coverage online.
I have watched a lot of them,they gather up facts and then they omit a lot of related facts to come at a conclusion,I am an agnostic atheist,To me the chance of god existing is 50,50.
"Published posthumously"
Oh my, it just hit me again that Steven Hawking is dead.
Kevin McDougall and talking
So hang on a second. It's incredibly improbable that life would arise in such a hostile universe. Yet, we have life. So the universe is fine tuned to support life.
But the universe is an incredibly hostile environment to life.
These creationist claims boggle the rational mind.
I, for one, love to breathe vacuu..... . . . .
How would we know that there can’t be life that is nothing like us that can live in a hostile environment that we can’t, like how some creatures on earth can life in very hostile areas
The fact that I have to wear clothes to keep from freezing my ass off is proof that the Earth isn't fine-tuned for life.
1:31 “I’m an astrophysicist”
4:35 “... there was a Big Bang from something unimaginably small. We don’t know exactly what.”
4:42 “The universe exploded (sic) into existence.”
🤔
...This isnt a very good video.
Good channel, but here,
GMS didnt perform well.
Thats just not very good answers
and he’s sometimes missing the point.
They display a great misunderstanding of what the multiverse entails in a single sentence.
"New Universes are spawned and not just a handful, an infinite number of them. Some of these Universes would be too cold for life and some too hot, but with an infinite number? Surely one is bound to get it juuuust right"
No, with an infinite number of Universes, there is an infinite number of habitable Universes and an infinite number of uninhabitable universes.
Col of Cthulhu 😳 ‘Habitable’ or ‘Uninhabitable’. One of the quirks of English, as with ‘flammable’ and ‘inflammable’.
Sir Meow The Library Cat
Huh, habitable and inhabitable is the same thing. Then we have uninhabitable, that is truly strange, I have not realised this.
You know, I knew that at one point but evidently I forgot. Thank you for correcting me Sir Meow :D And yes I remember that Simpsons episode with Doctor Nick, "Inflammable means flammable? What a country."
Pseudonymous Being, it's not too strange when you consider, (now that I remember), that the word "inhabitable" comes from the adjective, "inhabit", as in to live somewhere.
Wouldn't that only be the case if it was an infinite number of *different* universes? what if there's an infinite number of the exact same universe? Take that atheists
Maui Randall Well, with an infinite amount of universes, you would _also_ have infinite same universes, _and_ infinite different universes. Everything would be infinite, except the things that aren't. lol
Ah the classic "fine tuning design". Wow how new! How revolutionary! That's gonna convince all the atheists instantly!
Atheists is not their target. The best that they can hope for is to keep some that _want_ to keep believing.
Yes The Targets are Christians Conservatives "Come watch our Videos it will Justify your Belief in your Magic Sky Daddy"
"How come we have exactly the right amount of water on earth to fill the oceans?"
This is a false analogy. We could provide a naturalistic explanation of how the earth was formed and thus how the exact amount of water in the oceans got there. However, we cannot provide such an explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe.
I agree, it never convinced me.
I became Christian after my fellow Atheists refused to define a subjective morality. At which point I chose to side with delusional Altruists than rational Amoralists.
@@Shockguey that... Doesn't make sense.
It's a typical contemporary right-wing tactic: don't defend the clearly dubious things we believe/say/do, just create a false equivalency showing those we perceive as the opposition are just as bad. It's intellectually bereft and dishonest, but sadly very effective it seems.
Funny how Christian apologetics always updates with new science talking points. Almost as if that old book can’t stand on its own ;)
Funny enough, the multiverse hypothesis is a missed opportunity for them to claim that supernatural beings like angels came from another dimensions.
Funny enought to think about what they are going to do when they realize that even if they are righ and there is an intelligent designer it cant be their god...
Funny how the Bible coincides with history EVERY SINGLE TIME while there is zero concrete evidence for any of the countless atheism theories
@@reevemiller3813 you believe that, but it doesn't. it's mainly fiction. look at some of the other videos talking about the history of the bible on this channel or use google for once (do some research).
@@victoriateel1347 I personally would use duckduckgo since google censors results, but my only search is for truth, and not to fulfill my personal desires. Even if i don't like it, the evidence for Christianity is insurmountable, i would do a little research if I were you ;)
The religious and scientific community have very different definitions of what evidence is...
Store Patter! stop. just stop. you're not impressing anyone here.
*Lioness* - Methinks Store Patter! doth protest too much.
Imagine: There may be universe where this exact video exists, but Drew has a bright orange mohawk. Same exact words, cutscenes, background...Everything.
Edit: And it's his natural hair color.
Edit edit: And in that universe, my comment is "Imagine: There may be universe where this exact video exists, but Drew has medium-short brown hair. Same exact words, cutscenes, background...Everything.
Edit: And it's his natural hair color.
..."
And so on. I need to go to bed so I don't have time to get trapped in a loop.
Joshua K my brain just exploded!
Joshua K There may be a universe where my reply to your comment to his video, replying to PragerU, arguing about multiverse might not exist.
Finby Oasta There may be a universe where you reply with an identical comment to what you replied to my original comment with, but in that universe you have a bright orange mohawk.
Edit: And it's your natural hair color...
Joshua K There may be a universe where you reply that I have a red mohawk and it's my natural hair colour, but without the edit.
Edit: There may be a universe where this reply doesn't exist because it only consists of edited text.
Because Brian Keating is getting his ass handed to him by a relatively random CZcamsr, that's saying a lot. I kind of thought he was an actor, but I just looked him up online, and he actually IS a professor of physics at the University of California. I imagine this video has made him a laughing stock as a result.
He sacrificed his credibility for Jesus
I would be so pissed off if he was teaching me physics.
“The odds against our existence are astronomical”
“The universe is fine tuned for life”
They want it both ways
Gotta love it when theists' best method of substantiating their position is by strawmanning atheists and scientists in order to drag them down to their level, "See? We all have the same unreasonable faith!"
religious believers have no logic or evidence to support their beliefs - and so they resort to using dirty tactics like these
It's sad when a late night cartoon has a better understanding of the concept of infinity than a, uh, "university."
“The real thing that physics tell us about the universe is that it's big, rare event happens all the time - including life - and that doesn't mean it's special.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss
1:28 looks like Ben Shapiro wearing a fat suit to seem like "an astrophysicists"
And a voice changer to sound like a man who has finished puberty.
Hahahahahahah
Another insolent religious hyper arrogation is to claim that if you can't account for something then their magical story has to be real. Not knowing something is, apparently, not an option.
*Paul Ban* - I think from their perspective it's not knowing something when apparently, they do. But, as you say, not knowing something doesn't seem to be an option in made up land.
Douglas Because their "explanation" is a one-size-fits all. Saying god did it is the same thing as saying "it's magic" and magic can "explain" literally everything (while really explaining nothing at all) so for them it's incomprehensible how and why atheists haven't made up our our own universal panacea non-explanation. They literally don't understand that "i don't know" is sometimes the correct answer given the available evidence. They don't understand not bullshitting because they do it all the time.
C.F. Gauss I could say the exact same thing about Atheists though. Whenever in the face of uncertainty, Atheists in my experience almost always respond with "We don't know..............yet." Emphasis on "yet". There's never a full admission of not knowing, even when it's more logical to admit so. There's an insistence that Science can and will reveal everything to us with full understanding. Yet has Science has clear limits, one notably being that the human mind can only comprehend so much. We know that a subatomic "nanoverse" exists. But rarely can one person, even a group, using the knowledge that we know of said "nanoverse" can hope to fully understand it. Our own world that we can see with our own eyes constantly throws us curve balls at times. Sure, in time we'll continue to understand more; but in the end we'll never understand it all. There will always be things that will elude us.
Joshua Fogg There is absolutely no proof or reason to believe that there are limits to science. We know from its track record that pretty much everything it tackles science finds a way for us to understand no matter how complex. We develop abstractions and models and mathematical descriptions to aid us where our brains are not naturally evolved to deal with certain things such as the very small and very large. I'm not stating i know for sure there is no limit to what we can understand but the historical record certainly doesn't seem to indicate it. Every time people have said about something that it is beyond our understanding science has eventually prooved them wrong. My confidence is based on precendent. What is your claim based on? Can you give good reasons for why we should doubt the capabilities of science or will you be just another in a long line of science doubters proven wrong?
Joshua Fogg Also, there is no need for any one person to understand it all. That's why we have people who specialize. Let's take your example of the "nanoverse": we don't just know it exists, we know pretty accurately how it functions and are able to make testable predictions for the outcomes of experiments because we understand it really well, in fact quantum theory is the most accurately tested and most solidly confirmed theory in all of science, we can predict measurements of quantum phenomena in some cases up to 20+ decimal places, that's unheard of in other fields. Yes we still have a ways to go, it is not complete yet, for example we don't yet have a unified theory of gravity and quantum fields, but people are working on it. There are plenty of models just waiting for the technology to advance enough for us to have the accuracy to test them.
They are definitely coming from the position that atheists know a god exists, but they "run" from him and find flippant theories to ease their anxiety about a god existing and use them to say there is no god so they in turn don't have to answer to a god. Yeah, you caught me read handed, that is exactly what I am spending my every waking moment doing. Just like I'm desperately finding theories that ease my discomfort that fairies are living in my backyard.
Whoa, you should probably do something about that. Fairies are a serious problem; you should probably see if you can get an exterminator to deal with that.
LashknifeTalon how cruel!
@@jackbarman7063 They bite, though.
God is real I was there when he was writing the script
True the angels were even clapping
@@loonytoons8130 ...cheeks
@@darwansebastian9286 that’s how nephilims are born
@@darwansebastian9286 well this went from 0-300 real damn wuick
"-athiests have an answer to that... It's called the multiverse"
DAMN MAN!!! THAT WAS A BIG LEAP!!! YOU FLYIN???
Prager “ University “ I learned more about the universe in my high school biology class :/
I learned more about the universe from some ultra-conservative "Alexrush Limbaugh-Jones is too liberal for me" idiot's attempt to explain why gun control was bad because Canada's gun crime is so much higher than the USA's (hint: it isn't, it isn't *so hard* that it's off by a factor of Kent Hovind Doing Math), but yeah, I'd have to say Prager U at least compares in terms of back-asswardness.
I learned more about the universe in my bath tub as a toddler...
So just as much?
Government school is garbage.
You pass butter.
Oh my god!
The purpose of humanity is to breed genetic structures.
Is there a _*why*_? Or should we just accept the _*is*_?
Religious people be like: Life is rare and unique, therefore the god of my holy book.
How does PU come up with this crap?
And how do they find stooges stoogie enough to say it?
They are extra egregious in this one.
PU is already crap.
PragerU : "The atheists are just as bad as we are!"
Anyone who's learnt rhetoric or negotiation : "... wot ? ..."
Prager U at it again with their strawman arguments
*obligitory red vs blue "ever wonder why we're here" joke*
thank you
Genetically Modified Skeptic
a breath of fresh air....glad i found this sight
This is the first "youtube skeptic" who lives up to their name.
You can't assign odds if you only have a sample of one. The conceit of the religious is boundless.
Paul Ban I used to think the answer to the question "what are the odds ..." was 100% we're here! But i guess that's not really accurate. I hate probability.
Eric Mishima it depends on question the probability of humans existing is 100% the probability of Life existing in a given place in the universe is more than 0% because we exist but we can't find the actual number without a better sample
So the probability of Life existing on Earth isn't necessarily 100% but the probability of humans existing where we do is 100%?
I don't know. anyone else want to take a whack at this?
Maui Randall hehe thanks, that does help.
I have two friends called William Hill, what are the odds? :-)
The probability of life existing in this specific region of the universe is 100%. No matter where the question is asked, the answer must almost always be 100% because the questioner is there and the questioner has to be alive.
If there was no life in the universe then the question would never arise, if there is life in the universe then the question could only ever arise where there that life is. The question can only ever exist in conjunction with life, so the odds of there being life "here" are identical to the odds of there being life in the universe.
If, by the slightest of chances, Earth was inhospitable to life, but life evolved on a different planet, the question, what is the chance of life existing here would only be found on the planet with life on it. If that makes any sense
Those Rick and Morty clips were Well placed. Bravo GMS 👏
"We are an accident that, given enough universes, was inevitable."
I have a question, why do we need to drag universes into this? Doesn't the exact same argument work just as well with planets? Each planet is different, each has its own properties and conditions. And there is an extreme number of planets in the entire universe. So is it really that ridiculous to say that out of the gazillion planets in the universe, one happened to have the right conditions for life?
PragerU seems to suggest that this universe is somehow perfect for life and it's almost like it was made for us. Yet in their own video they admit that almost everything in this perfect universe is lethal to us. If God really created the universe just for us, he did a pretty bad job imo.
Another question for religious people: if the God created the universe for us, why did he make it so big? Why did he create something which is 99,99% empty and lifeless?
How would we know that there can’t be life that is nothing like us that can live in a hostile environment that we can’t, like how some creatures on earth can life in very hostile areas
@@peaguy536 turns out God didn’t design the universe for us, they designed it for the Florpagobians.
When someone asks "why" its similar to asking "why is that water boiling?" To which tbe correct answer is the conditions that creates the phenomenon. Same with the universe itself. People want to know WHAT those "quantum conditions" were.
It's quite annoying when you ask a theist how the universe got here they say god like that answered the question. Changing the question from How to Who doesn't answer the question.
Lucid Moses, and they continually blame others for believing things without evidence!
I agree, it's quite annoying.
Lucid Moses *_And God said "Let there be light." And there was light._*
The question was not changed at all. The answer is just the same for both questions.
Joshua Fogg, Then tell me HOW he did it. You can prove that wasn't it yourself. Say those magic words your self..... I'll bet nothing will happen. So the words may have been stated but it's still not the HOW. Just the who and the what that was said.
The answer is that created thing X, came from uncreated thing Y-Y being the totality of all being such that there is not possible world that does not necessarily include Y. A question of How is allowable for a being X, but not for Y.
It is not a conceptually hard idea. God is not a proper name, or a title. It is not a moniker of one specific created or contingent Identity, it is the sum totality of identity-the infinite positive.
Uncreated thing Y is not finite, and not temporal, existing before existing. Where is not a question concerning it-where exists for things in space-time. Why is not a question concerning it-why exists for things that have no intrinsic purpose. When is not a question concerning it-space-time again. What is question not concerning it, so on and so forth.
If you allow for the possibility that this is an answer, they have answered your question. You needn’t believe it, but it IS an answer.
I love a good take down of PragerU. Well done.
Every time that guy says, "Many scientists believe..." I want to ask, "How many, exactly??"
"Science isn't about why! It's about why not!" - Cave Johnson
Prager U is the worst. And the many positive comments you find on their videos are just baffling.
Agree. It's almost like the viewers enjoy being lied to by obvious corporate propaganda and pseudoscience that it takes 5 minutes or less to fact check.
Prager U has people hypnotized: "Corporations do not lie in order to make more money. You're getting sleepy."
@@savenetneutralityanti-repu7029
To be fair they spend a lot on animation to look profesional, i wont lie, it tricked me too
@@thegamer5367 And they have some damn good color schemes/graphic designers
Their animation looks like it is trying desperately to hold the attention of 5 year olds
I have no need for ‘faith’ in order to understand what is evidentially true. Theists love playing with the meaning of language so that what remains is merely that which they say it means. Those of us in the real world understand that scientists posit ideas as to test the water of current knowledge. They are often described as thought experiments. Nothing peculiar about that at all. Historians ask ‘what if?’ when considering whether one choice made by a leader was better or worse than another. It helps to sharpen their thinking when assessing cause and effect through time. I trust ‘faith’ as much as I would a ladder of mist! As always, kind regards from 🇬🇧🐈
This is their latest attempt to shoot themselves in the foot by insisting that we're as stupid as they are !
at 10:18 Prager asks: "Who's taking the bigger leap?" I say religious people are. With the Multiverse it is saying there could be other Universes. Well, we know an actual Universe does indeed exist, that obviously being this one, so at least this gets past the first obstacle, that being that at least one does exist. We can see it, touch it, and test it. Not so for the religious belief of god, so they do not even get past the first obstacle.
So what's easier to believe? Something that cannot be proven to exist, that being a god, ......or something that can and does exist, that being a Universe? At least the Multiverse gets past that first step.
So if there is a multiverse with infinite universes, does that mean there is a universe where God does not exist? Oooooooooh😎
LifeIsFair ItKillsEveryone I agree, but most people who believe in god say that he is all powerful therefore he has to exist in all universes
This is easily one of my favorite videos of yours. Very well done.
I got an advertisement for prager u in the middle of the video
In the middle of watching this video I was interrupted by none other than a PragerU ad... this has to be the work of god
The astrophysicist's face looks like a Mii
It is also disingenuous for PragerU to conflate the multiverse with a single scientific proposition namely the inflationary multiverse.
There is no such thing as the multiverse as there are many different multiverse hypotheses invoking very different resulting multiverses.
These are known as :
1) The inflationary multiverse
2) The quilted multiverse
3) The brane multiverse
4) The cyclic multiverse
5) The landscape multiverse
6) The quantum multiverse (or Many-worlds or Everett interpretation of quantum physics)
7) The holographic multiverse
8) The simulated multiverse (aka the Matrix)
9) The ultimate multiverse (Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis)
So the "question God or the multiverse?" would also have to address these, and I wish you had pointed this out in your video.
Anyway, great video, thanks Drew.
0:32 This religidiot sounds exactly like the Solar Roadways voiceover announcer:
"What would be COOLER and MORE STUPID than putting easily-breakable & expensive solar panels IN THE ROAD SURFACE?"
"No way, MAN! That's AWESOME!"
Your "Praise be onto Atom" always makes me think of fallout
Thank you for posting that clip of Douglas Adams, it is one of the best things on CZcams, funny, sweet, tender, passionate. I miss him so much.
Jeepers, I despise Prager U.
2 + 2 = 5 .... see I have an answer ...so... because I have an answer ... it must be right. Too bad my teachers didn't think that way.
There is more evidence for the multiverse than the Christian god, so...Yes, I have more faith in the multiverse theory than Christianity.
The problem is I don’t believe in the multiverse, I believe in needing to use the scientific theory to test theories. I am open to any theory that can be tested and tested by logic.
The believer is intellectually honest because he admits his position is based on faith...
That is to say: based on... nothing. Faith is believing in something without a good reason.
If you had a good reason, then you wouldn't need faith.
What's the "good reason" for believing in the multiverse?
@@sjkdec18 None. That's why no scientists do. They simply entertain the possibility and look for evidence one way or the other.
@@chosenrubric7308 "Evidence one way or the other" of what, precisely?
@@sjkdec18 The multiverse. Although the same can be applied to God.
@@chosenrubric7308 what would "evidence" look like?
Can't let that "accident" comment slide. An accident is when one outcome is intended and another occurs; a random event that occurs without intent cannot be described as accidental. This means that any attempt to say we're all just a "cosmic accident" is still smuggling in the very intent hypotheses like a multi-verse negate.
EDIT: There were a few challenges below that helped me clarify my issue with the use of accident, so I'm bring up a portion of a response....
I just thought of another way to present my issue. PragerU presents the dichotomy as design vs. accident, but this is misleading. Instead, it is design vs. heretofore unknown processes that don't require agency. As the leaf example illustrates, there are countless instances of the latter where the event overcomes astronomical odds yet we recognize them as being banal. Rarity does nothing to steer thought toward design.
More pointedly for this discussion, using "accident" brings in the perspective of the sentient beings making the observation, the value they place on life and the impact the event had on that value. Far from the properly dispassionate approach to answering the question (edit: or even _describing_ the question), calling it an "accident" serves no purpose other than to allow for equivocation and emotional appeals.
Semantics. People use that that word all the time for similar ideas (e.g. accident of birth). The actual meaning of the claim is that the current situation, if caused by chance, would have been extremely unlikely. Don't concern yourself too much with the wording. Besides, what does prager u have to win in convincing people that reality is a "cosmic accident" as opposed to "an event brought upon by unlikely circumstances"?
*Semantics.... Don't concern yourself too much with the wording.*
I disagree. It's precisely this kind of language fuzziness that apologists use to mislead people.
*what does prager u have to win in convincing people that reality is a "cosmic accident" as opposed to "an event brought upon by unlikely circumstances"?*
Apologetics often appeal to emotion over logic and the hidden intent makes "accident" more evocative.
*Oswelek* - You have added _"when one outcome is intended"_ to the definition of "accident". Not so much semantics as just wrong.
*You have added "when one outcome is intended" to the definition of "accident". Not so much semantics as just wrong.*
From dictionary.com:
_1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap:_
This quite clearly meets my criteria. Other uses, such as in the statement _"we met by accident",_ aren't as overt about it, but it is still there. Our plans were X and outcome Y happened instead.
If I were to clarify my initial statement, it would be around the concept of agency. Rocks don't have accidents, thinking beings do. Even if someone intends "accident" as a perfect synonym for "chance" or "randomness", the term implies that an agent had something to do with the outcome. The agent may have mostly been a recipient of circumstance, they still had to put themselves into position to be affected by the randomness.
Either way, the term is still inappropriate and misleading.
*Oswlek* - It doesn't meet your criteria otherwise you wouldn't have had to modify it for your comment.
I will sometimes say that a crushed box in the boot of my car has met with an accident so it's not restricted to thinking beings.
And so now, you're absolutely my hero. ... Thank you for all of your work. ... Wonderful disseminations.
"You know that thing scientists cannot exactly prove yet, but entertain for good reasons?"
"Yeah. The multiverse, right?"
"Right. It is just like my implausible and unfalsifiable belief in God."
Came for the bashing of Prager U...stayed for the Rick and Morty clips. 😆
The opening advertisement was for prageru! LoL!
chris angel , I keep getting ADs from a Canadian Shopify scammer who pretends to record from Florida while walking through a home with a yellow car in it.
AugustHovel How do you block them?
Chris, they KNOW! You need to wake up, unplug yourself before they jack you back into the Matrix!
The "why" of the expansion of space from the universe's initial state is the self-necessitating result of geometry. The expansion was immediate because it was not geometrically possible for the universe to possess a spatial size of zero for any nonzero duration. The reason for this is easier to visualize by reducing the universe by two dimensions and using a sphere as a representation of the universe, with the X- and Y-axes representing the universe's spatial dimensions and the Z-axis represents the temporal dimension (a cone serves perfectly for the analogy as well, but let's just stick to a sphere for now).
If you measure the circumference and cross-section area of the sphere at the midpoint of the Z-axis, those values will be finite and nonzero, and will be larger than at any other point along the axis. Traveling north from the equator, these values for circumference and cross-section area will continuously decrease the closer to the north pole those values are measured. At any point along the Z-axis, however, those values will be finite and nonzero, with two exceptions: obviously, these will be the poles.
At the north pole of the sphere (we'll stick to the north for the sake of convenience), these values reach zero. South of the pole, in sections of nonzero thickness along the Z-axis, the circumference and cross-section area values, and thus the volume of this three-dimensional sphere segment, will be nonzero, and in fact, if we decide to deform the sphere so that it becomes cylindrical at some point between the north pole and equator, those values can remain constant for any arbitrary thickness of section of the sphere along its Z-axis. At the north pole, however, the values drop to zero, and they drop to zero at one and only one point. It is geometrically impossible for any three-dimensional shape to drop to circumference and cross-section area values of zero at any point along its Z-axis, and to then continue to possess values of zero for any nonzero length along that axis. If you can visualize what exactly is occurring here, it is plainly obvious why this has to be the case, and why it is nonsensical to suggest that the values of zero reached at the sphere's north pole could continue beyond it for even an infinitesimal distance.
This is why the universe expanded at Time Zero: it had to. Geometry simply does not allow the universe to possess a spatial size of zero for anything but an "instant": the singularity constituting the universe's initial state, when, for a duration of exactly zero seconds, the universe possessed a size of zero, and all energy existed at a single point, resulting in the universe possessing analogues for "infinite" values for temperature and density (this is not true mathematical infinity, which is something that doesn't actually occur in nature; the universe's analogue for "infinite" temperature, for example, is called the Planck Temperature, about 10^32°F). There are other instances where the universe implements physical analogues for infinity when it needs to obtain finite values when multiplying by zero. The universal speed limit of 670,616,629 MPH, for instance, exists for essentially the same reason; massless particles like photons need to travel at an "infinite" speed in order to possess meaningful values for momentum, whilst particles with nonzero mass are prohibited from reaching the speed of light by this same principle. This underlying concept appears throughout physics. Its inverse, for example, explains why matter can't be cooled to absolute zero, as well as why time stops (i.e.: time dilation becoming infinite) at the speed of light.
If this seems deceptively simple, it is. Very nearly as simple as the answer to the question, asked probably just as often, of "why there [is] something rather than nothing". Next time that question comes up, try responding with "why do you assume the default state would be 'nothing?'." And when the questions arise: "where did the universe come from?", "how could something be created from nothing?", and "what was there before the Big Bang?", you really need go no further than "it didn't", "it couldn't", and "there wasn't".
I love how me and him both said "not exactly" in sync on the first point, I'm currently working on my astrophysics degree and he skips a few things. I'm not sure he's really an astrophysicist. He's probably just reading a script, with good attention getters.
Where's this faith I'm told I have?
Store Patter! No, no, no, and no.
it's about two blocks down
You forgot about the Flying Spaghetti Monster
He's such a *_saucy_* soul! ; )
Praise His noodly appendages !
And the invisible unicorn who endorses pizza hawaii.
R'amen
R'amen
Thanks for your extremely logical argument style.
You seriously are someone to aspire to.
My mom asked me why my room is a mess. I told her it's because a miniature tornado spontaneously erupted in my room and fucked shit up.
It's not true, but that doesn't matter, cause it's an answer, and that's all we need according to PragerU
Why don't you have more subs?
wiidiwii, it's a relatively new channel but I am confident it'll keep on growing.
He has enough. Shady Ivan is the real crime.
Store Patter! What do you mean? I'm confused lol
So are you saying GMS accepts Islam and that's a bad thing? Just trying to tell if you're saying you're for or against Islam.
Jeez PragurU gets on my nerves. No one "believes" in the multiverse. It's only a possibility. But it's a serious possibility. The idea of a multiverse was not something derived to answer how the universe seems to be fine tuned. It's an independant thing. It's predicted by string theory.
Paul TheSkeptic But there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory. So it may very well be possible, but as far as we know now, it's certainly not probable.
Well, that one of the common criticisms of string theory. There could be evidence at some point but there is none now. But the way he put it, it's as though accepting science is just a religion and people who accept science have faith in multiverse theory in the same way that religious people have faith in God. That's stupid. I don't have to "believe" in multiverse theory in order to not believe in God. It doesn't work that way.
@@PaulTheSkeptic "It's only a possibility" is a faith-based statement.
The "why" of the expansion of space from the universe's initial state is the self-necessitating result of geometry. The expansion was immediate because it was not geometrically possible for the universe to possess a spatial size of zero for any nonzero duration. The reason for this is easier to visualize by reducing the universe by two dimensions and using a sphere as a representation of the universe, with the X- and Y-axes represent the universe's spatial dimensions and the Z-axis represents the temporal dimension.
If you measure the circumference and cross-section area of the sphere at the midpoint of the Z-axis, those values will be finite and nonzero, and will be larger than at any other point along the axis. Traveling north from the equator, these values for circumference and cross-section area will continuously decrease the closer to the north pole those values are measured. At any point along the Z-axis, however, those values will be finite and nonzero, with two exception: obviously, these will be the poles.
At the north pole of the sphere, these values reach zero. South of the pole, in sections of nonzero thickness along the Z-axis, the circumference and cross-section area values will be nonzero, and in fact, if we deform the sphere so that it becomes cylindrical at some point between the north pole and equator, those values can remain constant for any arbitrarily thickness of section of the sphere along its Z-axis. At the north pole, however, the values drop to zero, and they drop to zero at one and only one point. It is geometrically impossible for any three-dimensional shape to drop to circumference and cross-section area values of zero at any point along its Z-axis, and to continue to possess values of zero for any nonzero length along that axis. If you can visualize what exactly is occurring here, it is plainly obvious why this has to be the case, and why it is preposterous to suggest that the values of zero reached at the sphere's north pole could continue beyond it for even an infinitesimal distance.
This is why the universe expanded at Time Zero: it had to. Geometry simply does not allow the universe to possess a spatial size of zero for anything but an "instant": the singularity constituting the universe's initial state, when, for a duration of exactly zero seconds, the universe possessed a size of zero, and all energy existed at a single point, resulting in the universe possessing analogues for "infinite" values for temperature and density (this is not true infinity; the universe's analogue for "infinite" temperature, for example, is called the Planck Temperature, about 10^32°F). There are other instances where the universe implements physical analogues for infinity when it needs to obtain finite values when multiplying by zero. The universal speed limit of 186,282 MPS, for instance, exists for essentially the same reason; massless particles like photons need to travel at an "infinite" speed in order to possess meaningful values for momentum, whilst particles with nonzero mass are prohibited from reaching the speed of light by this same principle. This underlying concept appears throughout physics. Its inverse, for example, explains why matter can't be cooled to absolute zero, as well as why time stops (i.e.: time dilation becoming infinite) at the speed of light.
If this seems deceptively simple, it is. Very nearly as simple as the answer to the question, asked probably just as often, of "why there [is] something rather than nothing". Next time that question comes up, try responding with "why do you assume the default state would be 'nothing?'." And when the questions arise: "where did the universe come from?", "how could something be created from nothing?", and "what was there before the Big Bang?", you really need go no further than "it didn't", "it couldn't", and "there wasn't".
This is the first time in months that I've heard any PragerU content outside of the context of a YTP
But remember God loves you...
And he needs money!
Loljk peace :)
God loves u so much that he created hell just in case u don't love him back!!
@butch oblick lol 😂😂 I mean non-believers are shaping the world we live in today lol and have contributed vastly throughout the years matter of fact they're 93% of the elite scientific club that shapes our world today.
@butch oblick yea but let's hope that those "non-believers" are actually scientifically and historically literate not just a matter of scoffing at the majority of dumb believers cause scoffing at them will make no good but rather showing them the historical, scientific, and objective evidence will actually help but as Neil degrasse tyson said "there's 7% of the elite scientific club that claim a personal god so maybe believing in a god isn't really that easy to take away" (sorry if my grammar wasn't proper because I'm typing while on the run.) to me as I see it we don't need more non believers but rather less humans with egocentric and egotistical view of the world and more scientifically and historically literate people that comprehend what Carl sagan has said "There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known" and that's it.
@butch oblick I can't possibly agree more. :)
Carl sagan for life indeed.🔥🔥
@butch oblick
Agreed people are waking up this Puts a smile on my face.
4:37
You made a mistake there. "A point of essentially infinite mass and density".
No, the mass was not infinite, not even close. Only the density was. All the mass was crammed into a single point, but the mass was finite.
Actually, Francis (and Momento Mori), not true at all. That is not the scientifically sound description (or definition) of a singularity. Singularities associated with General Relativity are not 'things' as such, but a term for boundary conditions arrived at by extrapolating GR well beyond the regime of the theory's useful applicability.
Just the *close approach* to temperature / density conditions associated with the need to speak of singularities of a GR spacetime sort in these extrapolations will properly require a quantum theory of gravity, not GR... and we have no such thing, despite efforts to conceive one.
"Infinite density" is not a term generally considered "physical" by cosmologists, as opposed to a conceptual leap to a boundary condition following mathematical extrapolation. Mathematicians are characteristically not too concerned or bothered by non-physical mathematical constructs... but physicists sure are if these are proposed as serious conjectural or hypothetical answers to theoretical problems associated with physical systems.
The philosophically inclined framing philosophical interpretations may have a different view; but that is not germaine to the sense of the original post initiating this sub-thread.
Memento Mori: Just to give you some credit; you are not entirely wrong in a Newtonian description of an expanding universe. For that model there could exist a finite amount of matter and equations from Newton's Laws would tell you that as time goes to zero, space goes to zero and density diverges (a singularity of a sort).
Of course a Newtonian description of the dynamics of the Universe is not the best we can do (although it is surprisingly accurate for an ideal homogeneous and isotropic universe). The thing we need to develop more accurate models is General Relativity and singularities in this theory are not a part of spacetime (see Frederick J.'s post). To quote Gertrude Stein, "There is no there there."
If someone ever tries bringing up the multiverse theory as if I'd use to as an argument against theism (I wouldn't; that's silly), I would ask them if they think their god is incapable of creating more than one universe
The idea of fine-tuning is based on the idea that probabilities can be assigned to the laws of physics. This is usually done by imagining that any ratio between the fundamental constants of nature is possible, though it's unclear to me how one would assign probabilities, since saying that every ratio is equally likely stops having an obvious definite meaning when you try to quantify it. In any case, however, the other part of the argument is the idea that the vast majority of these "possible" universes would be inhospitable to life. Ideally this would mean any sort of possibly conceiveable life, which is usually based on the idea that the universe would necessarily perpetually remain in some kind of very boring state like only photons. This version of the idea is immune to the puddle argument, though it's not easy to say if it's really true or not, even assuming a particular way of assigning probabilities to universes; however, I do often hear the overly simplified version which just points out that even tiny changes would make life as we know it impossible.