 |
Duration: 10:48 minutes Upload Time: 2007-03-26 19:07:44 User: ambassador1022 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Tags:
ambassador1022 Atheism Atheist Logic Illogical Design God Jesus Truth Christian Christianity Fine Tune Tuning Dawkins
Description: Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvGz-gaU0cg Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Xcch4h7Xk ----------- In this video I clarify some of the things I said in my "Atheism is Illogical" video. I also expand on the arguments based on fine tuning. LINKS http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200608_fine_tuning_for_life_in_the_universe.shtml http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013v3.pdf |
|
Comments | |
| logic11isGod ::: Favorites 2007-06-06 10:07:40 An example of why you are wrong: Take a deck of cards, shuffle them, and then write down the order of them. What are the odds of that particular order coming up? Well, exactly the same as any other order. This only matters if you wrote down the order before you shuffled the cards... the universe isn't predicated on the need for life, life is predicated on the universe. __________________________________________________ | |
| logic11isGod ::: Favorites 2007-06-06 10:04:50 The thing is, you are already on that slope with the god argument. First, you assume that the current state of the universe is the perfect state, and is the goal of the universe. Instead, what if the universe just is, and we are a random result? __________________________________________________ | |
| WinterXL ::: Favorites 2007-05-01 14:31:57 Cool :) I was more trying to understand the "be fine tuned" as a verb (in a theism-neural context). I think got it now that it's just a particular phrasing of the fact that the universe has succeeded in existing by meeting decidedly remote probabilities. __________________________________________________ | |
| ambassador1022 ::: Favorites 2007-05-01 12:51:37 Also... complexity implies design simply because the more complex something is, the less likely it is that it assembled itself by chance. With extreme examples, the probability is so low it approaches impossible. __________________________________________________ | |
| ambassador1022 ::: Favorites 2007-05-01 12:50:23 Sure. Saying "it needs to be fine tuned to within 1 to the 120" means 1 in 10 to the power of 120. Incase you arent familiar with powers, 10 to the power of 120 is equal to 1 followed by 120 zeros. __________________________________________________ | |
| WinterXL ::: Favorites 2007-05-01 06:14:59 As well, at one point you say that it would "need to be fined tuned to within 1 to the 120". Could you clarify what that means to a layperson (it's 5am so maybe I should get some sleep)? __________________________________________________ | |
| WinterXL ::: Favorites 2007-05-01 06:12:22 Granted, it's probably due to being more of a layperson :P, but I don't understand how it follows that complexity of any magnitude gives rise to implications of design. It seems to me that it's follows naturally from "the way things are", i.e. self evident (or something). __________________________________________________ | |
| ambassador1022 ::: Favorites 2007-04-08 01:17:48 If you start playing the game of "why didn't God do it this way" you are on a slippery slope. Why didn't God give us wings? Why didn't God allow us to teleport? Why didn't God make water taste like candy? I think the earth not being set up from day 1 increases the fine tuning argument because you are dealing with 8 billion years of fine-tuned expansion & galaxy/star formation. __________________________________________________ | |
| adaminc ::: Favorites 2007-04-08 01:03:17 I'm wondering, if there was a designer who designed earth for life, why wasnt earth setup perfectly for life from day 1, seems to negate designer fine tuning, unless you consider a deistic god and not a theistic god __________________________________________________ | |
| ambassador1022 ::: Favorites 2007-04-01 16:08:03 It can be dismissed by the anthropic principle? Hmmm, there's an issue with that. You are making the assumption that many universes exist. Without first proving this implicit claim, the entire argument is invalidated. __________________________________________________ | |
| cadeeltonmayberry ::: Favorites 2007-04-01 13:11:10 "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." --Carl Sagan __________________________________________________ | |
| cadeeltonmayberry ::: Favorites 2007-04-01 13:08:51 The fine-tuning argument can be dismissed by the anthropic principle. Perhaps most universes do not contain any life, the laws do not permit it. This one does however, otherwise we would not be here to observe it. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment