5 ms·

I finished it now. It did not get any better. Most of his arguments can be boiled down to "science can't explain that so it must be god". No. Towards the end h

by eis 4y ago

I finished it now. It did not get any better. Most of his arguments can be boiled down to "science can't explain that so it must be god". No. Towards the end he shows a lack of understanding of statistics. He claims if any infinitesmally small change to the laws of nature would have caused an uninhabitable universe then it must have been specifically designed the way it is. He brings several examples that actually are all the exact same argument. The mistake here is that he assumes that there was only one random try at creating this universe and that we cannot have been sooo extremely lucky. There is no reason to believe that there was only one try. What if there were a large number of tries? If all the other tries resulted in uninhabitable universes then of course us being in the lucky version must make us think this was not random chance. Example: ask a large number of people to flip a coin ten times. Eventually you will reach someone that actually flipped ten times heads in succession. What would that guy think? Clearly that's not a normal coin and you designed the whole thing to be like that because what are the odds of him flipping ten times heads? He does not know about the other thousand people you had play this game that didn't get ten times heads.

al_mandi 4y ago
> There is no reason to believe that there was only one try. Exactly what he mentions in his talk, on what are you basing this belief? It's a metaphysical claim that is outside the realm of science. You just proved his point.
- eis 4y ago
  Erm, what? I disproved his point. He claims because us being in this unlikely universe is proof for a design. No, it's a logical fallacy as I outlined in the example of flipping coins. The video presenter is the guy who flipped 10 times heads and claims "See! God made this happen!" Can you please point to the exact time in the video where he mentions multiple tries? That would contradict his own point about the low chance and hence design. He assumes there was only one "flip of the coin". There is zero reason to assume this and so his whole argument falls because when his assumption does not apply then mathematics tells us there is absolutely nothing special about finding ourselves in that "unlikely" universe because actually when taking a step back it isn't unlikely, it is pretty much guaranteed - completely without anyone designing it that way.
  - al_mandi 4y ago
    > Can you please point to the exact time in the video where he mentions multiple tries? I was referring to what you wrote. You said that there's no reason that there weren't multiple tries to get the universe just right to support life. I'm saying that's a metaphysical claim you just made, which is outside the realm of science, which is the point the presenter was making.
    - eis 4y ago
      I can actually use his own logic to prove the opposite point of his claim. Since his reasoning only works if there was one (or very few) tries wouldn't it be very unlikely to have had few tries compared to a much high number of possibly inifite tries? That means his case is in fact the unlikely case (few tries and hence likely design). What I am saying is that we have no reason to assume and certainly no proof for ANY number of tries so we can't deduce what he claims. But if you follow his reasoning then he actually would need to come to the opposite conclusion that he came to. I am not making the metaphysical claim, he is making it. I am only showing that his own logic works against him. Anyone who claims god exists is in the realm of metaphysical.
      - al_mandi 4y ago
        > What I am saying is that we have no reason to assume and certainly no proof for ANY number of tries Who made the tries?
- 0134340 4y ago
  It seems like he's wanting to borrow science or at least some logic when it supports his argument but when it comes to the gods, he wants to say they exist outside of science and logic. This is a common argument and it's not ultimately falsifiable, ie, 'I say it's true because you can't prove otherwise'. And so too do invisible flying fairies exist who render themselves outside the realms of science due to magic pixie dust.
  - al_mandi 4y ago
    And so is any other argument to attempt to explain what was before the universe. Those are outside the realms of science. And furthermore, just because something is not falsifiable does not make it untrue. We exist in this world after all, so something had to have happened at the start. I posted that lecture as an intro to broaden people's perspectives. It is then a proof by induction to reach the correct religion that explains our world. Some signs are summarized on www.provingislam.com. There are lots of great scholars who have presented many proofs on the matter.
    - eis 4y ago
      > And so is any other argument to attempt to explain what was before the universe. Those are outside the realms of science. That's the point of the submitted article. That any theory that cannot be proven should not be paid much attention to. They are nice thought experiments but that's it. > And furthermore, just because something is not falsifiable does not make it untrue. Neither does it make it true. The point is if there can't be proof then it's pointless to think too much about it. > I posted that lecture as an intro to broaden people's perspectives. Unfortunately the video failed miserably at that. It was full of wrong claims and conclusions, logic errors and on top used the same attacks on certain groups that it in the beginning complained about. > It is then a proof by induction to reach the correct religion that explains our world. Some signs are summarized on www.provingislam.com. There are lots of great scholars who have presented many proofs on the matter. You said there were proofs in the video. There were none whatsoever. You can't follow a proof of induction based on wrong premises. Religion does not explain our world, science does (to some extend). Religion is a tool that has been used for good and bad throughout history. Please don't refer to more outside sources that supposedly contain proof but bring one solid proof here yourself. So far everything has been debunked.

by eis 4y ago

al_mandi 4y ago

> There is no reason to believe that there was only one try. Exactly what he mentions in his talk, on what are you basing this belief? It's a metaphysical claim that is outside the realm of science. You just proved his point.

eis 4y ago
Erm, what? I disproved his point. He claims because us being in this unlikely universe is proof for a design. No, it's a logical fallacy as I outlined in the example of flipping coins. The video presenter is the guy who flipped 10 times heads and claims "See! God made this happen!" Can you please point to the exact time in the video where he mentions multiple tries? That would contradict his own point about the low chance and hence design. He assumes there was only one "flip of the coin". There is zero reason to assume this and so his whole argument falls because when his assumption does not apply then mathematics tells us there is absolutely nothing special about finding ourselves in that "unlikely" universe because actually when taking a step back it isn't unlikely, it is pretty much guaranteed - completely without anyone designing it that way.
- al_mandi 4y ago
  > Can you please point to the exact time in the video where he mentions multiple tries? I was referring to what you wrote. You said that there's no reason that there weren't multiple tries to get the universe just right to support life. I'm saying that's a metaphysical claim you just made, which is outside the realm of science, which is the point the presenter was making.
  - eis 4y ago
    I can actually use his own logic to prove the opposite point of his claim. Since his reasoning only works if there was one (or very few) tries wouldn't it be very unlikely to have had few tries compared to a much high number of possibly inifite tries? That means his case is in fact the unlikely case (few tries and hence likely design). What I am saying is that we have no reason to assume and certainly no proof for ANY number of tries so we can't deduce what he claims. But if you follow his reasoning then he actually would need to come to the opposite conclusion that he came to. I am not making the metaphysical claim, he is making it. I am only showing that his own logic works against him. Anyone who claims god exists is in the realm of metaphysical.
    - al_mandi 4y ago
      > What I am saying is that we have no reason to assume and certainly no proof for ANY number of tries Who made the tries?
0134340 4y ago
It seems like he's wanting to borrow science or at least some logic when it supports his argument but when it comes to the gods, he wants to say they exist outside of science and logic. This is a common argument and it's not ultimately falsifiable, ie, 'I say it's true because you can't prove otherwise'. And so too do invisible flying fairies exist who render themselves outside the realms of science due to magic pixie dust.
- al_mandi 4y ago
  And so is any other argument to attempt to explain what was before the universe. Those are outside the realms of science. And furthermore, just because something is not falsifiable does not make it untrue. We exist in this world after all, so something had to have happened at the start. I posted that lecture as an intro to broaden people's perspectives. It is then a proof by induction to reach the correct religion that explains our world. Some signs are summarized on www.provingislam.com. There are lots of great scholars who have presented many proofs on the matter.
  - eis 4y ago
    > And so is any other argument to attempt to explain what was before the universe. Those are outside the realms of science. That's the point of the submitted article. That any theory that cannot be proven should not be paid much attention to. They are nice thought experiments but that's it. > And furthermore, just because something is not falsifiable does not make it untrue. Neither does it make it true. The point is if there can't be proof then it's pointless to think too much about it. > I posted that lecture as an intro to broaden people's perspectives. Unfortunately the video failed miserably at that. It was full of wrong claims and conclusions, logic errors and on top used the same attacks on certain groups that it in the beginning complained about. > It is then a proof by induction to reach the correct religion that explains our world. Some signs are summarized on www.provingislam.com. There are lots of great scholars who have presented many proofs on the matter. You said there were proofs in the video. There were none whatsoever. You can't follow a proof of induction based on wrong premises. Religion does not explain our world, science does (to some extend). Religion is a tool that has been used for good and bad throughout history. Please don't refer to more outside sources that supposedly contain proof but bring one solid proof here yourself. So far everything has been debunked.