This is ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” – Debunked.
To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules
To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules
And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule
1. ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existience”: https://youtu.be/-jxdIt2_WI0
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you understand and articulate the fallacies and errors in ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” (and of course Arguments from Improbability in general). Stay rational my fellow apes.
I would like to add something but know that few will understand that what I am saying is true. Probability is only useful for guessing future events and is not really real. What do I mean by this weird statement? If I flip a coin and it lands with the "heads" side face up and I ask what is the probability that I would have that result? The actual answer is a 100% probability. Before I flip the coin it is a 50% probability, but after I flip the coin the answer is known and therefore 100% every time. What is the probability that earth would produce anything that it has produced? The surprising answer is 100% probability for everything that has occurred in the past and present. Probability is only meant to account for the myriad of unknown factors in order to have a reasonable guess for a future event. If you are able to account for all the factors of a future event then the probability of the result is not real. If I put an ignition source to the gas coming out of my stove what is the probability that it will light? Well it will light every time. Reality has many things that are repeatable and their is no probability. Probability is only useful when we have imperfect knowledge about all the factors of a future event, which is quite often.
When the video says it is unlikely humans came into existence they should have specified it's unlikely that *Life* came into existence.
Nothing to do with evolution.
It is easy to debunk their argument.
But you had to use statistics.
I don't think you are very familiar with working with statistics.
The problem is that they need to also assign a % chance X of god existing and a % chance Y of god not existing. And then they needed to multiply those %chances by the %chances which they assumed in the video. There was nothing wrong at all with their logic.
It's simple statistics they just didn't finish the calculation.
I guess you could say ignoring the top half of the square they made was a flaw of "logic" seeing as you love that word.
Also that final argument fails to account for entropy. It's not just unlikely that a castle would randomly build itself from the wind randomly blowing stones into place. The second law of thermo dynamics tells you that's it's impossible.
One can make the same argument for life being created from nothing.
Someone Should do a R/ScienceCringe so many kids in their moms basement with their web dictionary up on their phone typing college style thesis comment reply’s that make zero fucking sense .
Let me add some giant words so I can sound like I’m smart even thou I don’t even use them properly in a correct sentence
What kind of idiot are you ?
What would be the goal of this life if we knew everything about God ? Of course we can't prove scientifically his existance but what would be the point ? Is this even an argument ?
When we ask atheists who made our brains, eyes, the universe and all this complexity and perfection around us, you guys sream 'big bang theory... evolution theory" or "this is a pure coincidence...that our earth is located at the right discance from the sun......".
A God is a god, he's uncreated. Of course we have questions like is our universe infinite which i believe it is but we cannot deny's God existance. I know you will tell me, can you prove to me that God exists ? Look around you and ask yourself the above questions and points.
I'd like to point out the fallacy that I found in their argument, and the one that I think was the most important in the whole thing, they made the assumption that humans were the required end result for a success, rather than any sentient life in the universe being the real end marker for the likelihood that humans exist. Because if life had developed in the Andromeda system, its quite possible they would end up having similar discussions about the origin of life. So the real probability here is the chance that sentient life forms develop in the universe at some point or another, since only the side arguing for god are making the argument that humans as an endpoint is important.
A lot of people make fun of those that believe in a higher being. They laugh at Genesis and when confronted about the creation of the universe, they're basically saying that they come from rock soup 😂😂😂. Then go on and blabber about how, at least they're trying to explore the universe through science. Which is great and all, but the case is still that everyone who believes in the big bang theory are "religious". This is because we as humans don't have an accurate way to prove how the creation of the universe is created, so we have faith that a tiny dot exploded and began to expand and that over time it rained on rocks and we became soup people 😂. This is why aliens don't visit us
+Ricky where are the facts buddy? Please tell me factually how the universe came into existence? I say it's also a religion based on the "fact" that mankind doesn't know how the big bang happened. Thus they have come up with a theory towards it and so far "the big bang theory" is the most acceptable theory among scientists. This however doesn't mean that this theory is a fact.
Nobody other than Christians think we came from rocks and dirt.
The Big Bang Theory is based on facts hence the name, "theory"
Also, there's nothing "religious" about the Big Bang Theory.
Please try harder or at least educate yourself.
There's another thing that bothers me with their argument, a very important one that I think you missed, and that is to assume that a god being more probable to create life than luck implies that it's more probable that life was created by god and not luck. That is not as obvious as you think it is, it absolutely isn't. If A is the set of events where God exists, and B is the one where life is created, then this would be like saying that P(B|A) = P(A|B) which is generally not the case. This is not a minor detail, this is fundamentally wrong, and especially in a question where your core argument is probability, how can you jump the actual calculation?
Let's try to find a counter-example to this, and I'm going to be a bit macabre on the example. Let's say that you're in a room that is being filled with water, and there's an exit on the ceiling. You will drown, unless that exit is opened, which it will with a 1/1000 chance. Now there are two cases, you're either alone in there, or there's a serial killer with you, and you're actually on his list, and there's a 1/1000000 chance that this is the case. The serial murder has a 1/10 chance to kill you before the water rises. Therefore the probability that you die given that there is a serial killer is higher than the probability that you die without a serial killer, as now you're facing a double threat.
Now let's say that you died. What is now the probability that there was a serial killer inside? The truth is, it's minimal, it's actually close to 1/1000000 (but not quite) and I invite you to calculate it, though common sense should already tell you that it's an insane proposition. It would be wrong to assume that since you died (event B), the probability of there being a killer (event A) is higher than the probability of there being none, based on the fact that the probability of you dying if there is a killer is higher than the probability if there is none. The implication you're making is
P(B|A) > P(B| not A) => P(A|B) > P(not A | B)
And that is obviously not true in general, as our case shows. To calculate this, btw, you will need conditional probability, and Bayes' formula, which tells you exactly how to express P(A|B) in terms of P(B|A). It's certainly not an equality, let me tell you that. If I find time I'm happy to calculate it, but I guess that this is enough to show how fallacious this equality is.
Why would you correct his "centuries" with your "millennia"? What are thousands made of, if not for hundreds? I get the implication that a person speaking of hundreds should speak of thousands beyond the tenth.
evolution doesn't make sense either because there is no evidence of the big bang or evolution ever happening because life is just way to complicated for a explosion to create; someone has to have created it explosions don't have minds and monkeys have to be created by someone same with everything else.
Bro evolution has nothing to do with it. Evolution only started after the universe came to be. But where does the universe come from? That is where atheists say its pure chance and theists say that chance would be ridiculous. So your whole video debunks nothing.
+Adam Vert Thanks for keeping it respectful. I'm also going to study maths and physics btw. My argument with the thousands of scientists was just to say that me, a christian that is uneducated on that topic, is not the only one who is not believing evolution theory to be true. Rather there are some intellectuals who know their shit and still disagree. Therefore my opinion is not just ignoring science since there are scientists who also have this opinion.
Go to your midterm then. I will look into it. But I really doubt that this will convince. Macroevolution is supposed to happen over thousands to millions of years. How would a scientist observe that? What has been observed are things like "change of fur colour over generations to adapt new climate". But this is just variation. This doesn't prove that we could've evolved from bacteria, lizards or monkeys. Nature tends to become chaotic over time. Not more complex and better structured.
I do not plan on insulting you for questioning evolution, I think it is nearly every credible scientist's opinion that questioning things is the basis for progression. Where I do have strong contentions is when you try to explain why evolution isn't credible. For one, you say that there are thousands of scientists who disagree with the theory. Im sure that is true, but if that is how we are judging truths then would you agree that because 25% of Americans believe astrology to be true that is also up for a debate? Of course not. And if you want examples from scientists, then take Einstein. Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics until the day he died. He painstakingly spent his later years trying to disprove it, but it didn't matter. As evidence poured out it was more and more clear that Einstein was wrong. Quantum Mechanics is one of the most accurate theories ever found.
What I'm saying here is that even if thousands of scientists don't believe in evolution millions do. Being able to find a handful of scientists who oppose a theory, even if they are as credible as Einstein, does not contradict mountains of evidence, which yes we do have, and no it's not flawed.
I would love to explain why macroevolution has been observed but I have to go to my midterm now (I'm studying mathematical physics). I recommend that you look into the Florida and Alaskan rabbits which have macroevolved during human observations.
All the best
+Adam Vert Yes, I hear that a lot. Only that science never did and never will disprove God. That's not its job. Science explains how things work. But it can never tell you if the universe was created by chance or through God. Furthermore is the theory of evolution not as solid as people claim it is. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution. A lot of atheists take this theory to disprove that God created humans. So in this case science and religion start to mix, which is dangerous. It is dangerous because one is not allowed anymore to question the theory. Even now with me saying that, I'm sure you're planning how you are going to insult me for not believing into the Evolution theory. But do we have prove for this theory? No (we only have prove for microevolution, but not for macroevolution which is the core of the theory). We have a lot of evidence which we puzzle together into this theory. But the evolution theory is just one way to interprete that knowledge. Compare to this: Imagine we find the bones of different dog races. Small ones and big ones. Now according to the evolution theory (if we didn't know about dogs) we would make the conclusion that the small dog developed into the big dog. But as we all know that is not the case, rather both dogs have the same ancestor the wolf. You see how easy it to interprete the same facts in two totally different ways? The evolution theory is one way to interprete a lot of things. But it has major flaws. And for that reason I don't believe in it. So don't come here and tell me that the evolution how we were not created. The evolution is a theory that makes sense, but has its flaws and can be wrong (after all in science you are allowed to question). But atheist scientists don't allow us to question the theory because it would interfere with their worldview that there is no God. Nevertheless the evolution theory is not a fact and therefore does not disprove creation.
In that part, he's directly addressing the claim that "god made humans" as asking the chance of a god making humans is a badly formed question because evolution shows that we came through millions of years of small genetic changes, not by a direct creation. This changes the question "did god make humans" to "did god create life" which dramatically changes the odds. He also didn't claim to know where the universe came from. He simply was pointing out the fallacies in their argument. If someone states something ridiculous, it is not the responsibility of someone else to find or prove the truth, it is sufficient to prove the ridiculous claim wrong. Take his alien/pyramid exaxmple, if someone claims that the pyramids were made by aliens, we do not need definitive proof that humans did it just to debunk that theory. This is what much of science does, it is often not finding out truths but eliminating falsehoods.
You took ASAP point of view very differently than I did. I think the point of giving the possibilities No god, 1 god, multiple gods and the sims is fro people to notice that although the probability of 1 god being higher than no god, by that argument then we live in a simulation created by multiple gods, not in a world created by 1. I guess the point to me was, not just because its more probable can we assume that its true.
Also I think its important to criticise the things that you disagree overall, not with the order in which things are stated. Whats the point on criticising him for picking random numbers if he does explain (even though its later on the video) that the numbers are not relevant...
Either way, I like your videos, just think that in this case you debunked a video that supports the existence of god and evolution (just like you), even though they didn't mention it directly.
They completely violated the book “How Not to Be Wrong, The Power of Mathematical Thinking”. The chart was directly taking from that book. And if you read the book from start to finish, the book itself would debunk ASAP’s video. He explicitly said you cant do that AND math has no say in the matter. Another point, if you arent a math major, dont say what math can or cant prove
I don't actually think that asap science were trying to prove god exists. They used and argument that theists bring up and showed that it was absurd. I don't think they conveyed it well tho. Maybe I'm wrong who knows
No that is not arbitrary value that makes six 6s a surprize result. It has less Kolmogrov complexity. The less the complexity the higher the probability that it is caused by a non-random process.
The theists usually bring about the fine-tuning argument. Not the basic Paley-type arguments.
> 1) "Actually" is a really pretentious way to start your point
> 2) All millennia are made up of centuries, so saying "for centuries" is just as accurate as saying "for millennia", just as saying "for milliseconds" would also be accurate (just not a very useful descriptor)
If everything comes from something and nothing is created from nothing dont you just end up with an endless loop of things and their sources? Like how does something like that start? If everything is created from something else then isn’t it impossible to have a beginning? I haven’t watched the whole thing yet but feel free to share your thoughts.
If the video was reffering to the origin of and the complexity of life we have an answer to that. It's best explained by neo-darwinian evolution. If the video was talking about some constants of nature that seem extremely "fine-tuned" then we don't know the answer yet but that doesn't mean that there is no answer and certainly doesn't make supernatural explanations any more plausible. To quote David Deutsch: "The existence of an unsolved problem in physics is no more evidence for a supernatural explanation than the existence of an unsolved crime is evidence that a ghost committed it".
regarding your snowflake remark, that's actually a common mistake made by people. They find a number they really like (in your case 6) and then suddenly that number appears everywhere and oh look how important that number is. But this applies to pretty much any number. Your favorite number is 1? Oh look at that we have exactly 1 sun and 1 moon, and it only takes the earth 1 year to go around the sun, and look at that there is only 1 sentient race on Earth. Or how about two? We have two genders and nearly every animal on the planet has two genders. We have two eyes, and two ears, and two hands, and two feet. Look at all these two! Or how about 3. Oh look at that 3 even exists in your 6. You can't make a hexagon without a number of triangles! Or how about 4? Look at that we have four seasons, and we have 4 limbs, and look how nicely a perfect square stacks and how we use boxes all the time in shipping!
+Tommylee Spartan Im tired of people telling me to read something i already have or telling me that i didnt read it even tho i know i have. People on here are really ignorant especially when it comes to god. Speak his name the the people go stupid.
Hawking radiation is the transfer of extreme levels of energy to the output of radiation, this is why, given enough time, black holes will "die". As you brought up physics I assume you are somewhat familiar with quantum theory, so you understand the concepts of particle and antiparticle pairs. Simply put Hawking Radiation is when a particle and antiparticle pair are just outside the event horizon, when they would typically collide and dissapear the black hole sucks in the antiparticle while allowing the particle to run free.
You could be reffering to the seemingly random nature of particles on a quantum level but there is no evidence that this disobeys the conservation of energy laws. Although this may seem to be created from nothing, there are experiments that demonstrate that when a particle randomly appears in one place, one randomly dissapears all the same.
I may be missing something but I don't believe Hawking Radiation demonstrates this phonemonon as you say.
I subscribed to Asap Science at one point because I thought it was actually scientific. But the more I watched the more I hated the videos. They are so dumb and biased. I unsubscribed and didn't see a video of them in a long time, so I don't know if my issues with the channel are still prominent, I won't give them another chance though.
At 3:28, you are arguing that they are begging the question, without demonstrating that is what they are doing. In fact with the first premise alone you can't make any judgement about the likelihood of God existing without also first establishing that humans exist
Actually, and this is a contention to Science ASAPs argument, they are talking about two very different things in premise 1 and the conclusion. In premise 1 they are talking about the likelihood of humans developing provided there is no God, in the conclusion they are talking about the likelihood of no God existing provided that humans developed. This is called the Prosecutor's Fallacy, where the likelihood of something occurring is conflated with the likelihood it did occur.
8:20 “Giant” Spaghetti Monster?! You deeply offend my fictitious faith in the fictitious FLYING Spaghetti Monster! I demand legislation forcing you to sincerely apologize to me for a full fortnight, and forego the consumption of spaghetti now and forevermore until death does... you... part?... from spaghetti!
If the probability of humans being created by some god creature is 1 in 4 billion billion, then since there are somewhere around 10 billion billion insects alive today and between 100 billion billion and 100 thousand billion billion nematodes, clearly it is massively more likely that we were created by nematodes than by a god.
They're also omitting the fact that a god or gods are spiritual beings and cannot be quantified or explained in a tangible sense. Even I know that religions are based on geographical location and socioeconomic and political environments and atmospheres. And largest basis of belief in God is that it is a personal feeling or preference
I'm semi religious and I'm with steve. And I'd like to point out that we have yet to determine even how many galaxies there are. Let alone planets. Let alone planets capable of sustaining life as we know it. Let alone the fact that what we call extremaphiles can and do exist and evolve in conditions completely unsuitable for most life on this planet pointing to the possibility of other evolutionary chains of life it could be possible that we can't understand or even be aware of
Critics of evolution through natural selection often mis-characterize it as "random" because of the role mutation plays in the process. I'm surprised to see ASAP Science did that in their video since it's framing the argument from the creationist's perspective. As you point out, evolution is not a random process.
Thank you for providing English subtitle in your videos. This really helps the non-native English speakers to fully appreciate and understand your works. and p.s: please do more videos about Islam. Many thanks
Yes, but *my* point was that the pegasus argument fails not by virtue of employing logical, deductive arguments but because it had flaws that any philosopher would immediately be able to point out.
The value of using logic to arrive at statements like "X is very unlikely" or "Y is most likely" is that, even without specific values given to these probabilities, we may say that we are justified in believing a proposition is most likely true and therefore this is all we need to have some justified confidence in a conclusion. I think everyone would agree that hard numbers is better but these kinds of arguments do give us something.
On that paper you linked me, one would have to do a better job to convince me and many others that philosophy is fundamentally bullshit. Hume didn't prove that philosophy was bullshit like the guy who wrote that paper said he did, he pointed out some problems that we need to take seriously. In fact, Hume's problem of induction has arguably been solved and replaced by what is called the "New Riddle of Induction", a much harder problem that, if solved, may have us no longer needing to justify out inductive practices.
The problem of an infinite regress of justification is nothing new to philosophers. To act like it is is ridiculous. Much of epistemology is to do with how we deal with this problem. Do we have some set of self-evident axioms to reason from (as the paper alluded to and for some reason criticised) or do we have some kind of web of beliefs where no single belief is the foundation and where all beliefs mutually aim to support one another (this is called coherentism). Do we have to trust our intuitions and seemings and the appearances they afford us in the same way that we trust the appearance of our sense experience?
As it is I believe that there are self-evident, foundational truths that we can reason from. I believe in foundationalism. But I need to do more reading on coherentism and foundherentism (the combination of the two).
What I'm saying is, none of this is new and none of this makes philosophy bullshit. I'm afraid, if philosophy is bullshit, so are all other human endeavours since all human endeavours require some foundational assumptions. We just need to make sure that the assumptions we're making are plausible and consistent with everything we observe and everything else we believe about reality.
Something that these "online atheist" communities seem to miss (and I am kind of part of these communities, it's my guilty pleasure) is that science is not some practice inherently divorced from philosophy. There is a 'philosophy of science' and it's very interesting. You learn that science is not infallible and that without some understanding of its philosophical underpinnings and a more nuanced view on its goals, it is bankrupt.
Philosophy, unfortunately for the guy that wrote this paper, is the least bullshit of all intellectual endeavours since all others rely on it for their existence and justification.
Unless you're a radical skeptic, that is. Then you don't mind accepting nothing. But then perhaps you're missing the point of philosophy. I think it might have been Galileo that said something like, "there is no point in doubting with your mind that which you believe in your heart" (I don't know if it actually was him or not). This isn't to mean that you should just blindly accept complex and important propositions like the existence of God (which some people do believe in their heart). It can never be 'self-evident' that a thing exists. We can always imagine that a thing does not exist and have the world be completely coherent. But these foundational truths such as the laws non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle and other axioms of mathematics may as well be trusted if they seem true in order to make meaningful progress in understanding the world in an almost 'common sense' way.
There is such a thing as common sense philosophy. Perhaps you'd find that more interesting than esoteric musings about epistemology.
I guess I didn’t make clear that my Pegasus example was meant to be just a example of the kind of rat-hole people go down when they try to use formal logic to discuss mythical beings or things for which there is no evidence for their existence, not an example of what I thought was clear logical arguments, but in fact the opposite.
I guess I don’t see a value in using formal logic to arrive at probability when you have no actual clue what the probability is and are just pulling numbers out of your ass. “Likely” is the way you play poker when you see what is in your hand and the other up cards on the table.
It’s been a long time since I read any Bertrand Russell. Yeah, he was a cool dude. Looks like the essay is available for download. I will give it a read. This is one of my favorite philosophy essays “Philosophy is Bullshit” by Robert G. Brown, a physics professor at Duke.
As for the Ontological argument, I always get hung up on step one just like you. If you define God as something that created our universe, why does it have to be “Maximally great” i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Why??? If you are going to claim that a sentient being created our universe, why does it need any greater attribute than the ability to create universes? Maybe it isn’t benevolent at all and just gets its jollies from watching things suffer and die. If this entity is so great, can it create an entity that can create universes? If so, then how can you assume that the entity that created our universe is the top dog? How many levels of turtles down, or up, does this thing go?
I might add, this is entirely why the ontological argument fails.
The ontological argument aims to show from the definition of God alone that he exists. This is flawed from conception as a definition has absolutely no metaphysical power. That is, with no grounding in observation we have no reason to believe that this argument applies to reality at all.
Here's a basic form of an ontological argument (of which there are many):
1) God is a maximally great being.
2) Maximally great beings contain all maximally great qualities.
3) Existence is a maximally great quality.
4) Therefore, God contains the quality of existence.
5) Therefore, God exists. (Optional)
Ignoring the fact that 'greatness' is subjective, you can indeed say that this form of the ontological argument begs the question. That is, to know that God is in fact maximally great in the first place (to know that premise 1 is sound) we must first know that he exists since part of being maximally great is existing. You have to accept that God exists before the argument even begins.
Arguments from definitions cannot prove the existence of a thing, it can only clarify relationships between our concepts.
This is why Kant believed that "existence" isn't really a quality like redness or squareness. Using "existence" as a quality breaks arguments in the same way that dividing by zero "breaks" mathematics.
I'm going to clear up a few things you had confused in that last reply. It seems like you're conflating a few very different forms of inference. And maybe making a couple other mistakes too.
Firstly, When you say: "I get uncomfortable when people try to prove the existence of something by trying to use words alone", I would completely agree, depending on what you mean by 'words alone'. I don't think you can show something to exist through tautology or a priori reasoning. Logic alone cannot tell you what does and does not exist because logic deals exclusively with what is true *given* that some premises are true. If you want to check whether some premise applies to reality, I think you must ground your premises in observation of reality (except for some cases of kind of "self-evident" truths like the law of non-contradiction).
Nevertheless, your flying horse example doesn't fail due to any defect of using logic or 'words alone'. There are two problems with the argument made (which I know you don't *actually* believe in). You're using the form:
1) If W then F
2) Not W
3) Therefore, not F
Premise 1 states that the truth of W (horses have wings) always implies F (they could fly), not the other way around. Since F doesn't always imply W, F can be true independent of W. For example, horses could fly if they had jetpacks rather than wings. There are other instances where F is true and not W. That's the first problem.
The second problem is also with premise 1 in that (as you point out) it isn't sound. There's a distinction to be made between validity (proper form) and soundness (truth of premises). As you point out, you can have wings that don't allow flight. Therefore we have no reason to accept premise 1 and perhaps even some reason to reject premise 1.
In fact, this horse argument is almost an honest attempt at reaching some truth about reality. It uses a posteriori reasoning since premise 2 comes from an observation. This is the kind of premise we want when we're trying to show that something or other exists. It just so happens that the form of the argument is invalid and premise 1 is unsound.
Second, briefly, it's wrong to say that we should throw out "the ridiculous likely/unlikely that have no place in a formal argument" because the argument made in this video is not technically deductive but a kind of inductive argument, only giving us reason to believe that a conclusion is *likely* to be true.
Thirdly, it seems as though, with your neutrino argument (which I think is your example of a useful argument?) you're trying to shoe-horn an "inference to the best explanation" into some kind of deductive, syllogistic form. I agree that you haven't "proved" the existence of a neutrino with this argument since you're not even aiming to prove the existence of the thing. An inference to the best explanation, roughly, aims to explain observed phenomena through assuming some new facts (our hypothesis) and seeing how well this hypothesis explains and predicts data. This is how science works, more or less. The neutrino is a good explanation not only because it has been empirically confirmed many times but because it is consistent with symmetries which, with good reason, we already believed to exist (momentum, spin and energy conservation at the scale of sub-atomic particles). But, like you said, our laws could have been wrong, it isn't necessarily the case that neutrinos were the best explanation.
I largely agree with you that we discover that things exist not through deduction of their existence but through observation and, failing that, explanation. We can never directly observe something like a neutrino, we can only ever say that it well explains what we observe and that we provisionally hold that it is most likely to exist until some better explanation may roll around. It is never definitively and without doubt 'proved'.
You should read "The Problems of Philosophy" by Betrand Russell. He has a whole discussion about this topic which is really interesting. He discusses how Kant's assertion that Euclidean geometry will always apply to real space since the axioms are self-evidently true is flawed. This is before relativistic physics. He's a smart guy.
I just think you should be more careful when you actually structure and lay out your arguments and so forth since it seems that, like I said, you're confusing different types of inference and different argument structures etc.
Thank you for your clear explanation and I will agree that you are correct, that it really isn’t begging the question even though I still think it sort of looks like it. Throwing out the ridiculous likely/unlikely that has no place in a formal argument. The wording becomes the modus tollens fraternal twin modus ponens form.
1) If gods do not exist, then humans do not exist.
2) Humans exist.
3) Therefore gods exist.
Even though I took a semester of logic and learned all of the valid and invalid forms (decades ago) I get uncomfortable when people try to prove the existence of something by trying to use words alone. Let’s take a mythological case.
1) If horses had wings they could fly.
2) Horses don’t have wings.
3) Therefore horses can’t fly.
No, we aren’t talking about the horses without wings, but the ones with wings.
Do they exist?
That is what we are trying to prove, horses with wings can fly.
OK, then ostriches, emus, and penguins have wings and they can’t fly therefore just because a horse has wings doesn’t mean it can fly. It is all about the lift to weight ratio.
Logic arguments, like most/all of philosophy, can quickly fall in to a bunch of mental masturbation though I’m not saying that all logic arguments are useless. Take the case.
1) We observe that energy, momentum, spin, and mass are all conserved.
2) Here is a nuclear reaction where energy, momentum, and spin were not conserved.
3) Therefore there must be a particle that we didn’t detect that has zero to virtually no mass that carries away the energy, momentum, and spin. Let’s call it a neutrino.
A logical argument has proposed the existence of an object, it hasn't "proved" the existence of the object. In this case we were able to build a device and 22 years later verified it actually existed. But what if these particles were of such a nature that 100 years, or a 1000 years later, we still hadn’t been able to detect them. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist and that 10,000 years later we would detect them. Or maybe proposition 1 is just wrong and that only most reactions are conservative. Logic arguments can lead in directions to explore, but if you are looking to use them to “prove” existence of something, they are sorely lacking in the ability to do so.
Theists are going to have to do more than just try to talk their gods into existence if they want to convince me.
P.S. You might want to edit your otherwise excellent post to change "caste" to "case". That type of autocorrect shit happens to me all the time too.
I believe their arguments go like this.
1) The Cosmological Argument - Everything must have a cause and that cause must be a sentient being. This rule does not apply to the god Yahweh.
2) The Teleological Argument - Everything must be designed by a creator and that creator must be a sentient being. This rule does not apply to the god Yahweh.
3) Moral Argument - What is right or wrong is only right or wrong because the god Yahweh subjectively declares it to be true and these rules are unchangeable over time. These rules just happen to be exactly the same as those used by a bunch of Bronze Age goat-herders.
so they explain how the logic of some believers work and you act as if they are trying to actually make us belive it. they are just explaining it, it doesnt matter if the used logic makes sense or not. also most things you say not only in this videos but also others seem like u didnt understand the video. you say that the probability of humans is nearly certain but thats not what the video is about. its not about the probability of humans appearing through evolution but also that life itself exists and the extremly small chance that we have a planet at the right spot, with the right things needed for life. not only life but intelligent life; humans. bevore some idiot religion hater appears: i dont believe in god, i think we are way past religion and that its completly useless. i cant understand how people believe in god.
All diskussion about probability seem extreemly wasted though.
Only becouse we are, we can think about it. The beginning of time, if there is one could be an uncountable timespan away and even that does not matter and if time ends also doesnn´t matter.
It could even be that there existed many universes, which could be gone. Times where time started and ended.
All of that does not matter, since we being able to think about it, makes the probability 100%. If there are infinite tries or an infinite timespan, every posibility is given to occur. becouse no matter how small the probability, in infinity it will occur.
tl:dr becouse we are, it doesn´t matter how unlikely it is, we didn´t see everything that has ever been before us.
if the universe started from nothing & the universe is unlikely to start then when it fails to start it will return to nothing & the system will start again, continuing forever, unless the universe is created. Even if this was the only universe that could be created, it would just be a mater of time & we don't start the knowing of time until we are created. We can only see the time we where created (if that far back) & may never see if anything was before this time. We only start counting at the start based on the creation of our universe.
There might be no way to see back past this point. Even an unlikely universe can & will get created, it just takes longer, (with the right system).
Well actually Theory in terms of science means a fact while in English it only means hypothesis which most people don't understand.
But here's the thing:-
The theory of Evolution is the change in species with small changes such as beaks of birds, arms/hands of monkeys, color of butterflies but where is the proof of a Monkey changing into a human? Where is the observable proof?? Since Science is all about Proving unlike Metaphysics.
How can you prove today and now the evidence for Darwin's theory as being true? The truth is you can't because it needs millions of years to prove, so you say Science is not a belief but rather a proof of reality and has nothing to do with faith and is the opposite of Metaphysics/Religions but at the end of the day you are the ones who are actually putting your faith in Science when you can't seek to prove with readily evidence. And the reason people turn away from science is because it is based on man-made thinking which changes due time, Theory of Big Bang just changed and the whole General Relativity is now put onto question as Quantum Mechanics takes over. Who to believe when Science itself changes itself like the gust of wind..
It's why Metaphysics makes more sense to people because it is something that may say crazy things but nevertheless it does has a wide area of knowledge that does not change over time.
And another problem is that when you ask a question about Evolution, lots of people will stand up and say "What an ignorant idiot, doesn't even know that!" Whereas in reality they themselves have no idea of how to answer if they are asked to provide with evidence since Science is all about proofs.
Evolution - Francis Crick (secular) has worked out the odds of creating a single amino acid by chance at 10^260, a ten with 260 zeros behind it. Other Biologists have also done the same calculation. Same result. That's impossible. So maths proves evolution is BS. You either get rid of maths or evolution. Again and again evolution hits this probability barrier, not once but hundreds of times. That's insulting my intelligence and yours. Then there is Jesus, he fulfilled 400 old testament prophecies. Some are easy tasks, some are incredibly difficult tasks, averaging these out at even 5/1 odds on each task gives you an accumulator that would be beyond the amount of electrons in the universe in number.
So Jesus is God. Israel is here. All your fake notions of evolution being scientific is blown apart. You believe men who are bought. or in denial themselves. a deluded bunch o hammerheads.
Isaiah 11:12 – And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
The UN (nations) made the nation of Israel in a day. (can a nation come into being in a day?)
In the time of Isaiah (700 bc) Israel had never been dispersed to the four corners of the world (North.South.East.West) They had been subjugated by Egypt only.
So the only time they reassembled into a nation again from all around the world was in 1948.
Khalid Abdul Matin oh I didn’t know it said it in the Quran os my mistake then! I always thought religion was agaisnt the Big Bang só being religious and supporting the Big Bang didn’t make sense to me
That is probably due to the fact that the Quran says some words that resemble the big bang which is more accurately called the everywhere stretch or whatever by what the Quran describes and by science. Either that or he just thinks the big bang is believable and that the Quran is believable. Either way, I don't see why this idea is laughable or absurd.
Stephen's example of 5 x dice explains why humans didn't evolve any other time for the last 100 million years instead of recently 6000 years ago. Any why the outcome of the roll of the dice explains why other animals existed instead of us for the last 100 million years. A roll of the dice that isn't "HUMANS" means the outcome is "GOD CREATED MONSTERS". So he loves monsters more than Stephen? Then God must also be a Monster!
Its disgusting how people believe that the pyramids were built by aliens. That belief means that there are people in society who doubt one of humanities great achievements. All that effort into building it and all that dismissed
Let's play along with the idea that multiple gods creating humans is 1/400,000 and that humans originating naturally is 1/4,000,000,000,000,000,000.
There are as many as 40,000,000 life sustainable planets in our galaxy and about 100,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the known universe.
That brings the odds of humans not coming into being (3,999,999,999,999,999,999/4,000,000,000,000,000,000)^(40,000,000*100,000,000,000,000), making it much more likely to have occured.
Before you apply, the following information should be reviewed to ensure the appropriate program and start date is selected:
Be aware that Student Visas, if needed, can take time (approximately 3 months), so we recommend that you apply as soon as possible. For non-EU applicants under age 18, please review the additional requirements (legal guardianship is required) needed to apply for an Austrian visa.
English Language Requirements.
In order to qualify for any of Webster Universitys academic programs, a minimum level in English proficiency is required. To learn more about our language requirements and how to ensure you meet them, please click here.
Selecting your Entry Date.
First-time freshman students are encouraged to begin their studies with the Fall 1 and Spring 1 starting dates. However, if classes are available, freshman students are furthermore welcome to start with our Fall 2 and Spring 2 starting dates. First-time freshman students are unfortunately not able to start with the Summer term.
All Bachelor transfer students - transferring from an accredited university (accredited by the Ministry of Education in your country) - can also start in all of our 5 terms, if classes are available.