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.
It’s absolutely incredible how so many people make supposedly “logical,” claims that don’t even pass a cursory criticism by anyone who has read a 50 page book on logical fallacies. I find myself amazed specifically by how often an argument that claims to be logical assumes a conclusion in the premise, especially since many of them come from ostensibly reasonably intelligent people.
This argument that all possibilities are equally improbable is so bad, I don't understand how atheists can believe such garbage. Yes, all possibilities are equally probable, but this is not only true of human existence but of every situation in life. Imagine how absurd your intuition of reality would be if you were consistent in this thought process?
E.g. Imagine if instead of aliens creating the pyramids or the Egyptians building them, I gave the theory that they formed themselves?
Probability is not the only consideration, you have to also look at meaningful patterns. The probability that the Universe would be would be fine-tuned for life is absurdly small.
Also, you're either lying about the strength of the theory of Evolution, especially by natural selection, or you're ignorant of the fact that even top scientists are trying to move away from gradualism and natural selection as the only driving force. Also, look into the Cambrian Explosion. Note: My views are that there is very good evidence for the theory of Evolution but there are also very big holes in the theory. Natural selection also doesn't even attempt to account for abiogenesis so this criticism of their view that the improbability of life is very low is debunked by evolution by natural selection is intellectually dishonest.
I was hoping that Rationality Rules would attempt to grapple with the fair question of "Does not science presuppose/infer a supernatural, eternal and perfect mind?" The philosophy of the scientific method is based on some faith based premises (e.g that the universe is orderly structured and that scientific findings produce rational inferences. Such premises are themselves articles of unscientific faith.
Hence after considering the evidence, philosophical underpinnings and proofs (I have so far observed), I consider that I would open myself up to being rightfully condemned as an arrogant fool - if I were to have faith in science while at the same time denying the existence of God.
+oscargordon you suppose wrong. Sorry if you got the wrong idea I was trying to cover up my thoughts. There's nothing unreasonable with my theory - that science presupposes a supernatural creator. I never claimed that theory proved God. Indeed the scientific endeavor 1st got its leg on the ladder with support of catholic universities.
Would you care to elaborate on your statement
"Does not science presuppose/infer a supernatural, eternal and perfect mind?"
How does science do that, and I suppose what you are trying to cover up saying is “Does not science prove god” the fraternal twin to the video’s “Does not math prove god?”
Last time I checked, surveys show that the more you know and understand the world around you, the less likely you are to believe in gods, which is the opposite of what you are inferring. How about getting straight to the point and explain how you think science shows that there is another realm where sentient beings with eternal perfect minds exist?
To address your other point, yes a premise of science is that the Universe is rational and understandable. So far, that premise has held true. This would not be true if there were other realms outside our Universe there were beings regularly messing and interfering with ours in ways that disagree with well tested aspects of our current understanding.
The elegance of physics, chemistry, and biology does not prove the existence a creator being. It's profound circumstantial evidence of the existence of a creator being but not a proof. The actual proof involves both math and logic. This universe was created by natural forces and is capable of generating sentient life with an increasing technological trajectory (humans). Eventually humans will have the technology to create universes of their own. For those universes humans will be the creator beings. In a perpetual cycle of creation and evolution, the chance that humans are the first in the series is mathematically zero. It would be like guessing a number between one and infinity and being right.
Eeeh, this really demonstrates a lack of understanding of both logic and what math is. These probabilities are not arbitrary, it was not theists but secular, peer-reviewed science which confirmed the need for the anthropic principle to answer the fine-tuning problem. All of your videos rejecting the fine-tuning problem do nothing to debunk the massive collection of scientific and mathematical publications on this subject. In fact, Godel's ontological proof of God has since been formalized and computationally proven. If you don't invoke the anthropic principle from the scientific community, then it's already well known that intelligent design is almost infinitely more likely than a randomly emerging ordered universe with our physical laws. If you do invoke it, then Godel's proof applies to Boltzmann entities and you're back at square one
You said we haven't seen things being created from nothing but we actually have or rather observed. Very little idk anymore particles do pop up on random together with there counter site which makes them disappear again. So to observe them we made a space that would only fit on of the particles so it wouldn't disappear immediately. And we succeeded. I use we to refer to the human race I definitely didn't partake in this experiment
The way evolution works goes beyond just creating humans. For example the whole solar system isn't just random, it follows certain laws of physics. And those laws of physics pushed it to become the way it is. You can keep zooming out like this until you reach the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Also by that logic gods could technically be created by "evolution" just like humans were. In that sense humans are already gods - we are gods for the things we create, like robots and machines. I don't see why theoretically, a priori, there couldn't be a being that creates other beings... they just wouldn't be above "evolution" and certain randomness. You get what I'm saying? I think this is what the ASAP video might be trying to say, except they present it badly and use numbers and maths based on what exactly? [insert Bill Nye clip]
You saying that evolution isn't random is kind of wrong. Chance and randomness definitely played a role in us coming to existence... however there is a step by step unconscious process that lead to this point. Kind of like a domino effect, where if conditions are right then one thing can lead to another another and so on... it does not mean that each of those steps is independently random and it also doesn't mean that each of those steps requires a conscious creator or whatever. There's chance, but the whole thing functions like a machine. Imagine a computer being created and from then on it runs just fine... except the way that computer got created is also the way that computer functions. In fact I see everything like this, including our consciousness. It's really not that hard once you figure out all the building blocks and everything. The only question is h̶o̶w̶ ̶d̶i̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶g̶i̶n̶ why is there something rather than nothing.
I think what you are trying to invoke is the Argument From First Cause.
It was first proposed by the early Greeks and realized to be a bad argument from the start. It has been re-popularized by Christian theologian William Lane Craig under the new title Kalam Cosmological Argument.
To paraphrase his argument:
1. There are two kinds of things. Those that require a cause and those that don’t.
2. Let’s call everything that requires a cause the Universe and everything in it.
3. Let’s call everything that doesn’t require a cause God.
4. Therefore I have just defined God into existence.
It was a stupid argument during Greek times and it is still a stupid argument today. It is simply a “Begging the question” fallacy.
The dice metaphor is interesting.
If I let my nephew playing with six dices while I’m not watching him, and he yells at me « Look I made a series of 6 with the dices » and I see the six dices on the six face, I would say that he consciously put them in this order. And I would be right.
A probability theoretically possible in mathematic can be impossible in reality. A probability smaller than 1/10^100 is impossible.
We can not be here by chance, the probability is impossible.
But it does not automatically mean that there’s a designer.
For example, if multiverses exist, then there could be an infinite number of it. And infinity means that everything is possible.
Turn the argument around. If humans have to roll all 6s on 5 6sided dice to exist, then it naturally has to be that case, or there would be no humans to observe that in the first place.
Or imagine if pyramids can originate on Moon. Now you are in the "no pyramids" "no aliens" bracket.
Math is easy on this topic. Say our local universe is one out of an infinite number, then the probability of it having us in it is 100%, same as if you had infinite monkeys on typewriters, sooner or later they would write out a complete work of Shakespear. Or another option, the universe resets on each big bang and this is one of infinite resets, also 100% chance of us coming about eventually.
As I type this comment, I'm staring at a ball of dust in the corner of my office. The odds of every atom coming together in the precise order needed to form this ball of dust is statistically close to impossible. I don't know how to quantify it, but it has to be one chance out of billions of billions of billions. And yet, there it is -- sitting in the corner of my office, a ball of dust!
+movax20h if Impossible, so nothing but we can't say evolution created humanity because it only delays the problem we go from : how did humans appear? To how did life appear? And this question is still unanswered and likely unanswerable. So I don't think we can say that evolution resolves the question of how humanity appears and to me, althow I agree It's a mistake not to have mentioned it, I think it would be a mistake too to say : humans appeared because [only] evolution
The entire field of theology and debating 'god existence' is flawed. I found not a single self consistent definition of a god. And the weak ones that are consistent are either untestable (the existence or not, whatever that means, impacts nothing) or unsatisfactory and absolutely nothing like any of the religious gods in the world. It is like asking if numbers exists. It is just a matter of definition of the word exist and semantic.
about the rolling 66666 i do not cure about all the rest of the video. but if your siting at a poker table and a person get three royal flush you would not think well that guess a lucky guy yes if the cards are shuffle right and the game is fine no cheating then yes but sometimes in a random set of data there is something the can prove that it is not random or something is changing it like cheat in the card game yes it is could guess be the way the cards fall but the you saying the system that are controlling the data are random sometimes it not the case.
I love your videos because they teach and, even though I have a hard time following them sometimes ( because of my lack of smarts), I didn't make it through all of this one because you had enough hits on their battleship to sink their explanation about half way through. :) Keep up the great work.
Just to be clear, that isn't a begging the question fallacy at all. Their conclusion was that 'it is unlikely that no god exists' and their premise was 'if humans exist, it is unlikely that there is no god'.
Which isn't the same statement technically, and it needs to be precisely the same statement(regardless of its framing) for it to be circular logic. That was a perfectly valid argument.
Other than that, good vid
A better question is why TF would you even want to argue good is real 😂 it's a very old book clearly written by people who had no fucking clue and translated and changed over the course of history, and Christianity seems to be based on very old religion, based on older religion so you're basically in a copy religion
The probability of the planet to have the perfect environment to have life is 1 in 4 billion billion ....You probably don't even know what you are debunking dude...ill suggest you better stop misleading others...🙂✌
Asap is not only talking about humans but about the chance of life which we still haven't discovered in any other planets. It makes sense that we're the only planet with life because of a greater being that chose this planet randomly.
Btw I dont believe in god and I hope someone can debunk this
+just your local neighborhood commie could totally be. Simulation hypothesis is interesting idea to check out if you do not know about it already. It is convincing, but flawed, because it does serious assumptions, that can't be verified.
Even if they found numbers to justify it, the reasoning isn't valid. Even if we suppose that "if god doesn't exist, humans existing is unlikely" is a true statement, it doesn't imply "if humans exist, god existing is likely". And even if it did, "god existing is likely" does not imply "god existing is true".
If you say there is no God this is whats called a Universal Negative Proposition. Its universal because it encompasses everything, its negative because it says no. You arent saying there's no God in X. Youre saying theres no God everywhere in the whole universe, which would also assume you have searched the whole universe and proved theres no God, which requires a Godly trait, omniscience, which means you're God. Atheists are equally metaphysical in an autistic ironic way. Cheers
Could someone explain to me the difference between humans coming about by chance and evelotion and explain to me why they are not the same thing? Is evelotion by natural selection dictated by some concoius force?
Why not assume the universe is eternal.
Popping out of nowhere couldn't be an option then now would it? People want there to be a start, but what if that's impossible to begin with?
I wanna hear more options, just saying people are ignoring this possibility.
4:46 one one things evolution simulators have tort me is that there are many solutions to the same problem (I.e. environment). Also I’m sure abiogenesis has a low probability to happen. But the universe is a big place.
I like the Statistic table they did. Seems legit just that their numbers don't add up to 100%. So about a 3/4 chance of nothing they described in the video happening. But yeah numbers don't matter I guess.
In fact they don't even use math to do anything in the video.
I can't believe that for some people it's easier to believe that everything was created from nothing; What a sad and tragic belief. I'd ratter believe that a being beyond human comprehension and not tied to our limitations created everything.
It’s foolish to assign odds to anything we know nothing about. We have no idea what a god is, what it’s properties are, or what it would be, so acting like it’s physically possible. Humans are so arrogant, we shouldn’t attempt to slap numbers on anything we know nothing about, as they are 100% assumption and 0% fact. Beliefs are different, but actual odds should be forbidden. (Obviously not actually forbidden, but you get the idea.)
I'd say that what got us here was a mixture of dumb luck and a series of path-of-least-resistence occurances. The dumb luck was Earth having just the right conditions (as in the dumb luck was that any old planet couldve had life, just a bunch of dumb luck if the right circumstances came about for it to happen, and we hit the jackpot) and the path of least resistence is evolution and the sort.
So I have a question🤔 how does natural selection get fish whom all had no legs end up growing legs? And then lost gills which means they bred with things without gills🤔 natural selection in the context of the God complex doesn’t add up when you consider the Cambrian explosion which Macro-Evolution has no theory for
well you could watch aron'ra systematic classification of life he can be kinda deuchy but it's a great series if you genually want to know about evolution atleast then you can attack the strongest argument but not some strawmen
Jackalopes have 1/4 billion billion of existing if there's no god since there's a lot of requirements for it. Now, god maybe wouldn't be creating a jackalope, but he could, so it's 1/4 million. But jackalopes don't exist, therefore it's far more likely that there's no god. Does that proof counts?
Honestly, don't give a shit about who or what asap science is, neither do I give a crap about who you are. What it seems to me here is that you just took a reasonably theoretical and informative video and then nitpicked it to the point of cutting the video every time he said something which he would later justify. Honestly, this video is a disgrace to logic and the art of skilled debate. If you were to do this in a live debate face to face, you wouldn't look smart but just plain rude and idiotic. I have no ill will against either sides however, I just had to get this through.
Humans existing in a God-created world is more likely... is a completely empty statement with no basis in fact or statistics or logic; it might FEEL that way to them, but y'know, they're fucking Christians.
+The Gay Atheist because everyone can turn around and start believing. He is also happy to see humans live and thrive. He enjoys seeing humans. Or to use them to show others a valuable lesson. He isn't cruel, because he makes them. He would be cruel, if they never had the possibility to turn around and start believing, and still punish them.
Another possibility would be that there are possible futures and he tries to direct us into one, where we believe in him, but he doesn't negate our free will, so we choose against him out of our free will.
Even with him knowing, you still chose from your own free will to deny him.
That's at least what i think
+Handhelder he already knows if we're going to heaven or hell, so why doesn't he just create the people who will go to heaven and have the rest of us just never existed. Personally, never existed would be much better than eternal torture or any other form of punishment. I'm a masochist, and even I think Hell is too cruel.
In my opinion, god does not exist, a random invisible guy, who watches us all the time just exists. I only think religion exists so we can keep the people from murdering each other and so we don’t have to fear death.
You're 100% right. All moral beliefs are artificial and serve the purpose of keeping the masses from murdering, stealing etc... Not only that, but all religions are based upon fear and hate, indoctrinating people with the idea that some things must be hated and if you disagree you'll go to hell or something.
I’m confused. I don’t think ASAP was trying to prove God exists. They were merely saying what people believe. I feel this whole video was slightly unnecessary, waste of time. None of the ASAP video made me think they actually believed it themselves (even if they did, they made no attempt to say so). Just think you misinterpreted their video.
there are many other channels that are miles better than ASAP at explaining things to people who wouldn't fully understand about science. ASAP in general feels like they watered down to appeal to normal people that they forgot their whole idea of their channel.
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.