Disproving the Fine-tuned Universe Theory - Sean M. Carrol | Best Argument #Must watch

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. people supported with Pussies and Dicks are the best proof that life life-tunned
2. There is a major flaw in the argument that the universe was fine tuned for life. The fact is universe was not designed for life at all. Universe was designed to be empty.
   99.99 percent of the solar system is empty. Nearest star is 2000 times further than the size of our solar system, so galaxy is that much emptier. The rest of the universe is even emptier. The earth itself did not exist for the first 9 billion years that universe had existed. When earth finally came into existence it did not a have a life on it for the first billion (or 2 billion) years of its existence and all life will disappear from it in about 2 or 3 billion years.
   Life is just an aftereffect of an aftereffect of an aftereffect of existence of the universe.
3. Total assertions certainly well presented by Sean Carroll, there wasn't ANY emprical evidence to his assertions at all, he basically committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, many of the answers to his aren't necessarily binary or certainly not ostensibly reducible, for example evolutionarily theory can fit theism & atheism, and to have the fine-tuning argument in the first place it would need to lead to some kind of evolution, let's take it back a step, the mathematical structure of the universe is akin to the your software on a pc or mac computer that's why so many physicists now think we living a very sophisticated computer simulation, which explains the quantum mechanical foundation of reality, Sean Carroll is a great at presenting a just so argument, once you really think about it you realise it's not a compelling argument at all, we probably live in a simulation & that fits theism far better than atheism.
4. Religion is filthy: Ezekiel 23:20: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like those of horses." Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is your bible - full of religious stupidity!
5. Better we have (scientific) questions we can't answer, then (religious) answers we can't question!
6. Uh ... Sean Carroll doesn't know much about what theism predicts. That entire line of argument is a strawman, imaging theists are children who think the universe should look 'god-made' in order to validate their faith. Most theistic philosophers think the universe has to be inscrutably structured in order to be tantalizing ... there is no passion in creation for those who know how the story ends.
   
   Also, his points that life might exist if the universe wasn't fine tuned are silly. A tiny fluctuation in gravity and you get no stars ... you get nothing like the universe we know. If you want to speculate that life can arise in other starless sorts of universes, fine ... but don't pretend there's any plausibility of that based in what we know about the universe.
7. What I find alarming is that in this video, Carroll TOTALLY destroys the theistic fine-tuned argument , yet the believers STILL won't abandon this notion of "God did it" --simply for the purposes of being totally unwilling to compromise any theistic belief they now embrace. Well believers, you better get used to this happening as the more science you will learn, the more it will dawn on you that NOTHING in science supports your position and oddly enough, the more scientific information that is discovered, the more apparent it becomes that there seems to be no god-like entity out there.
8. Do we have life on every planet
   NO
   Life is all about randomness and probablity
9. It is amusing how atheists invoke the god of the gaps argument in their ignorance. He claimed that we don't know therefore my way is the correct way. The arrogant naivety. Can theists use his arguments? Just because monkey bones like look human bones does not mean that humans evolved from apes.
10. Professing to be wise, they became as fools. It's interesting this video presents only one side of the argument. Understandable if your goal is to "disprove" fine tuning. What a joke. It wouldn't do to let the other side speak.
11. LOL! I think I missed the disproof. The second and fifth reasons are theologically incoherent, the fourth was the evidence-less multiverse, which leaves the first and second which are scientific worthless.
12. trust me, I have a lab coat.
13. oh, this man needs to better define his terms. It would be better if he offered real information rather than just arguing.
14. From TIME IS EXISTENCE
    
    Of course the universal system we exist in is fine tuned. The following laws demonstrate how this is achieved. The for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, heat always moves toward cold, The rule of three indicating a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis with in all actions of thought, chemical bonding and attraction and repulsion laws, etc, all result in the fine tuning of the universal system created by the Realm of TIME.
    
    Naturally the variations that occur while those laws are functioning appear to cause disorder, chaos, random events, etc, but nevertheless equilibrium will be achieved in some way relative to the fine tuning process.
    
    Elaborate, technical, verbose methods of describing what is stated herein won't change these laws, their application, or conclusions. You cannot outthink the Realm of TIME.
15. This is was such a great debate. Have any of you noticed that Craig never debated two people in particular twice. Whereas he has debated the same person several times on tiny topic variations. Sean Carroll and Sam Harris both smashed him so horribly he never once debated them again. According to Sam, he sent an open invite for a "Round 2"
16. Even if you don't believe in God what created everything? There is no explanation other than something created the universe. As science states something can't come from nothing. You must think of God as uncreated, uncaused, outside of dimensions. Something had to create those . something doesn't just exist there has to be a cause for creation
17. I must applaud Prof. Carrol for being honest about the theists' claim that the universe must be fine-tuned for it to be possible for life to exist, whereas others argue that in 99.999% of the universe you would die instantly, and therefore the universe is not designed for life. There is a crucial difference between the two. Yet his defense of naturalism is pretty good! He is an excellent, confident speaker, to boot, and is to be lauded for admitting that there are certain things we simply do not know presently.
18. 45 seconds in Sean misrepresents 40 years of fine-tuning research by fellow atheist scientist and claims people like Brandon Carter, Barrow and Tipler, Ellis, shoot even hawking admits there's a fine-tuning problem, Rees in just 6 numbers says there is a significant fine-tuning problem, and Sean misrepresents the problem and says "nothing to see here!" Wow its hard to find phd candidate in the world that thinks like this. Thought he was not one of the New Atheists. Guess with Hitchens gone there's a spot opening for those bold enough to misrepresent science to maintain their religious worldview namely atheism.
19. You know if your theory is a statistical improbability then apparently you can just invent the statistics to support it. Superb science ladies and gentlemen, rejoice for anything is now possible
20. The way of the Buddha is the only path to enlightenment.