Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? - Richard Dawkins

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Keep in mind that Dawkin's deep commitment to atheism does not bias his opinion whatsoever. (cough cough snicker snicker)
2. ide love to punch that stewie sounding faggot right in his goober smoocher.
3. Let him give his speech in Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Let see what they have to say, if he even makes it back home alive.
4. "God tuned the physical constants to have exactly the right values. That of course is no explanation at all, because it leaves unexplained the tuner. It's just pushing the problem back one step. So we can instantly discount explanation #1."
   I don't care what he believes, but as a scientist and researcher, I find his reasoning completely unworthy of his high social and professional standing. Answering a question and thereby raising additional questions is commonplace in research. Rejecting an explanation on the basis that it raises additional questions is absolutely unacceptable in science.
5. Multiverse requires a principle called eternal inflation and that is how you avoid having to transition from the original T0 in the multiverse to our pocket universe and the present day. I think thats a A. Guth concept, I cannot remember. In any case: whats more likely: a simple eternal expanding universe or an eternal complex supreme being. Theology and physics both push back to T0 in some form. I have no problem with a theistic view of intelligent design (ie cosmological constant) as I could see a reasonable person saying, yes, we are fine tuned look at the constants of physics or complexity of DNA, but again, I think the anthropic principle and natural selection answer these w/o evoking the supernatural. That is why fine tuning argument is so unappealling: if you can describe an event without the supernatural as no components of the process require it, why use it?-which is more likely? Its fun to toil over these things though, imagine the unfortunates who are not even aware of the debate.
6. Sorry Richard Dawkins (who admits he is satisfied with the Anthropic principle) is paid by those who control the media (the devil worshiping, child molesting, Talmudic Jews) to preach atheism. Surprising the Christians are patronizing such conspiracies, even though Jews killed Jesus.
7. 6:48
   Mr. Dawkins is referring to "Daniel F. Galouye" in the book "Simulacron-3".
8. It never ceases to amaze me how theists are always quick to point out apparent flaws in concepts like that of the Multiverse while totally forgetting the inherent flaw of the concept of God: however improbable the origin of the universe and life, the notion of a divine creator is necessarily much more improbable than any materialistic explanation. They add a complex powerful being to the picture like it's supposed to explain something. Yet, not only does it explain nothing, it also gives rise to countless contradictions and inconsistencies in their own belief system. The Problem of Evil alone is enough to make theism seem an extremely improbable version of reality.
   
   The Multiverse, by contrast, is a very natural thing to imagine, whether it's really there or not. Our planet is one of many in the Solar System. The sun is one of many in our galaxy. Our galaxy is one of many in the observable universe. It's only natural to go on like this with our universe being just one of a great many.
9. Yeah, i'm sure this isn't a BIASED opinion........lol
10. brilliant as always :)
11. so basically he says "dont trust theists because they have no proof, but instead trust me although i also have no proof"?
12. "I think it's probably true[multiverse], but I don't know enough physics to know."
    - Richard Dawkins @6:23
    
    Darwin's Theory for Evolution has been thoroughly debunked by Stephen C. Meyer in the book 'Darwin's Doubt'
13. I have a hypothesis that there are multiple levels of multiverses, we know there are millions of galaxies in our Universe, now imagine in the next level of multiverse there are millions of Universes just like our Universe. That would mean our Whole multiverse is much more older than 13.8 billion years.
14. Moron.
15. Our existence is clearly organised for our existence to such an extent the numbers are indeed almost Zero. There is a zero percent chance of our existence. Yet here we are watching this man attempting to get away from it. God is just a primitive word to describe the unknown. The more we learn about the universe the more exotic and unbelievable it is - not less. There are more unknowns now than there ever was.
16. Richard Dawkins when talking stupidly
17. THIS VIDEO DEBUNKED in 3 MINUTES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqjBOSlk_mE
18. Fine tuning argument is not actually necessary for proving the existence of God, because it can still be proved even if there is no fine-tuning. For this please see the link below:
    https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/is-fine-tuning-actually-required-for-proving-the-existence-of-god/
19. so a creator does not exist but a potential bubbly multiverse might that was not created by a creator? couldn't this bubbly multiverse do the same thing as our universe and spawn bubble-verses until it empties and then refills itself with bubbles through laws that exist and control it? scientists always try so hard to explain the outside of something that has no doors or windows. It's like a cat born into a box and sitting next to a vile of poison wondering what exists outside of the box and disproving things it's never seen.
    
    it always seems that there's something there even when scientists say there isn't and have no explanation of how it got there but seem to rationalize that there's no creator. they also seem to add their opinions to why things are stupid if a creator exists like "if intelligent life was the purpose god took a long time to make us!" but why are we the purpose or anything better to a creator than flowers or dear or barren planets?
    
    Their reasoning is often flawed by being full of opinion.
20. There are beings that can live where human would die in seconds... like methane based atmospheres... it depends on what planet you adjust.