Brave thing for Richard to say in public. He may never be a convert but may not be as harsh as he usually is. Kudos to him.

Return of the God Hypothesis by Meyer…is a genuine contribution to these matter.

Really enjoyed this and really warmed to Richard Dawkins who has a sense of humour and a twinkle in his eye.

Richard is correct. The fine tune argument does not get you to Jesus. It seems he does not understand the design argument's goal is only to show there is a creator. Once that is established then you can look at other evidence for who that may be.

I found this to be very uplifting and energetic conversation , thank you guys..

I always appreciate when Athiest are this honest. It’s refreshing.

Nice to see Richard has softened up and has become more open minded. I pray he seeks God before he dies. He's a brilliant man.

It's nice that they are so cordial.

Richard is our brother, we all should pray to our God Almighty Jesus Christ for him to see the truth.

Dawkins and Collins friendship is quite nice to see

My respect for Richard Dawkins went way, way, way up. I've never met an atheist who will even admit that this is a strong argument, and who came up with a legitimate response other than to just wave away this argument.

Good discussion

This is why I always say the debate about whether there is a god or first cause is completely separate from religion. (And why prefer to label myself Agnostic rather than Atheist.)

Dawkins seems to be becoming a bit more pleasant in his older age.

There was a debate with Dawkins and John Lennox where Lennox did this. Lennox was having a pretty good time of it discussing at this level of creation/fine tuning, and then in his last minute or so started saying, therefore Jesus died on the cross for our sins, yadda, yadda, yadda, as if he’d made the case for all that.

A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.

Fine tuning means you must have intellectual capacity, can produce logical procedure and the key is a Information.

I think Mr Dawkins is seeing a faint light, I hope God is working within him. Pondering on Richard's comment about Jesus: Getting to know God through Jesus Christ is our Creator's intention for mankind. He made this happen so we could get to know Him through our Saviour. This all fits together like one glorious jigsaw puzzle, and makes total sense to me, unlike other religions who seek God in other ways. Christianity is truly God making Himself known to man in the most wonderful way through His Son, through the Holy Trinity. Our Creator wants us to know Him, and here He is in person as Jesus Christ, for those who take this wonderful gift from our amazing God. This to me is everything, and nothing else makes sense of our existence. I wish Mr Dawkins well, and pray that he will begin the most wonderful journey to God, the journey that doesn't end in death and is wonderful beyond measure. 🙏

So good.

Am glad Dawkins clarified his position on the fine running arguments. It was Professor Lennox who took that argument and went and told some gathering up in Scotland that Dawkins is converted which was quiet dishonest of Lennox.

I don’t understand what they are referring to when they talk about “fine tuning.” And, I agree with Richard that a “fine tuner” must be equally fine tuned to what it fine tunes, meaning that it doesn’t explain anything.

Damn, Dawkins has really softened down…

Well I feel it is self evident that if your debating a person who believes in God. They have also tried to work the issue of “which god” until they believe they have found the most rational God they believe in to be true. Which god is the next step once you have reasoned your way to believing in God.

Aside from other problems like sample size pointed out above, I'm always struck by the failure of imagination that goes with fine-tuning arguments. Yes, it's true, having the Earth turn out just as it is, with precisely the values of the physical constants we have may be quite unlikely (although we certainly are not sure that those constants are in any way arbitrary rather than products of a deeper physical law). Our existence is just one outcome in the set of all possible forms of intelligent life, and we just don't know how big that set is or what it looks like. Further, when we think of the events leading to our own existence, we have to acknowledge that any long causal chain will contain lots of unlikely steps, whether it leads to an interesting outcome or not. A happy accident is just that, literally, and it shouldn't surprise us. In biology, we used to say that all ecosystems *must* have access to sunlight as an energy source...until we discovered deep-sea thermal vents and chemosynthetic bacteria. Are we really arrogant enough to think that we have a grasp on all the possible ways life could evolve, to the point of estimating its likelihood? Again, estimating a probability (which is the essence of the fine-tuning argument) requires knowing how many of all possible outcomes satisfy the condition "contains intelligent life." My humble guess is that there's *lots* of ways to get some kind of integrated, intelligent life, even with bizarrely different laws of physics.

As former Christian, I find that fine tuning is the only the that comes close to a good argument for a creator. But could it be that intricate constants of the universe, in ways that no-one yet understands, can only exist at their particular values? If there is no way for the constants to possible exist at a different value, then the existence of the universe has to exist in this state only. On or off - existence or no existence.

Kalam cosmological argument... I'm surprised that they didn't discuss the practical importance of god in a system of existenial anguish, because I am a pragmatism and believe in it's theory of truth I'm also a christian.

Sir Richard but these constant work only in the Electro-Magnetic field of Earth .. 🌎 Could you help me understand the constants which work in a Spacetime where GRAVITY varies and Electric filed depends on mood of Electrons Left in Past..... .... ........ 😅

Some people will never know, in this life ...

I would love to see Jordan Peterson debate Dawkins

Professor Dawkins has finally hit the nail on the head - the answer does not lie in science 🧬 but rather in the validity of Jesus Christ, his life, death and resurrection! If they happened then the case is made…If not, then as St Paul realized, we may as well go to the pub with Richard.

I would like to introduce electromagnetic force into the equation. It seems that a hormonal imploding force is involved in genetic alterations. Like the higgs pulls in nuclear parts this hormonal force pulls dna together and that's important.

“The laws of physics” are just a concept we use to describe the consistent effect matter has on each other(unless I misunderstand). So, if you say that they are “fine tuned” do you mean that every motion, of matter, is directly caused by God, himself, or do you mean that there is an unknown mechanism, which he designed “in the beginning” and now does the work for him of causing matter to have consistent movements? And, since this “mechanism” is unknown, how do we know that it’s precisely arranged, as opposed to reducing down to straightforward reasoning(similar to evolution by means of natural selection)?

He literally said it’s a good argument (towards the end), but that virgin births and resurrections are ridiculous... So if God could exist, that is , someone or something powerful enough to create the entire universe from nothing, why WOULDN’T He also be able to raise someone from the dead?

The leap from atheism to a Creator was very easy for me. It's just more plausible that there's a creator, than the almost impossible odds of a random explosion creating such complexity and order. The leap from a creator to Christianity is definitely one that took me the better part of 2 decades before I finally believe is to be true. So Hawkins makes a lot of sense there, but I hope he spends some time studying scripture very hard, and he discovers the truth in it.

It’s almost as if existence is improbable whether or not you believe in god 🤯 Edit: also, I completely agree with what Dawkins said, 100%. My sentiments exactly. The moment you bring religion into the equation after mentioning fine tuning, you full circle from being logical to utterly illogical

Why do people refer to the fine tuning, of the laws of physics, as an event that already happened, in the past, rather than something continually being done all the way up to now? Is “the fine tuner” directly causing every movement, of the universe, or did he design some sort of “mechanism” which now does the work for him in making the laws of physics happen?

“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:18-31‬

Fine tuning is actually the best argument there is.

I learned that one cannot argue with faith because faith is the absence of reason.

Can someone explain to me how this is different from the teleological argument

just because you convinced someone through the fine-tuning argument, doesn't mean they have to believe in Jesus

Over the millennia, connotations of the word "God" have become so deteriorated. The terms Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence seem more scientifically relevant for these types of discussions. It seems that the concept of God is not scientifically testable. 44:30 However, evidence for the effects of Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence are scientifically demonstrable.

5:16 like if it also annoys you that the shelves in the background don't line up

Is this discussion after he had stroke? Illnesses and deathbeds have a way of doing numbers on you. Great progress, Richards! Keep working at it, you'll get there soon.

Dawkins makes a relevant point that the fine tuning of nature's constants might point to the existence of an Intelligent Designer but that does not automatically presuppose Christ t the ransom Saviour. For that we need Scripture not Nature. Nature confirms God to us. Scripture aline connects God to us.... through Christ. 2Cor.5 ¹⁸ Why should Richard consider carefully the Bible? If a woman found a lovely bouquet of flowers on her doorstep one morning she would be impressed and deeply touched. But what would she instinctively search for that should accompany the exquisite gift? Naturally! A card! Explaining the WHO the Giver, WHY the gift...and HOW to care for it. The gift of life in this awesome universe comes also with an accompanying "card"- the Bible. Sad she who enjoys the gift but 'discards' the card!

No argument will ever be good enough for Dawkins. "The kingdom of God is not a matter of words, but of power," (1Cor 4:20).

It's nice to see a rare ounce of humility. It's not about god of the gaps but let's face it, we don't know the origin of energy, we don't know the origin of the universe and let's not forget, there's trillions and trillions of galaxies, we don't know what most of the universe is made of, we don't know the origin of life, we've barely scratched the surface of understanding the human brain, the human body and our own planet, let alone consciousness. To believe that somehow complex single celled organisms just appeared and then somehow evolved into the millions of complex and diverse lifeforms, along with organisms that sustain their lives as well as complex ecosystems requires someone to ignore everything we know about science. And again it's not God of the gaps, granted most theistic belief systems must be wrong for the simple reason that they can't all be right which doesn't help the argument and the person doesn't have to believe in God because science can't answer 99.9% of the most important questions but it's a reminder of how incredibly ignorant we all are, how humble we should be and how open we need to keep our minds to try to understand more. I don't think the Bible should ever be just dismissed because of a predisposed bias: it describes the earth once being all water and covered in a thick cloud, life beginning in the oceans, humans last on the list of creation and made from the dust of the earth and the Earth being a sphere Suspended upon nothing, all of which happens to be scientifically accurate and we could say OK whatever, just a bunch of good guesses but the odds of guessing all that correct are at the very least one in several million. Luke 10:21, ...you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. What this means is, it doesn't matter how much a person studies the Scriptures, if they aren't humble, God is going to hide the truth from them because they don't deserve it. On the other hand, he's going to reveal it to young children, in other words, those who sincerely want to know the truth.

I never saw Dawkins so happy. He looks like a kid on Christmas coming to the realization his creator is out there and is a scientific and mathematical genius and in fact the creator of such things. I think Dawkins next needs to read Eugene Wigner's 'Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.' Ask the Prophet Jeremiah, once God's spirit gets a hold of you there is no resisting it! Come on Richard!!!! We are all praying for you my friend, accept the Lord and embrace our creator!!

This is pretty massive though. I have a great deal of admiration for Dawkins, who concedes the fact that the Fine Tuning Argument is sound. He seems to also be on the edge of atheism, teetering past agnosticism and toward deism. That is pretty substantial. The guy that wrote the God Delusion perhaps becoming a deist. I find the Moral argument to also be very sound. Atheists can find arguments in the seams, but overall, there has always and will always be a strong inclination for humanity to believe in a creator as it has incredibly impacted society. It makes sense. It works. I believe it is true. If Dawkins dies a deist, that would be a colossal victory for theists everywhere. I hope he comes around :)

Like other commentators I found Dawkins pretty endearing here. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he's less sneering in his maturity but I did wonder if it was that his interlocutor is a scientist of indisputable eminence.

When I was born, I didn’t have a Texas accent. Now, I do, because of the environment I grew up in. The world is the shape it is because the universe it grew up has shaped it. If these forces were other than they are, these things would be different. I don’t understan why this argument could convince anyone of anything.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"... As a devout Christian, I really love the fact its hard to prove GOD on a scientific scale just like metaphysics and parapsychology. It shows the significance and importance of faith.

God may not be the way we think.

One of the best Richard Dawkins videos ever.

Dawkins isn't accepting of the doctrine of what is accepted as the existing religions of the world. He is simply stating that the case of the fine tuning of the natural laws of nature, of cosmology, gravity, the speed of light, the space time continuim, the theory of relavtivity, the precise configuration of all that is physics, cosmology and biology, are the best and strongest argument for a designer. We have an obsucure approach to dealing with the answer of who is it that fine tuned the constants. We have filled in the gaps with an ideology so ancient and illerate, which is unwilling to turn its head on itself to admit that it does not know. Faith is essentially a dogma that is at its core, an illiterate cognitive defence mechanisim for our ego and identity.

I thank Prof Richard Dawkins for enlightening atheist and Science all the way 👍👍👍👍👍

Check out Dr James Tour the scientists are nowhere near knowing how to make even the simplest of cells in a fully equipped Lab, let alone explaining how a cell would be produced on an early Earth.

The Fine-Tuning Argument is my favorite argument for God's existence. Here are some explanations for the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe: 1. Chance 2. Natural processes 3. Multiverse 4. God 1-3 don't necessarily discount 4. Just my opinion.

By “constants” do they mean consistency?

Dawkins "gave an inch and you took a mile". And you did the same as the guy Dawkins mentions with this disingenuous title.

THANK YOU JESUS! Even though I’m still struggling to put groceries in the refrigerator. I STILL TRUST YOU LORD! Faith is trusting in God durning hard times. Faith is what is getting me through my hard situation. I’m still struggling to providing for my two autistic children since losing my job over declining the vaccine. I declined due to my pre existing health condition (Lupus) and Heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption from Forsyth Hospital. My husband passed away three years ago, so I’m all alone. Both of my sons are non verbal so things are more hard on me. Every month I don’t know how we are going to make it through. Every month is a struggle, a battle to not end up on the streets. I’m so depressed and embarrassed by my situation. I’ve been put down and mocked over my circumstances. I’m so ashamed and overwhelmed. BUT because of my faith God shows up every month and provides. He has even sent strangers to help me, thank you Father. Even as I face homelessness with two young children seemingly every month! I know that God will provide abundantly. Thank you Jesus. I BELIEVE!

I think the strongest atheist like dawkins has an agnostic mind. He couldn't reject design and fine-tuning. The strongest atheist Antony Flew became theist...

Constants are a sign that there's a unifying principle below the appearance of the constants. For example, the corners of a square are all 90.00000000 degrees, this is a consequence of a square.

I think Dawkins was being honest when he felt that introducing God as the ultimate cause was only moving the problem further away. What he’s missing though is that his materialistic mind assumes God to be made up of matter too and that God then has to be even more complex than his creation in order to be more powerful. Both assumptions are wrong. God isn’t complex (as meaning “made up of sub parts”), God is spirit.

I don’t have a high enough a level of understanding in physics to understand this argument but, I think if it really proved that a God exists, there would be a scientific theory by now, which states that a God exists, rather than philosophical views based on scientific facts.

Damnnn Richard dawkins has some drip

Science (to know) is the best evidence of God’s existence!

I finally agree with Dawkins on something -- the physics is where the best objective evidence for God resides, although I would say the origin of matter from nothing is the clearest problem.

Sure, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t get you the Gospel but it does by definition get you a creator. From that starting point you get God because this creator must have certain attributes. Then from God you get Jesus and the Gospel.

Conversion is not about finding the truth but rather accepting it.

"Good God !!"

Where did laws of physics come from? God. Where did God come from? He was just here. The special pleading God of the gaps argument.

It's virtually impossible to argue the existence of God because its so personal and relational. It would be like trying to explain to someone that my wife is the most wonderful woman in the world by using scientific evidence and expecting them to agree without having the relationship we have for me to be able to make that statement.

I do not know of any mainstream Christian apologist who relies ONLY on fine-tuning to prove Christianity.

I don't put as much weight into the fine tuning argument as these guys. Dawkins hit the nail on the head when he said, at best it can only get you to Deism. But that is true for just about every theistic argument, such as the Kalam. They all only get you to Deism and you have to shoehorn in Jesus or Muhammad, or whatever.

"You are not far from the Kingdom of God" Jesus Christ of Nazareth

Theists could always claim fine tuning, no matter how rough tuned the universe might have been. Rough tuned universes which produce life could be almost infinite in number, but against a backdrop of infinity, that enormous number shrinks to almost nothing. As usual, believers are playing ‘heads I win, tails you loose.’

The magic diversion was mentioning Jesus, the virgin birth instead of the word God who is the closest description to the designer.

Step by step.

Richard Dawkins is a perfect gentleman, a brilliant scientist and a great writer.

Richard clearly understands that if there is a God, He has a personal relation to creation and that's an intimidating thought. I can understand why he is so slow to go that direction with his previous claims

Why isn't GOOD gathering the Words Whole measurement useful?

but, like, i think in the way that, if the constants where little bit different we wouldn't be here to tell that they are different. so, we are here because they are what they are, and if there is multiverse (in way of roger penrose cyclic universes or some paralel universes it doesn't materr) then in every one of the universes they will be slightly different constants and only in some of them life like humans or physics etc would develop and in others there would be no one to tell they are different or weird. mabye someone will understand sth from my 'river' of words xD (the constants are not fine tuned because of god or other fine tuner but, they are just random and it just happend that they allow humans and universe to develop so now we can ask what magic fined tuned them when they are not fine tuned and we just exist because they are what they are xD

Can’t see the wood for the trees… Still needs proof (which we will never have) for the miracle (which is all there is).

Lol Richard Dawkins making such a sour hold on being anti-Christian at the last part.

4:47 - 4:51 "You might convince somebody like me to be a deist." I've been a deist for decades (I'm in my late 40s). We deists have believed for a long time that because of things such as the finely-tuned universe, complexity of DNA, etc., that a "divine architect" created the universe and the laws of nature that govern it, set it all in motion (perhaps via the Big Bang), and is off doing whatever It is doing. The universe does not need a conductor overseeing all aspects of it when the laws of nature can suffice. Work smarter, not harder, right?! Theists...those who believe in divine revelation, intervention, prayers, etc...have no connecting bridge to get from a deistic concept of God to their concept of God who is omnipotent, omniscient, the embodiment of good, full of love, etc. Earth is not the center of creation. Epilepsy is not demonic possession. An earthquake is not a god's wrath. We've known these things for a very long time, yet people cling to archaic notions about the nature of "God" based on writings from very ignorant people who lived millennia ago, and had no clue about the universe that they were a part of.

All the fine tuning argument does is make a case (good or bad) for a deist god. A creator being. That's all. You still have to make massive massive leaps to get to any of the major world religions. Even if a creator were real, that doesn't mean we shouldn't eat pork or we should pray to it or that Jesus was god. So what Dawkins has said doesn't mean all that much.

If I'm not mistaken Einstein answered that he believes in the God of Spinoza when asked if he was religious - and it is about that far you will get with fine tuning or other cosmological arguments. You will need separate arguments that goes further to get all the way to Christianity.

Fine tuning is an assinine attempt at inventing a comparative model without any comparison. It's purely "what if things were different, therefore I insert a gaps fallacy" nonsense. Unless you have all three states to demonstrably evidence, you can not make a comparative model. You would need a control universe, a universe where you had life invented, and a universe where there are different constants and completely devoid of any life. You would also need to model time (have scope of all time within those universes to demonstrate that life could never be naturally forming in all three). Since this isn't remotely possible, the "appearance of fine-tuning" is dismissed as pure egotisim and nonsense from any scientific standpoint.. which is why there are no papers published in any established and respected peer reviewed scientific journals on this subject. Note that the only people who make this "argument" are theists. And as usual, we can deflate all apologetics with a single three-word axiom. Kind of telling.

Fine tuning argument. Is just simple science yet understood. Religious people always attribute the unknown to the magical “god”. Just like we no longer pray to rain god, this unknown will be understood by science someday. Seek knowledge not myths

The fine tuning argument is painfully bad. It is so weak that it is hard to believe anyone could be dumb enough to think it makes sense.

It is interesting to hear an atheist say the fine-tuning argument is better than all the other arguments, especially the moral argument. For about two decades, design arguments in general were less convincing to me than most other arguments, including the fine tuning argument. It wasn't really until maybe the last three years or so that I've started to come around on the fine-tuning argument. The moral argument seems utterly convincing and is the only argument that really gets you something resembling a personal authoritative God as oppose to a nebulous supernatural force or an indifferent tinkerer.

Macro evolution is laughable and takes an absolute believer to embrace it. You need an original archetype to actually be able to select from. In the beginning God created the original kinds.

I think that the universe and the physical constants are a brute fact. Without another universe to compare them to, then it makes no sense to say that they even CAN be different. If theists/deists insist that god is not contingent then atheist insist that the universe is not contingent. Asking why, why, why eventually bottoms out at “because it just is” - either at god or at the universe.

I completely agree with Richard Dawkins. It could be a Deist God. It is more likely to be a Deist God than the Christian God.

Dawkins already knows God exists and suppresses the truth in sin. Rom 1. Presuppositional apologetics is way more biblical and effective, generally speaking.

the contingency argument essentially proves God. It shows There must be something non contingent and self existent.

"Fine-tuning is a good argument for God" until u actually take morethan a few moments to think about it

Dawkins is an honest guy

He didn't answer why moral argument is weak for him if not because it is not under science domain, or did I missed the answer?