The Pauli Exclusion: “And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” Colossians‬ ‭1:17‬ ‭

Excellent talk. One of the best. Collins is balanced and intersting. Good questions from the audience too. The only point Collins didn't address well was in showing how an infinite universe generator is a nonsense. There can be no infinite past time so even this supposed generator would have to have an explanation of how it arose. The only solution to get us out of the illogicality of an infinite regress is a cause that exists outside of our known dimension specifically one that does not exist in time and is not made of matter. As 4D creatures we will not be able to have any real concept of this entity. But a fantastic talk nonetheless.

Conscious life seems to be the very goal of the kosmos… obviously. The multiverse hypothesis looks like a sign of ultimate dispair of physicalist dogmatics.

Boom, Awesome approach to the subject, thanks for upload !

59:00 - The what created God notion assumes that the creator is bound to the laws of the created world. The analogy I like to use is video games. Just because Mario can only move left, right, up, and down, doesn't mean that the programmer was limited to a 2D world. In the same way, just because everything is created in our reality, doesn't mean the same rule applies to the creator. It is plausible that the law of origin is null for the creator.

Lawrence Krauss seems to .

First comment, wow that's my first ;-) Love these videos and the topics they cover, thanks.

Regardless of the likelihood or un-likelihood of the universe in which we live, the likelihood of any other universe is the same. There is no observable significance to this without an extreme exercise of human ego.

Oops wrote available twice.

There can be only one value of the cosmological constant whose value is equal to that of a quantum and given that it is fine-tuned to 1 part in 1/120, or 120 orders of magnitude below the value of a quantum which is the lowest possible value of energy, all values of energy are quantized values that are multiples of a quantum, meaning the cosmological constant cannot change because any change of even 1 part in 1/120 of its value would translate to us not being here!! The value of the cosmological constant is set at the exact value that it is, if there were multiverses that were like ours they would have the exact same value of the cosmological constant necessarily!!

Krauss uses " nothing " as a metaphor for a Quantum Vacuum I believe. Does that count as " nothing" ?

PS How is the Parisian summer ? You well DMH ?

"Lord, We are having trouble with pi. We don't think 3 will work." "Gabriel, we've only got 5 days, can't you work out the exact value ? " "Well Lord, our latest calculation indicates that we need an infinite number of decimal places" "Enough of your delaying tactics Gabriel, make it exactly 3 and get on with the next number".

If it didn't work like this, it couldn't work like this

Cornel , we have a few remnants still attending the Church of England . They aren't exactly peasants , just little old ladies, or people who think it is socially acceptable They dont go to debate theology or be challenged intellectually , just to sing dull hymns and hear stories about how Jesus said we should be nice to each other man .

So what is more powerful then? The laws of nature or god? If we lived in a universe that was not fine tuned wouldn't that be more impressive and create more questions about a creator?

The multiverse theory is a misnomer. Those who think that a multiverse is plausible do so not because of independent reasons for a multiverse. The multiverse is a CONSEQUENCE of other theories like infaltionary models. Whether or not the universe is fine-tuned is still up for grabs. But I feel we need to be more sympathetic to other views, like that of a multiverse.

Why is fine-tuning called for, in any case? An all-powerful "deity" would be able to create life *regardless* of conditions, wouldn't it? (In fact life's existence, _despite_ conditions that were absolutely inimical to it, would be some pretty powerful evidence for a Creator!) If you say fine-tuning is required, then you're saying this "god" is bound by the physical laws of the universe--doesn't sound very omnipotent to me!

Would that be Sir Roger Penrose , renowned mathematical theorist and 100 percent atheist you are referring to , or Roger Penrose the lawn mower repair guy from Kansas who " reckons you caint git somethin frum nuthin" ?

In my humble opinion , obviously. :0p

I guess the point of my Penrose comment was that , while Penrose is able to put a figure on the statistical probability of the Universe existing , he does not draw the conclusion that it is evidence for God . The one does not imply the other , in his opinion

The existence of 10,000 fakes does not show there is no such thing as a genuine diamond. A world view SHOULD be determined on its affirmations and truth-claims, not its abuse.

No, they do not pay taxes, moreover, the priests are paid from the state budget, and many church buildings receiving state funds. Not to mention donations and takings. It became a real business here.

I am always dubious of the value of quoting probabilities in this context , as all the parameters are not known. The odds of all the molecules in one of my turds being present out of all the ones available are infinitesimal. It must mean there is a God ! Praise Allah

Ps you forgot the fourth conclusion " we dont know " important to be prepared to admit that , rather than reach for the Bronze age bollocks

How did life originate ? Tell you what. I have more confidence in the ability of a scientist to work that out than your local vicar , ( who undoubtedly will have a cheap non - answer , like " God dun it, and I dont give a shit how "

I have some sympathy for that viewpoint , so long as he doesn't make the claim that it is any of the popular Gods . I think you are thinking of Penfold , who was in Dangermouse.

" subduing reality to mans wishes " is one way to look at it. Attempting to understand the natural order by rational consideration of evidence , in order to live better , is another way of looking at science . Magic is for fairy tales and holy books. It is for a non demanding worldview .

It is possible that mindless universes have eternally been popping in and out of existence accidentally due to some mindless unknown laws of physics. The probability of universes being accidentally tuned this way is very low, but that does not mean much because nobody knows how it would have turned out if was tuned differently. Our partially known universe is a chaotic place. It seems earth-like planets get lucky in their formation and life precariously emerges from chemistry when conditions happen to be right then evolves without any prior intentions, plans, or designs by an invisible magician God. If a tiny plant sprouts through the accidentally created crack of 2 ton boulder, neither the boulder was intentionally designed to be of that shape and size, nor the boulder was designed for the plant, nor the crack in the boulder and the plant were intentionally planned to be there.

Lightning struck a primordial soup that we can't explain how it got there but it could've been because of a big bang but maybe not as we cling to a failed 150 year old best guess by a "Naturalist." Now THAT'S Magic....THAT'S a fairy tale....THAT'S supernatural....

Ps Sorry " bronze age and the crowds who we are told witnessed such "miracles" were MOSTLY illiterate. Hope that is better .

Of course the argument is sound but his personal presentation skill is just terrible. He is slow,with awkward pauses, he didnt take the time to adequately learn his projecter remote, and all this detracts from the material. Now, if you are familiar with atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, Krauss, and Sam harris...they are so unprofessional, unorganized, and quirky, the lecture turns out to be a disconnect mess of bad ideas...so Im just keeping this in perspective. But anyone who objects to the fine tuning argument, at this point(they tried to hide this from the general public for 40 years) is so biased there is simply no reason to even engage such lunatics

Of course I am drunk. It is nearly midnight. I will be more respectful as you have two trained killers to back you up. I think I got the Ontological mixed up with the Teleological there. I have never had an issue with the unknown first cause for our universe. Just some impatience with the claims of those who give it a name and a face. It is a long way from "why does anything exist" to "Jehovah says we can`t covet our neighbours ox"

"Normally accepted realm of possibility" by whom? I can prove that this is patently false. If I were to flip one million coins, the likelihood of an "all heads" outcome is 1/2^1,000,000, much less likely than Penrose's 10^123. If we record the actual outcome, it should come as no surprise that its likelihood is exactly the same mathematically. Only a fool would place special significance on "all heads" above a random outcome since their likelihood is exactly the same.

There is nothing "compelling" about the teleological argument. "Chance is mathematically not the reason." ... And you can demonstrate this, how exactly?

Edmond , out of all the molecules available in the universe available , the odds of the exact ones coming together to make up one of my turds are even smaller. Praise my bottom ! Quoting mathematical probabilities in support of divine intervention is usually as a result of poor understanding.

Why you bother with them? Be a good Christian and live for Christ. As for them, they will see the eternal fire and tears. You are saved because your faith. Now be a good Christian and avoid stupid debates with unbelievers.

The Teleogical arguments for the existence of God seem rather weak. I can conceive of many things that don`t exist.

Ha ha, nice one, I told you , we have many religious peasants in Romania.And also, many churches, that means many buildings, that means many money spent for nothing.

The water in the puddle EXACTLY fits the shape of the puddle. A miracle ??

Something from nothing ? You must be mistaking me for a Christian ! SSPFF ! Let there be Cheese ! No cosmologist believes something from nothing is an accurate way to describe the Universe.

Thank you William Lane Craig for speaking out against the young Earth creationist. How come is it that so many ID leaders won't speak out against them.

Mistaken , rather that foolish in your case I think. There are fools on either side of the debate . I think only theists are happy with the idea of magic . Who magic'd God into being , or are there things that exist that do not require a cause.?

The job of science is to seek natural explanations for observed phenomena. Once you start to invoke supernatural explanations , you are outside the boundaries of science , and anything goes for you. Have fun in that world , and I hope praying to Odin cures your appendecitis !!

Why did God fine-tune the universe? Didn't he have a choise?

We can certainly affirm that if you try to walk on water , you will sink . ( Relative densities and all that .....)

Hi DMH . You mean "Asked" ,as he is dead surely?

Dmh. So long as you truly repent of your spelling we will offer you forgiveness , just as Stalin said we should.

Pula!!

Dr Collins talks about how the laws of physics and the values of constants appear to have been finely tuned to make life possible. He assumes from the very first minute of his talk that they have in fact been finely tuned to make life possible - it is very important to note that he doesn't ever say how he knows that to be true. I don't doubt the sincerity of his belief - but he gives no justification for it in this lecture - apart from a kind of appeal to incredulity. So I could summarize this as : IF the Laws and Constants were different to what they are we wouldn't be here - (I agree - not controversial) The Laws and Constants could have had different values ( He simply assumes this without comment. This seems reasonable but we don't know this to be true - to be fair we don't know that it is not true - we only have one universe to observe ) An example: At 23:00 he asks The cosmological constant - how fine tuned is it? He gives The answer as 1 part in 10 ^120. This is not the only possible true answer - there are at least two possible answers to his question. They are : 1) Not at all (if there is in fact no fine tuning) 2) 1 part in 10 ^120 ( if there is fine tuning) Both these answers are fully compatible with every fact that he talks about in his lecture - but he only gives one answer (#2) because he has assumed they could be different AND decided that the laws and constants have been finely tuned. IF the values could be different THEN they seem to have been selected to produce this particular universe, They could have been randomly generated in some multiverse - he discusses this possibility quite well. They could be "tuned" or selected by some equivalent of an evolutionary/selection process (he doesnt discuss this possibility) They could have been "tuned" by some other process we havent thought of yet! If we go with 2) then we have two broad categories 2) a) the fine tuning is a natural process 2) b) the fine tuning is a deliberate rational choice of a supernatural agent (God) If 2b how does God choose laws? What is god made of where did he come from how does he operate - cause stuff to happen? Why does God create stuff? How does an eternal conscious agent *decide* to create something? And so on - God is a much more difficult "problem" to comprehend than the universe. So the solution to the mystery of the existence of the universe is an even greater mystery - which itself has no possible explanation or cause or purpose. God is incomprehensible almost by definition. So God answers everything and explains nothing. Why does God have the nature he does and not a different nature? Gods existence and all Gods qualities are a Brute Fact that cannot ever be explained. But Robin Collins *prefers* that to a Universe whose existence and qualities are a Brute Fact. He dismisses that idea as "very unsatisfactory" in just a few minutes at 33:50 I understand that sentiment. It is very unsatisfactory - i feel that way too - I wish to know things - i feel the itch and want to scratch it, I am deeply intriqued by mystery and crave for an answer better than "That's just how it is". What if our wanting to know is for naught? - we can want impossible things all we like - but they will stay impossible. We like to know why - but it seems that ULTIMATELY we can't know - we either have a universe which exists and has certain properties (and not different properties) and we cannot know why - or we have a God which exists and has certain properties (and not different properties) and we cannot know why. A brain twisting thought: If God does indeed exist - can God know why he exists? Could God have had a different nature? Surely his existence would be a brute fact - he would exist "without a higher purpose or meaning" he would be in the position that I find myself, would he not?

Hi DMH The testimonial evidence is rather poor compared to the evidence we have amassed that shows you cant walk on water. (Yet ,as you rightly point out) Even if the testimonial evidence was compelling ,all it says is Jesus may have had some hover boots he got from a time travelling alien. All that crap about a supernatural spirit world that is deeply concerned about Human behaviour is just an ignorant contrivance from people who didn`t know any better. (In my humble opinion.) Time to evolve!

Call that a real business mister ? Check out Joel Olsteen ,or Benny Hinn preaching the word of the Lord from his 30 million dollar LearJet. Or dear old Jimmy "I have sinned against you Lord" Swaggart They must wake up laughing