Atheist ASTRONOMER VS Muslim

share this pageShare Page
Mohammed Hijab

Channel: Mohammed Hijab

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


00:00:03--> 00:00:06

He saw it

00:00:08--> 00:00:09

with me

00:00:11--> 00:00:20

saying is that what you have to argue against? You're basically you have to dress in order to argue. You have no solid and this was Panama I thought he was

00:00:22--> 00:00:23

gonna tell me one thing

00:00:24--> 00:00:26

he says yeah cuz it's interesting

00:00:29--> 00:00:29

what your luck

00:00:33--> 00:00:38

was it was it was a crazy from the South China Sea for 35 years

00:00:39--> 00:00:51

where they themselves the creators. I'm calling human Heidi Shea in a moment Hollywood where they created from nothing or themselves the creators. Yeah, I'm Holocaust dichotomy. Well, hold on, it's not what you claim to talk about. And secondly,

00:00:53--> 00:00:57

I'm always leaving those icons to me, because this is a third option. Um, hello, Kusama.

00:00:58--> 00:01:07

Yeah, oh, did they create the heavens and the earth? In other words, were they were they themselves? Did something allow for the universe to be created? And

00:01:09--> 00:01:12

suddenly they have no certainty? absolute certainty?

00:01:18--> 00:01:22

You have no idea what you believe in? Exactly. You don't know you have no evidence what you believe in.

00:01:28--> 00:01:30

Please don't interrupt me. Okay.

00:01:32--> 00:01:42

Okay. So I don't feel like I need to hear what I'm saying. It's not that you don't have no evidence. Everyone's true standard is, look, everyone has some evidence for anything, but I'm just saying that we have evidence that the earth is flat.

00:01:44--> 00:01:46

And this man can be happy to flat earth guy wherever His name is.

00:01:48--> 00:02:27

He believes he's got evidence that he's got his own evidence. What we're saying is that look, you have no definitive evidence which can lead you to certain truth. Now what I'm saying to you is, and that's what the Quran is saying. Those who deny God's existence, those who deny the creatorship of Allah subhanaw taala that God actually the one who created the universe will always have an argument which is based on a presupposition, which itself cannot be substantiated. And I tell you now, I dare and challenge you in front of all of these people to find me one piece of evidence, which can be said to be certain truth, which goes against the thesis of God against goes against the main

00:02:27--> 00:03:01

arguments that we have against God. That's my challenge. Otherwise, you can say, look, you can do the same thing. You can say the same thing about infinity. Say, we don't know if it exists or not under real world, say at least the same thing about God being agnostic, we don't say we're atheists say okay, in that case, we don't know if this creator, this entity or universe exists. Oh, no. Okay, can I respond? Yes. Without interrupt, no interruption going, keeping an eye on you. Alright, so first off, I agree. We don't have certain knowledge. Okay. But so what we don't need certain knowledge, like, if you get on an aeroplane, Are you certain that plane isn't going to crash? Now?

00:03:01--> 00:03:15

You're not, but you get on it anyway? Of course you do. Because the evidence is that it's reliable. Okay. And you use reliability as your benchmark, not certainty. You're right. We don't have certainty. There might be a god. I'm not saying there definitely is no God.

00:03:18--> 00:03:20

Okay, thank you.

00:03:23--> 00:03:23

Okay.

00:03:24--> 00:03:47

But we have to get right. Okay. Right. But that doesn't matter, because the benchmark is not certainty. The benchmark is evidence. Do we have sufficient evidence to say certain statements are true? Yes. Or do we have some statements to say there are at least, you know, some evidence for something to be true. Now, what's happened? What is his argument?

00:03:49--> 00:04:10

Okay, and the argument has been made, right, that the universe began to exist. And you've the gentlemen here quoted three different reasons for saying that it exists. One was big bang cosmology, where we show that is false. Okay. The Big Bang cosmology does not point to the universe.

00:04:12--> 00:04:13

Okay, okay.

00:04:14--> 00:04:15

Even if you did an other

00:04:18--> 00:04:21

I think you did. But if I, if I miss remember,

00:04:22--> 00:04:32

remembered as follows. Other Muslim apologists, other Muslim apologists have, right and so Christian apologists, okay, all right. I'm here as you can.

00:04:34--> 00:04:40

Okay, so dice force. We've also had the suggestion that the second law of thermodynamics proves universe as the beginning.

00:04:43--> 00:04:59

Okay, well, I'm answering you. Okay. First off the, the assumption to the second law, right? would assume the universe has to be finite, but we don't know whether it's finite. So if the universe is infinite, then that argument is invalid. Okay. So we cannot say

00:05:00--> 00:05:39

This proves the universe has a beginning, because it's quite possible that the universe is infinite. We don't know it may or may not be, but but the fact that we don't know means that the argument cannot proceed to its conclusion. There also may be dynamical reasons. First obvious, the second law is a statistical law. It's not like the Newtonian laws, ie, there's a probability for it to be true, and the probability is overwhelming. However, if you wait a long enough time, then of course, you can violate the second law, right? There also might be dynamical processes. That's what I'll explain in a second, right? There may be dynamical processes that set the universe into a low entropy point.

00:05:39--> 00:06:18

So for example, in loop quantum gravity, this is exactly what happens. Because there's a contracting universe before the big bang, the entropy of the previous universe is trapped on the horizon, it doesn't go through into the expanding universe, and therefore, the HP would effectively be reset wouldn't actually be a violation of the second law. You're just describing things in a different way in a gravity perspective. So the second law argument does not work. The cosmology argument doesn't work. The argument has been made that you cannot have infinity, you cannot. In the real world, we said that Hilbert made this argument it was based on a false assumption. Furthermore, what we've

00:06:18--> 00:06:47

learned about and I interviewed Roger Penrose, who is one of the constructors of the single Penrose Hawking singularity theorems, and he said, you can have an infinite passer because the what what we've learned that the old ancient philosophers did not know was that time is different in relativity than in our everyday lives. And there can be particles that experience all moments of time at once. Okay, okay. Let me let me just finish it hasn't been right.

00:06:49--> 00:06:51

Okay, we can make a tiny bit if you want. Let me

00:06:54--> 00:06:55

give me time. Yeah.

00:06:56--> 00:07:00

Let's do like three minutes each or something. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so.

00:07:02--> 00:07:04

Yeah, okay, we should do a dancer.

00:07:05--> 00:07:46

Okay, so. So what Penrose said was that first massless particles, they don't feel the passage of time. So energy can actually transverse the inflow, this statement certainly can transcend the infinite is assuming a passage of time. That's, like our normal experience of the world. What Penrose says is that this is false. Okay, that massless particles can do so. And therefore that argument is invalid to okay. So we're not saying that we know the universe is eternal in the past? We don't know. Right? But we don't know that it had a beginning either. And the arguments that supposedly prove as a beginners are not valid argument, there. And the last point to make is, even

00:07:46--> 00:08:08

if the universe did have a beginning, you can't necessarily say that it has a cause. Because causes causes that we understand and we know in our everyday world, they exist in time. Okay, okay. But you're trying to spit if there was the beginning to the universe, then there wasn't any time before the beginning of the universe. Because time is part of the universe. That's what we learned when we

00:08:11--> 00:08:22

say that causality Yes, I'm just about to finish. Definitely no, no position to say that causality would necessarily apply if the universe had to soften that last comment that you made about three minutes, three minutes. No,

00:08:25--> 00:08:30

no, no, no, no, no. Seven minutes, and then you can have three minutes, because I just had like five was to give it

00:08:32--> 00:08:32

to you before.

00:08:36--> 00:08:39

Four minutes, four minutes? Five minutes each? Okay.

00:08:40--> 00:08:44

I'll leave it to him. Let me say something. Yeah, he's on camera, you don't really know what you said.

00:08:46--> 00:08:47

What you said about time,

00:08:49--> 00:08:56

is unsubstantiated. Because what you have to understand is that, first of all, in philosophy, you have two theories of time, you have a theory,

00:08:58--> 00:09:38

a theory of time and the theory of time, yes. This is not a scientific discussion Why? And this is what you keep doing. You keep involving philosophy as if it's science. You're dressing up the philosophical argument in scientific guys, that's disingenuous before the universe. You didn't have the systems that we know we didn't we couldn't empirically analyze the universe as it all was outside the universe. Therefore, to speculate whether it had there was time or no time, is something which we cannot actually do. You're saying that time on the Big Bang, cosmology, time, must have began at the time of the Big Bang, that doesn't necessarily follow. You can say that the time that

00:09:38--> 00:09:59

we're acquainted with today, which whereby we use the laws of physics to determine what time is began at the time of Big Bang cosmology began at the time of the Big Bang. That's a statement you can make, what to say that no time began, before the big bang took place, if it didn't take place in the way that we've been told it took place, in that sense. That's an destiny.

00:10:00--> 00:10:38

When you cannot actually make, and by the way, from an Islamic perspective, we believe in time before the universe, just to let you know, we believe that there was time before the universe how this took effect. This, we say alone, he knows best. Now that's point two, point number three, which is more important. Now you're saying that and you've admitted quite, I would say bravely. And I applaud you for admitting this, that you don't know. You don't really know. And I really do applaud you for that. Because I think that's, that's intellectual humility, and also intellectual humbleness. And also genuine is a genuine thing to say. If that's the case, yeah. I just saw my best

00:10:38--> 00:10:38

friend.

00:10:42--> 00:10:51

Since you since you don't know, I would, I would implore you to think about one thing. Yeah. Yeah. Menu actually agree. And the philosophical level?

00:10:52--> 00:11:30

On a philosophical level, yeah, that we can criticize almost every idea. But my point to you, is that man, you Yes, we don't employ a deductive reasoning on every single thing. In fact, what we tend to employ, and you would probably agree with me, is a probabilistic type of reasoning. So you said yourself, you we trace things on reliability. So for example, you said, I probably know I'm here, because it's reliable, I go into the plane, because I have trust in the plane that it's not going to crash. Because I trust in the reliability of the plane. In other words, what you have in your mind working either on an unconscious level, or on a conscious level is a probabilistic type of

00:11:30--> 00:12:03

reasoning, whereby you go into plain thinking, you know, I'm probably not going to crash. That's why I'm going to take this risk. I say, in order to employ a genuine approach with the real world, why don't we take the same approach where you where you're using a probabilistic type of reasoning, and apply it with unemployment with theology, as they do today? And this is a different argument. I didn't even propound the cosmological argument today. I didn't even make it. I didn't even make it. on camera. I've never said you know, this, this, this is today, I'm gonna make the argument. today. I will make an argument today. And it's not the cosmological argument since you've mentioned and we

00:12:03--> 00:12:32

both agree, hopefully, that 30 seconds make up that probability that probability is good, is a way that we come to truth. In that case, since my question, since all of the cosmologists almost consensually agree that the universe has fine tuning. Doesn't does this not imply that it has intelligence behind it? And if not, why not? Okay. All right. So very quickly. Let's go. Okay. First off,

00:12:33--> 00:12:34

you said that,

00:12:36--> 00:13:14

I said the time began with the Big Bang. I didn't say that. I said, if the universe began at the Big Bang, okay, if, okay, then there was no before. Now, of course, you can posit that there was a before the big bang, but then the universe continues to exist before the big bang, and the Big Bang is not the beginning. But the whole argument made by the colonists is that the Big Bang is the beginning. Okay. Okay. So So therefore, this is invalid reasoning. Yeah. Either the Big Bang was the beginning, in which case, you can't say that cause and effect is still operating. I mean, you could speculate that it is. But that's the speculation, right? Or you say the Big Bang was not the

00:13:14--> 00:13:53

beginning, in which case the universe may be eternal into the past. And the Kalam argument is invalid. So bottom line is about the color of argument. It's an invalid argument, because we don't know if any of the premises are true. We don't know whether the universe began to exist, it may or may not have, and we don't know that causality would operate if time really had a beginning. Okay. Okay. So that is rubbish argument. Don't buy right now on to fine tuning. Right. First off, you said, Fine. Tuning implies a designer, right? I say, No, it doesn't, right. First off, intelligence. Okay. So it doesn't do that. We've got plenty of examples of things that people will point it out to

00:13:53--> 00:14:13

be fine tuned. And we can show that actually, there's a perfectly natural explanation for them. So let me give you an example. This is an example that has been quoted by William Lane Craig by Hamza sources, by many, many theologians, they said the expansion rate of the early universe was fine tuned to 60 decimal places. Okay. So

00:14:14--> 00:14:57

that statement, and so therefore, there must be an intelligent designer who put that number in just right. Okay, there. It turns out that that number that five came fine tuning, right? Depends on gravity always being attractive. Okay. However, what evidence from cosmology shows is that there was an early period of inflationary expansion to the universe, and we do have empirical evidence for this. I'm not saying that it's overwhelming evidence, but I think it's quite strong. Okay. And you can watch our films where we explain what that evidence is. Okay. Now, what that does is it turns the equations upside down. Yes. Right. So when it's when, where the evidence is

00:14:58--> 00:14:59

where the evidence is that you need

00:15:00--> 00:15:30

Facing did happen, then in fact, that number does not need to be fine. So we now have a natural explanation for this. That doesn't imply any intelligent designer at all. Okay, so this statement that is something we see to be fine tune implies a designer. Okay, that statement is false. I mean, we have evidence that statement is false. I'll give you another example. Okay. It was thought that the distance from the Earth to the Sun had to be perfectly fine tuned, if it was a bit further away,

00:15:31--> 00:15:53

then the Earth would be too cold if it was a bit too warm. So life could only exist if the position of the head to be buried delicately find him. Okay. Again, we found out that that argument was invalid. We found that out in two independent ways, not just with one way. One way was we found there was another way to heat a planetary body via gravitational

00:15:55--> 00:16:35

force. So for example, planetary bodies like Enceladus, like Europa that are outside of the so called habitable zone, they actually can be habitable because the water can be heated by tidal forces. Second off, we've also found that there is how many 20 seconds 20 seconds we've also found that there's an enormous number of planets out there, okay. And therefore, you don't need to fine tune the location because there's so many planets is basically like saying, I won the lottery. It's incredibly improbable when it could be an intelligent person fix the lottery, or it could be simpler explanation. There were lots of lottery tickets. Okay. Sorry to say filler, right. Okay. In your

00:16:35--> 00:17:13

rebuttal. You want to call it or attempt to refute refute my points? You you actually fumbled upon a series of logical fallacies that any onlooker with a just mind would have would have also realized number one, you said we don't know. Yeah. As you said, the reason why we shouldn't take the cosmological argument as a valid argument, yeah, it's because the premises are unfounded, right? So okay, we don't know if the premises are true. The lack of knowledge of something is not invalidation of a thing. That's a very well known logical thing. So for example, if I don't know something, does that mean doesn't exist? Okay, that's point number one. So you're saying, lack of knowledge of

00:17:13--> 00:17:50

something, or lack of certain knowledge of something is, is is tantamount to us rejecting that thing, we should reject that thing? Yes, you is an invalid argument is invalid argument. Why? Because we don't know if the premises are true. Just because we're not certain of the premise being true. Does that mean we should we should completely get rid of it? I tell you something. If that's the case, you should employ the same reasoning with mathematical mathematics. We don't know that mathematics is in the real world for certain, but are we going to say that we reject mathematics? We don't know what kind of proof certainly that rationality, rationality itself is something we can

00:17:50--> 00:18:22

prove. Unless you use rationality, in which case, you're going to be using a second second argument, which again, is a logical fallacy. Are you going to be logically consistent and say that we're going to reject rationality? No, you're not. But what you're doing is you're using selective critique, selective critique of certain arguments. You don't want to believe in for whatever reason, forever predisposed reasons that you have a psychological reason you have, and you're disregarding other things. So in other words, we won't we won't accept the cosmological argument because we don't know this premise is certainly true. But what on the other hand we will do is we will accept mathematics.

00:18:22--> 00:18:36

Having the same criticism could be made of mathematics, we will accept science, even though the same criticism can be made of science, we will accept rationality, even though rationality the same criticism can be made of rationality a minute, that's called hypocrisy in discussion.

00:18:37--> 00:18:40

Point 1.2. You talked about the fine tuning as if

00:18:41--> 00:19:19

you've actually caricatured the fine tuning as if those who refer to it people like your friend Steven, walk into your site with you had an interview with you filmed him, your friend to disabled on him, when you when you discuss that in his own book, A Brief History of time, he mentioned fine tuning, and he or any of the cosmologists when they refer to the fine tuning, they don't refer to the planetary bodies and the heating of the planet Earth. No, no. Martin Rees in his book, just six numbers and others, they refer to the laws of physics, had they been different by decimal number of decimal points, the universe itself wouldn't be allowed or couldn't

00:19:20--> 00:19:51

bear human life or any life, no life would be able to be in the universe has nothing to do with the planet Earth. So you've caricatured you've made a straw man called the fine tuning argument, which actually has nothing to do with the fine tuning argument one minute locked it down in front of everyone to make it seem like you flat down the argument for what you've actually done is you've just slapped down something which no one invented anyways, no one who was referring to that kind of fine tuning. Point number three. You mentioned that even in you're trying to slap down the straw man, you did, but you didn't do a good job. Why? Because you said that the fact that we can see that

00:19:51--> 00:19:59

there are other ways the planet, who cares? is there other ways to hit a planet? We're not talking even when we're talking about the planetary example of the planet Earth, that there are other ways to

00:20:00--> 00:20:02

applying it doesn't matter if otherwise,

00:20:03--> 00:20:27

if you if the planet is in a certain position, respect to other planets in respect to the sun, and that position is in a different position than it would have been destroyed too hot, too cold. Anyone can understand that. That's a different argument. We're saying that the planet itself is in a good present, not the fine tuning argument. So you have to now review the points of fine tuning. Well, I see you made three arguments, you said.

00:20:29--> 00:20:48

One that I point out certain, I mean, consistently using certainty, okay, the criteria is not certainty. I'm not saying we dismiss the column, because we're not certain that the assumptions are true. I'm saying we don't even have any good evidence that they're true. I'm happy to go with non certainty value, okay.

00:20:49--> 00:20:51

Okay, now, give me an extra 10 seconds.

00:20:52--> 00:21:27

Because you interrupted here, right? Okay. So we're not looking for certainty. So you're mischaracterizing what I'm saying? Or straw Manning? Me? I never said certainty. What we're saying is, is the evidence good enough to point to the conclusion. And with cosmology, we don't it's not a question we're not certain the universe began to exist, is that we really just don't know, the evidence is not there at all. We only know there was some type of Big Bang event, we don't know the true nature of this event. We don't know whether it was the beginning of time or not. Therefore, the cosmological argument is not just a question of a lack of certainty. It's a lack of any evidence at

00:21:27--> 00:21:40

all for what happened in the Planck era. So that argument, you've mischaracterized what I'm saying. Second point, you said I've mischaracterized the fine tuning because I only talked about the planets, right. But I didn't just talk about that. I gave an example of the

00:21:41--> 00:22:07

expansion rate of the early universe. Okay, which you completely ignored. That is what I was trying to show was that there were people claiming fine tunings, and you can show that they don't necessarily point to an intelligent creator. Okay. And I gave you not just the planets, I gave you the example of the expansion rate of the universe. So in your rebuttal, you should address that. Okay. There are other things that people have addressed. So for example, people have said, the

00:22:08--> 00:22:42

rate of inflation in the early universe, this is different to, to the kinds of expansion because that's, that's the flatness problem. So in fact, this is addressed by inflation. And people have said, Our inflation needs fine tuning, okay. Or they people said, but yeah, again, in loop quantum gravity, you can show that inflation does not need fine tuning. Okay. So again, these statements are model dependent statements. And really what you're saying is that your model, there's fine tuning, but that's just a flaw in your model. That doesn't tell you there's an intelligent creator. Okay. Another example there. Were there's people have made the kinds of strengths that the how long, two

00:22:42--> 00:23:20

minutes, okay, Stephen has made the claim that the strength of the strong force is perfectly fine tuned right. Now, again, other people have claimed know that you could actually you could change the strong force, okay. And you could have a wide range of values for that. And so therefore, again, you're seeming this fine tuning is some kind of fact, but it isn't a course, you can't confirm, you cannot do an experiment, where you change the value of a cause and observe whether the universe actually has life in it. And you can show if I gave you the standard laws of physics, and the values are the constants, and I asked you to predict whether there will be life in it, you would not get

00:23:20--> 00:23:59

the answer, right. You cannot derive that from the laws of physics that we know them. Okay. Since secondly, right. So obviously, we want to talk about the multiverse because if there's a multiverse, fine tuning is gone. Right. Now, the multiverse stems from inflation in cosmology, which we do have some evidence for, right? inflation predicted ns equals point nine, six, we observed it to be point nine, six, it predicts the cosmic microwave background is Gaussian is at a batek that there are super horizon correlations, I won't I don't have time to explain all these terms. But the fact is, you can go on NASA's w mat website, and they say, we have found evidence for inflation. You can

00:23:59--> 00:24:29

watch our film where we speak to the head guy on the Planck satellite. And he said, not only do we have evidence for inflation, but we have evidence from multiverse because the type of inflation is favored by Planck data points to a multiverse. Moreover, Steven Weinberg predicted that there would be a cosmological constant on the back of a multiverse and sure in Argentina, that is exactly what we found. So we make predictions. Okay, I'm not saying is certain it may or may not exist, we don't know. But you can't say there's no evidence for it. There's certainly more evidence for that than there is for God.

00:24:32--> 00:24:42

Okay, I'm really happy with this because he started off by saying something which is embarrassing. I'm sorry, man, I'm really sorry. But because you're an intelligent person, and you know that, you know, I'm

00:24:43--> 00:24:44

just I'm no, no, I'm

00:24:50--> 00:25:00

allow me to be a bit, you know. Okay. Point being. You started off by saying there's no evidence for the fine tuning for the for the cosmological argument. You have to understand that

00:25:00--> 00:25:37

The premise of the cosmological argument is in fact, something you can't find evidence against. And I'll challenge you. In fact, the premise of the cosmological argument is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Now, what I want you to do here is show me a range of things that begin to exist in our known universe without cause, okay, if you're saying that there's no evidence, and the statement should make sense, in any context, the statement shouldn't even make any sense. But that's the first thing to actually claim it's embarrassingly, but actually claim that why number two, you then talk about the expansion of the universe, as if once again, Miss categorizing the fine tuning

00:25:37--> 00:26:17

argument to or specifying it to one thing, which is the expansion of the universe, the fine tuning, the fine tuning argument has absolutely nothing to do with that it can exist, completely independent of the expansion of the universe, it can exist in a model of the universe, which is not even expanding. And that is what Martin Rees wrote in his book, just six numbers is six numbers that he talked about. And I want you to refute this in your rebuttal. The six numbers that he talked about, were constants that are actually governing the laws of physics, or there are six numbers that are basically I don't know how many digits there are. But they're basically the laws of physics, as we

00:26:17--> 00:26:56

know them had these numbers been just a little bit different, then the universe would not be able to maintain or have any kind of life, not just human life, any kind of life. That's the fine tuning argument. We're not talking about the aesthetics of the universe, how beautiful it looks. We're not talking about how warm Planet Earth is. We're not talking about expansions of the early universe, we are talking about the fact that the universe is intelligently designed, it must be intelligently designed in such a way as to even allow atheist people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkins, and your friend to actually admit that fine tuning, fine tuning itself has a connotation of it must have

00:26:56--> 00:27:35

been finely tuned. Having said this, I want you to now in your rebuttal. Explain to the rest of the audience members here today, that actually the fine tuning doesn't exist, and it couldn't exist. Because if you do say that, then you will be going against what seems to me like a cosmological consensus among the physicists, most of the physicists have come to this conclusion. Even atheist ones, now you're coming non non specialized in the field, trying to challenge the consensus, and say, No, it's not actually fine tuning. That is disingenuous, not only yourself, but also to your atheist counterparts who decided to disagree with you. Now, this is the argument today, if you do

00:27:35--> 00:28:20

agree with a probability type of reasoning, then the fine tuning argument as an argument to indicate that the phenomena of the universe is actually a fine tuning which necessitates intelligence. that argument should be like a hand in a glove, it should feel like a hand in a glove, you should look at the universe around you, just by your naked eye, and come to a complete conclusion that the universe being finely tuned as it is, necessitates an intelligent designer. And if you don't do that, then you've got to tell me of one example of something even remotely as complex as the universe. And before you ask complex means things that have different complex parts, only one place something as

00:28:21--> 00:29:00

complex of the universe well, having, having the intelligence but having no intelligence behind that, you've got to tell me now of anything in the in the known universe, which is even remotely of 10 seconds finely tuned to the universe, which has no in five seconds to go ahead and tell us. Okay, so first off, he said, I have done the Kalam cosmological argument. He says I haven't presented any evidence that the assumptions that they are given, of course, but I don't need to, you don't need to prove that the assumptions are false. You only need to show that there's no evidence that they're true. So for example, if I want to get someone off on a murder trial, I don't have to prove that my

00:29:00--> 00:29:41

defendant didn't do it, I only have to show that the evidence that he did do is no good. And then I can dismiss the case. So I can dismiss the Kalam cosmological argument without proving that any of the things are false. I only need to show that you haven't proved that they're true. And I have shown that so with the fine tuning argument, he said that the expansion rate of the early universe was nothing to do with a fine tuning. That is complete nonsense. I encourage you go and watch debates that theologians have done where they've quoted the fine tuning argument. This is actually the most quoted example of fine tuning. Now, the point being, that if you can show that you've got

00:29:41--> 00:29:59

an example of fine tuning, and it doesn't necessarily imply an intelligent designer that has a natural explanation, then you cannot infer fine tuning implies designer. You also want an example of something this is fine tuned to 60 decimal places. Okay? That's the claim but

00:30:00--> 00:30:43

We have a completely natural explanation for that you can show that inflationary cosmology, the fine tuning completely goes away. So you wanted one example, which was as your example of the fine tuning of the expansion rate of the early universe, which has been used by many theologians like Muslims like Hamza sources. adamantane. They've all used this examples. Okay. William Lane Craig use it because of course, he will copy William Lane Craig and you know it, right. And so this is, this is one of the most abused quoted use examples of fine tuning. Okay. So it's certainly the case that we do have an example of fine tuning that doesn't require an intelligent creator. So this idea that you

00:30:43--> 00:31:17

can infer fine tuning, therefore intelligent design, No, you cannot. Right. Second off, you say it's a complete consensus that there is fine tuning. That's not true. There are a lot of cosmologists who are right. They say that's fine tuning. But what you fail to mention is there are a lot of cosmologists who say, No, there isn't. Okay, including some of the cosmologists that these guys quote, I interviewed Alan Guth, one of the world's leading cosmologists, and he says either by fine tuning, I don't think there is fine tuning, except one case he did say he thinks the cosmological constant is fine tuned. Right. He did say that. However, you can read in nature, very well known

00:31:17--> 00:31:51

established physicists like Carlo Rovelli. Eugene Bian key, they say a dog page is actually a Christian, right? This guy's a theist, and he doesn't think the cosmological constant is fine, too. So there's a lot more doubt about this fine tuning, then you pretend Yes, I agree. There are people I might unreasonable, who say they're a fight, there's fine tuning. I have not been in this movie that for a second, thank God. The bottom line is, you cannot actually why we decide these differences in science is do experiments, okay. But you cannot do an experiment where you change the causal nature and see if life comes about. There are plenty of cosmologists who say, you can change

00:31:51--> 00:32:24

these constants and life will still come about. Okay, we don't know. Now, even if there is fine tuning, right? We do have a good explanation for fine tuning. As I say, if there's a multiverse, you've got a perfectly reasonable explanation for fine tuning. Now, I'm not going to claim we know there's a multiverse. But we do have some evidence. It's not overwhelming evidence. I don't want to claim that it is. But there is some evidence for a multiverse in the sport of inflationary cosmology. And if you don't believe me, you can watch our videos and we will interview some of the world's leading cosmologists and they say, and observational cosmologists not just doing to be ones,

00:32:24--> 00:32:45

and they will tell you what the observational evidence is. 15 sec. Okay. So that so the facts are, if you have something improbable, you could conclude that someone is fixing things, but you could also conclude, there's you, you have to be able to have a range of abilities in the universe, you don't know what the probabilistic range is. So you don't know you can't make that argument. Ah, no.

00:32:46--> 00:32:47

Yeah, we'll do

00:32:48--> 00:32:49

that too. Cuz this is like,

00:32:51--> 00:32:52

three minutes.

00:32:58--> 00:32:58

Free Free.

00:33:00--> 00:33:02

Let me tell you something, right. In the beginning, he said, he said,

00:33:03--> 00:33:14

he quoted some names come from who the first name if you call it a name, and he said, Oh, they don't believe in fine tuning. And they say, except for this situation, or this, except for the cosmological constant. Yeah.

00:33:15--> 00:33:17

And a good Gemini, Steven Weinberg. Okay.

00:33:18--> 00:33:34

Interesting, is this incredibly interesting here, that you attempt to refute the fine tuning with people who actually accept it, especially in certain cases. So you have not found really even your reputation of me and you're someone who's interviewed all the, you know, the majority of

00:33:37--> 00:33:38

them on the way,

00:33:41--> 00:34:22

the expansion rate of the universe, I told you before, that I'm not resting my case on that. I'm resting my case, just in this instance, let's talk about the six numbers. Then you said, Okay, I don't deny the six numbers. Therefore, I win, the argument is finished. As simple as that. If I say the six numbers of Martin Rees, constitute fine tuning, and you have no refutation of that. Forget about me, the argument has been one by one side. And that's how you just have to be humble and admit it. Forget about forget about the current carry on carry on with the cosmological argument, and after this finishes, with the cosmological argument, you said that it's completely solved with

00:34:22--> 00:34:59

multiverse, as you rightly pointed out yourself, most of us is completely speculative. You can say, as speculative, more speculative than some religious beliefs. Fine. But what I'm gonna say is even more than this, actually, it's not solved with the multiverse. You have to say it's only solved in a situation whereby you not only have a multiverse, but you have a possibility or reality of an infinite amount of multiverses. So you have to have, we have to believe in two things without seeing them and knowing them, you have to believe in the multiverse and then you have to believe in a multiverse that has an infinite amount of universes in them now

00:35:00--> 00:35:44

Even then, even then, even if you do that you haven't solved the problem of fine tuning. Why? Because you'd have to change the question that you put into the total probability generator, because it masters different kinds of poverty by beans based theory, total ability, we're using total total probability, which is part of probability theory, Max, you'd have to change the question you asked the calculator. From, to what extent is this universe finely tuned to To what extent is a universe finely tuned? In other words, changing the question from the indefinite article from a definite article to the indefinite? So you'd have to actually not only have an, a million or billion or even

00:35:45--> 00:36:25

an infinite amount of universes, you'd have to change the question you're asking as well. So in essence, even if you have a multiverse, and even if you had an infinite amount of universes, this doesn't this doesn't even disprove Fine. Fine tuning. Okay. So Right. Right. He said, he said, I said the multiverse disproves the cosmological argument. Now I said it to do the fine tuning argument. So let's get it straight. Second off, he said that because I quoted people, Alan Guth, who don't believe in fine tuning apart from one example. And the fact that I did they agree with that example? means that that I've been refuted Absolutely not. The point is, there's no consensus on

00:36:25--> 00:36:41

this stuff. Right? Yes. Guth agrees cosmological constant is fine to actually, I should say, only if the cosmological constant is the vacuum. Okay, which cosmological constant may not be the vacuum. And He even gave that qualification if you've seen that interview. Right? Well, maybe you should

00:36:44--> 00:36:51

fail before. Right? Because he said he subscribe to my channel youtube. Constant.

00:36:52--> 00:36:53

Okay.

00:36:55--> 00:36:56

Okay, come on. Sorry, sir.

00:36:59--> 00:37:00

We're gonna continue the newest

00:37:01--> 00:37:03

energy density that is finely tuned.

00:37:05--> 00:37:38

This is what we will call a revalue saying, well, maybe the cosmos because it is no the vacuum energy density, and then it's not fine tuned. Right. So there isn't this consensus? There are plenty and it's not just the expansion rate of the six numbers, people yeah, like the strength of the strong force six numbers or six times the strength of the strong force agreed upon. Sean Carroll in other cosmology said he doesn't believe in fine tuning. Roger Penrose says he doesn't believe in fine tuning six. He does. Right. Okay. Can you keep interrupting me, so I won't die this time. Right. So

00:37:40--> 00:38:19

does say that the entropy of the universe is fine tuned, but not fine tuned for life. This is a difference, okay? Because the entropy of the universe or the universe could be enormously higher, and it would still allow for life. Okay, so theism would not explain why the entropy of the universe is low. Why this has been taken out of context is because when people have quoted Penrose, let's say the entropy in the early moons fine tune, what he's saying is that he thinks this is evidence of a cyclic universe, because there would be a mechanism that sets the entropy into a low state. Now, you're saying that the multiverse would not even exist wouldn't disprove fine tuning, because it's

00:38:19--> 00:38:45

about the definite article, but you what you're missing out is the selection effect, right? You are only going to find yourself in a universe of considerable life, you can't find yourself in the universe that doesn't support life, because you're alive. So therefore, your argument about your definite article is invalid. Okay. So the fact is, we you said, the multiverse completely speculation that is utter total bull[???], right? We have evidence.

00:38:46--> 00:39:10

And we have evidence that inflation happened and inflation predicts a multiverse. Okay. That's not me saying that. That's what NASA and Isa say. Okay. So therefore, we have now again, I'm not saying that this evidence is overwhelming, that inflation has been definitely proved. Therefore, I'm not saying that, but it is not complete speculation, either. There is some evidence for it. Okay.

00:39:11--> 00:39:13

Can I have one minute, one minute, one minute?

00:39:15--> 00:39:16

I'll just do one minute.

00:39:31--> 00:39:32

Okay.

00:39:37--> 00:39:59

Okay, listen, listen. It seems like my major argument today. I've only put one argument forward. I wasn't necessarily propounding the cosmological argument, but I was defending it from certain things that he was saying, which I believe are unsubstantiated. I don't believe the cosmological argument itself, in and of itself as a standalone thing. Should we use too much in an hour, we should have a postulate

00:40:00--> 00:40:36

have different kinds of arguments. We use it as it relates to the fine tuning argument, which I put as it as a supplement or as the main argument today, actually, you have to remember, I talked about as a main argument, the one that detailed the natural environment from a physics perspective, which had they been different. The universe would not be finely tuned for human life or life and therefore if you can't do it, do it now. If not, we have to admit that actually have no answer. Okay. All right, one minute. First, I'll be quiet my race what he forgot to mention he's misquote him if he's got his mind, Reese is saying there, we've got evidence for a multiverse, and he thinks that's the

00:40:36--> 00:40:46

solution to the fine tuning. So even though she resync series fine tuning, right? You're forgetting the fact that he thinks is evidence for a multiverse. So he doesn't think that's God. And you?

00:40:48--> 00:40:51

You conveniently ignored? Can you know, answer me so I get 10 seconds.

00:40:53--> 00:40:54

10 seconds.

00:40:55--> 00:40:56

Okay.

00:40:57--> 00:41:31

So first off, right, just because my enry says it, there are other cosmologists who don't agree. And the point about science is you have to confirm things by experiment, you cannot experimentally confirm that these constants have to be fine tuned, even if they are fine tuned. Right. It doesn't necessarily prove God, it could be a multiverse. Or it could be something other than the multiverse or other solutions. People have proposed that the cosmological constant might vary throughout the universe. And we actually have seen some observational evidence in the form of alpha, that this might be the case. Now this evidence is tentative. I'm not saying there's anything definitive about

00:41:31--> 00:41:55

it, but it certainly doesn't prove God. And one last thing that even if it was fine tuned, right. Think of this. Why would a god need to fine tune the conscience of nature? Don't you think that God is going to create life by a supernatural intervention anyway? So he doesn't mean right, okay. But what I'm saying is, if he's going to create life by supernatural invasion, he doesn't need to find unicorns.

00:41:57--> 00:41:57

Right.

00:41:58--> 00:42:00

You get my point, right.

00:42:06--> 00:42:08

Let me show you. Thank you very much.

00:42:10--> 00:42:16

Listen, guys, I'm very happy I spoke to you because you're clearly well researched. Yeah. Clearly very intelligent strapping young men and

00:42:18--> 00:42:27

liquidity. Is this why we're talking about bounce off because basically you do that in your spare time? Yeah. Show us something right here right now. This change this because

00:42:32--> 00:42:33

here we go.

00:42:34--> 00:42:36

After this, you're gonna realize is fine tune

00:42:38--> 00:42:40

fine tuning Phil, show us over right now.

00:42:41--> 00:42:44

I'm gonna take this camera away before it gets destroyed.

00:42:45--> 00:42:46

Okay, no.

00:42:47--> 00:42:49

Oh, here we go. Here we go.

00:42:57--> 00:42:58

Oh,