Atheist Physicists Prove God. Anthropic Principle Fails

Atheist Physicists Prove God. Anthropic Principle Fails
[ne_semantic_video video_id=”z4E_bT4ecgk” title=”Atheist Physicists Prove God. Anthropic Principle Fails” upload_time=”2012-11-26T16:06:18.000Z” description=”The anthropic principle failed even to atheist physicists and most atheists still have no idea. Science now gave us indisputable proof that this universe was” duration=”PT13M10S”]
The anthropic principle failed even to atheist physicists and most atheists still have no idea. Science now gave us indisputable proof that this universe was designed. It’s now science of the gaps NOT God of the gaps.

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:
N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant;
Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
D = number of spatial dimensions in space time.


  • jinxy72able says:

    “God doesn’t need to fine tune anything, we talk about the parameters of physics and cosmology, the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity and we say if they weren’t the numbers that they were then life itself could not exist, that really underestimates god by a lot, which is surprising from theists I think.”- Sean Carroll

    “The only framework in which you can honestly say that the physical parameters of the universe must take on certain values in order for life to exist, is naturalism.” – Sean Carroll

    If a God existed there would be no need or reason for any fine tuning. God could make gravity at whatever parameter or value he wanted, and then just make it so life could live and exist just fine under those parameter and values.

    Why would gravity have to have the value it does now for life to exist, if a god created life? As an all powerful creator, and the designer of life he is the one that decides what parameters and values he want life to exist in. If he wanted life to live on the inside of stars he could do that, he would just design life so that it could live and thrive (and in fact required) those conditions to live and exist.

    There is no reason to fine tune anything a certain way, no matter how he tuned things, he could just make life able to live in (or with) that tuning.

    Are you saying God couldn’t make life unless gravity is what it is? He couldn’t make life exist in different gravity? If that’s the case, then he isn’t all powerful.

    By saying the values and parameters HAVE to be the way they are for life to exist, you’re saying if they were different god couldn’t make life. As the quote from Sean Carroll above says “that really underestimates god”.

  • jinxy72able says:

    They say if the Cosmological constant was different in just a very very very small percent then life and the universe as we know it could not exist.

    So what? That would just mean that this universe and life couldn’t and wouldn’t exist. Sooo? Why do they think this universe and life “does have to” exist? If it/they (the universe or life)didn’t exist then they wouldn’t exist. So what?

  • MayelGura says:

    The odds isn’t in the order of 1 in 10^120 though… because if there is an arbitrary amount of universes(as the hypthesis predicts), at least one of them is bound to have the right conditions for life.

  • Wassily Kandinsky says:

    Some theists say: If I cannot “explain” something, that’s a proof for “god” which is a supernatural being which is human-like and capable of love, etc,etc. So they also cannot “explain” their god(s). But they don’t see that this imaginary being is a pure human projection.

  • Travel RN says:

    Thank you for this wonderful video

  • Travel RN says:

    Evolution is not a fact it is a THEORY and a BELIEF

  • Ashoerchen says:

    This kind of argument has been presented on and on and on. It was always good-mannered scientists who found out that “this special state of nature” – be it the wonderful flat earth :-), the beautiful rainbows, or later the wonder of amino acids, or the constant of gravity that all fitted the “creation” so perfectly, and even later the sheer impossibility that a planet like the earth would be just at this distance from its sun, with just that inclination of its axis, and and and…. and each and every time it turned out that either the observation was false, or that the specific set of circumstances was easily conceivable in a universe that presented such an abundance of natural occurrences that the combination of factors that we find on earth, in life and in humanity simply turned our to be one of the haptillion possibilities that exist in our universe.

    In other words: Each time scientists – as mentioned, intelligent, good-mannered ones – thought they had found something that possibly could not have come about without a creator, it turned out later that no trace of a creator could be found, and as a matter of fact was unnecessary not only to explain nature, but more importantly to put it to use – practically, verifiably, helpfully.

    So whenever proof of a creator is found it is put – apodictically, as in the case of the cosmological constant – beyond the ever-receding line of where science “has not yet trod” (NDGT). Only to be disproved later, reliably and in every single instance, without exception. This is what science, including benevolent theists, terms the fallacy of the god of the gaps.

  • Richard Garnache says:

    just more nonsense that says the same old thing …. I cant imagine the universe could be natural because the odds are so high …. But I can imagine a universe where the odds of the creator would be vastly greater ….. because it makes me feel better

  • Will Hughes says:

    Dawkins… what a God damned fudger … he always turns coat and kisses up when he is talking to someone he can’t bowl over with his double talk and insinuation…

  • Muhammad Ahmad says:

    any one who can make me eternal i will consider him my God.This richard dawkin who himself is a man whose body will decompose within hours of death is just following his inner NAFS or inner thinking to gain publicity.THe whole system of universe is so big that it is rather profitable business for a human being to accept GOd or Allah and obey Him and HIS current ALBUM IN STORE IS ISLAM AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS FINAL CHARACTER FOR UNIVERSE TO FOLLOW OTHERWISE THIS UNIVERSE IS GOING TO END U BCOS GOD LEVEL OF TESTING IS GOING TO INCREASE,

  • Muhammad Ahmad says:

    CAN ANYBODY claiming multiverse,evolution or deny creationism offer me a good afterlife.And explain from these bunch of religions came from were all those billions of people who came before us were stupid?What is purpose of life,birth ,emotions,feeling,happiness,evil,sin,pain,misery,struggle,death.God says i created u to obey me and so that i may test u and reward good doers and even promises to forgive sinnners.

  • Naimul Haq says:

    You are right numbers of the constants of the parameter space of the Standard Model, decide logic, physics, mathematics etc., of the creation/evolution of the universe, life and consciousness. Natural selection over billions of years created galaxies that may contain life like us or even more advanced. Similarly the 10^ 120 or 500 universes, by natural selection may evolve the same numbers like us and have life and consciousness in other universes.

    Besides intelligent design what I think is more important, is why the divine purpose of the designer, intended to create us, so that we could retrace our origin to discover the magic and mysteries of our creation, having been given the intelligence/consciousness to do so.

  • Justin Case says:

    At some level one has to, at least in some manner, admire the seemingly immovable faith of those who hold to the tennants of the religion of Atheism.

  • Duncan Kilburn says:

    Modern research into quantum mechanics has rendered the ‘materialistic worldview’ totally invalid. We’re back to the lands of idealism but not solipsism… The ‘past’ and ‘future’ do not exist they’re illusions, only the ‘eternal present’ exists. The ‘classical worldline’ is completely debunked. The ‘cosmological observer’ (god) has to exist in order to lock the universe into existence, it/we cannot exist without him… It’s quite embarrassing that I once identified as an ‘atheist’… we all make mistakes…

  • Peet says:

    For starters, the first physicist isn’t Martin Rees but Leonard Susskind.
    Secondly, nice work with all the editing helasmoh.

    And Martin Rees aka Lord Rees said this :
    “I would support peaceful co-existence between religion and science because they concern different domains,” Lord Rees said. “Anyone who takes theology seriously knows that it’s not a matter of using it to explain things that scientists are mystified by.”

    ” I”ve got no religious beliefs at all”

    O and Leonard Susskind about fine-tuning ?

    For the rest, go fuck yourself helasmoh.

  • Facebook Facebook says:

    I heard no prove that god exists. I see no reason why som regions of this vast universe shouldn’t be fine tuned. Maybe the fine tune is cause by interaction between large scale structures in the universe.

  • Sujay Singh says:

    And there you prove existance of God or may be a big foot, unicorn or Spiderman. ?
    This video is good for brainless Theists. Happy ignorance. ?

  • listen2meokidoki says:

    The idiot who produced this video is an idiot either because he doesn’t know Dawkins used the word TRICK to mean technique (and not deception), or the idiot is a bastard because he knew Dawkins actual meaning , and deliberately deceived the viewer by saying Dawkins is being a trickster.

  • listen2meokidoki says:

    Why do we need to believe (an opinion without sufficient proof) in a God or no God? Why not suspend disbelief. And because EVERY God has never imparted any knowledge greater than what the contemporaries who wrote the various religious texts already knew (and often got wrong, for example the sun), why not say – there is no God until there is sufficient proof.?

  • Duncan Kilburn says:

    At 6.10 Dawkins gives a classic example of the typically lazy/poor standard of thinking/argument that characterises much of modern academic debate:

    “..theists say God did it – that of course is no explanation at all, because it leaves unexplained the tuner. It just pushes the problem back one step..”

    That’s like saying (for example): Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetism has no value because we cannot explain the prior nature of electric charge…
    We know electric charge exists because it is required – because Electromagnetism is well observed and its effects are well understood theoretically/mathematically.

    By the same logic:

    1. The fine tuning problem requires a ‘fine tuner’.
    2. The universal Quantum observation/measurement problem requires a cosmological ‘observer/measurer’.

    Does the fact we have no conception of the nature of electric charge mean a theory of Electromagnetism that suggests the existence Electric charge (Maxwell) is ‘no explanation at all, that just pushes it back one step’?
    A logically and scientifically feeble argument to put it mildly.

    Most of science is based on concepts of quantities who’s fundamental nature is entirely undetermined – to name but a few: electric charge, colour charge, energy, inertia, consciousness, etc….

    The nature of the ‘fine tuner/cosmological observer’ is not understood in the same fashion. But it’s requirement to exist is palpable. The fact that you cannot explain/understand it is irrelevant.

  • Taino137 says:

    I just wonder what kind of an Iddiot would create something like humanity. God is such an idiot, i can’t wait to spit on his face.

  • alan thomas says:

    Just hang on there – woah – the AP is really a potential proof of an infinity of universes – but you can always just shove God in there if it floats your boat.

  • Daathaan says:

    This is like listening to the Puddle from Doug Adam’s analogy: If a puddle of water in a hole becomes sentient, it thinks ‘Wow, this fits me so perfectly, it _must_ have been made just for me!’ when in reality, the puddle fit the hole, not the hole for the puddle.

  • Randy Hall says:

    You lost me at “fine tuned deck”. Who or what fine tuned the deck??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *