THIS Is The STRONGEST Argument For God?!?!?! #atheism #atheist #christianity #god

[sjhoneywell]

Mike Winger is a prime example of a decent-seeming person made exponentially worse by his religious convictions.

[trishayamada]

I don’t think humans are remotely fine tuned. Currently my immune system is attacking me. It would be great if my own body wasn’t trying to kill me.

[sacredcowdiner]

It's hilarious that Winger uses a Rube Goldberg machine as an analogy for the fine tuning argument, when its definition is "an overly complicated gadget performing a simple task in an indirect, convoluted manner." I guess that's the origin of God working in mysterious ways...[Edited to remove what I thought would be an obvious joke about Occam's razor, to avoid further pedantic replies. I am aware who William of Ockham was, thanks. 🙂 ]

[outrageousbananaking]

All the Christian hate in the comments is saddening

These are the people to say that they love and accept everybody but then they hate on people who believe in christ

[Narasimha_TheSher]

Christopher Hitchens and more have said before that Fine Tuning Argument is the best argument from the side of Theism.

[donnyh]

I like how they can never seem to understand that the same thing applies to their supposed omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god only its wayyy worse😅

[InformationIsTheEdge]

Here is the fine tuning argument at its core. If things were different, things would be different. Plus, every single example of a designed item held up as "evidence" has been an item designed by human beings. Painting needs a painter. Building needs a builder. Watch needs a watchmaker. Yes, people make those things.

[smol-one]

So...is this what they're switching to? It's not the watchmaker it's Rube Goldberg? Because that's even worse.

[TheAngryAtheist]

Actually, it was christopher hitchens who said it was the strongest. It being the strongest argument doesnt actually make it strong when compared to other arguments.

[brotheradamfromups]

As a Christian, I dislike everything Mike Winger says as well. He doesn't do a very good job at representing Christians either

[Wertbag]

Why are we forced to guess at Gods existence via second hand inference? They keep saying He wants us to know Him and He wants a personal relationship with us, and yet direct communication is impossible.

[FishHeadSalad]

I am pretty sure the board game called Mouse Trap is now designed by Hasbro and not a genie. I am also pretty sure that nature was not designed by an imaginary genie as well.

[bengreen]

Winger is quotemining Dawkins here. Dawkins and Hitchens were talking about what the best theist arguments were and they agreed that the fine tuning had the most potential. They were saying it's the best of a bad bunch.

[apwill]

I explained this in a comment on Wingers short, when atheists call the fine tuning argument the strongest argument for creation, that is NOT a compliment. Strongest is a relative term. I would agree with people like Hitch and say this is the strongest or most compelling argument for the existence of gods. And I agree with you GE, it's shit. It's the best they got and it's shit.

[kevincrady]

"Fine-tuning" is actually an argument _against_ an omnipotent deity. It proposes that the Fine-Tuner/-s (whoever they/she/he might be) are constrained by physics. They needed to delicately adjust the knobs on their Big-Bang-O-Matic before pressing the big red button in order to get a very specific sort of Cosmos that they wanted--and wait around 14 billion years before any humans showed up (assuming they wanted humans to show up).

An omnimax deity could simply create a Cosmos instantaneously with humans (or dolphins, or machine intelligences, or pretty nebula clouds, or whatever the universe is being made for) present from the start.

Furthermore, "fine-tuning" is based on the idea that _this_ Cosmos is the only sort of place that can support intelligent life (hence the fine-tuning necessary to achieve this result). Is "God" an intelligent being living in a Cosmos _exactly like this one_ (and thus, subject to its physics, just as we are)? If yes, than he's not an all-powerful transcendent Deity, he's just an alien with a Big-Bang-O-Matic.

If "God" is some sort of "supernatural" intelligent being living in a "supernatural" realm that is _not_ exactly like this Cosmos...then there is more than one sort of place that can support intelligent life, and the whole premise that "fine-tuning" a Cosmos exactly like this one is necessary for intelligent life to exist collapses.

[adrianofficialmusick]

Thw greatest argument that Jesus was supernatural is the case that the Mark and Luke are verified by archaeologists and the fact that 500 people sa resurrected Jesus

[tomjeffries]

Keep bringing this stuff to light Brother Heathen

[Fisherofmen]

DNA proves the existence of God. DNA is code, information and instruction. Instruction is made up of words. Words are created in the mind and are thoughts expressed. A word cannot write itself so who wrote DNA?

[jbaccanalia]

That fine tuning is explained by science.
Mike is explained by Dunning Kruger.

[darkoraclegirl]

The Fine Tuning argument is as followed, "Man makes machine thus God made everything!" Like how does a human, a lesser being to god, making a working machine PROVE that god made everything? Also if this, *waves to everything around me* was "fine tuned" by god then he's clearly not even on par with the half assers who make shit because our bodies are constantly breaking down, and it's not just our bodies but all creatures and even plants too. So if god is real, he's clearly got all the dedication of a dead beat teen dad living in his mom's basement cause she's the only one who isn't pushing him to actually do anything.