A TOP TIER Argument For God's Existence

In my humble opinion, the argument from fine tuning is the strongest argument for the existence of God.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[musingsofahomeschooler]

0:01 "imagine you're stuck in some twisted dystopian future"
I don't have to imagine it

[Celestial_Chip]

The generational fumble of not calling the video God-tier argument for god needs to be studied

[comhaltacht]

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, it at the bottom of the glass is God waiting for you.” -Werner Heisenberg

[EliasVisualProductions]

It’s so funny as a millennial Christian for 15 years to see these arguments repackaged in Gen Z format. Same arguments but much more effective. Good work

[polishscribe]

1. Jesus existed. In fact, He is better documented than the roman emperor and even atheist scholars agree that He lived, teached, and got crucifued.
2. Tha apostles must have believed He ressurected, otherwise they wouldn't have died for him.
3. His body must've gone missing. If it didn't, Jewish farizes would just show it to disprove His resurection.

[qb]

I have a lot of people I went to college with who are agnostic or atheists. However, the primary thing that studying a B.S. and then an M.S. in physics taught me about God is what is presented precisely in this argument. I find it very difficult to ignore the math of fine tuning and even graduate level quantum mechanics can't really make the mutli-verse stick. Extra dimensions? Absolutely. But, the multi-verse really just came off as a way for scientists to duck the question of theism and decide the math "really does work after all". I love physics. Physics tells me God is not an at all unlikely or impossible first cause.

Edit: I have turned off comment alerts on this thread. It's now 90% atheist trolls making the same arguments over and over that I have already responded to elsewhere in the thread. Sorry to those of you looking for genuine engagement, conversation, and/or debate. As usual, the know-nothing trolls have ruined it and are now even fighting amongst themselves.

[Pansto]

For the one who believes, no proof is necessary, for those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient.
-Ignatius of Loyola

[unknownsoul]

Been a pantheist most of my life. Last year i had an experience that forced me to believe, but it still didnt feel right. Then i accepted Jesus as my lord, and i started reading the bible. Now it feels like im actually acknowledging the experience and honoring Him for saving me. I need to do better, but I'm doing better. Thank you Father for stepping in, saving me and giving me the answers i needed. I vow to be better, do better, and live Your teachings.

[FerventforJesus]

im starting to think that you draw al the wojaks

[prodromosmakpon]

Problem is, the universe isnt fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned for the universe. The universe was made first then the humans. Remember, life can only observe the universe if it has conditions for life, otherwise thats impossible.

[dpal]

I find your final response to the fine tuning thing problematic. You say you are not using "god of the gaps" fallacy, and instead are relying on probability. However, the probabilities you are using for a creator are not only made up and random, but are just the literal the probability of a creator existing to make the universe. You used the probability that a god of the gaps fallacy works, which still is relying on it and ignoring possibilities of other methods of creation. Fine tuning is also relative to our perspective of life. You attempted to dismiss this by saying atheists believe life would form to different conditions of a universe, however I find it more believable that while life wouldn't exist how we know it in a universe with different natural laws and constants, it is still possible that life would exist. We cannot comprehend a universe with different natural laws, math, and other unchanging things, so there is no way of proving that "life" is only possible under the conditions of our universe.

[VCLegos]

For the universe to be considered 'fine-tuned, ' one must first assume that the universe had the potential not to be fine-tuned. This implies that there are other possible configurations of universes, which aligns with the multiverse theory—something that you have denied in your discussion. This raises a potential contradiction: either the multiverse exists, allowing for naturalistic explanations, or it doesn’t, in which case the universe simply exists in the way it must, without the need for fine-tuning or a creator.

Moreover, this brings up a deeper philosophical question: why must the universe require a creator at all? Could it not be possible that the universe simply exists as a self-sustaining reality, without the need for external causation? After all, if we believe that God can exist eternally and independently, is it not conceivable that the universe could share that same property?

[BorchikYes]

Okay so here is the issue with this argument:

1. The argument doesnt point to anything in particular even if its granted. Say we have an intelligent designer. Okay, so what? The argument doesnt tell you its your god, it would just tell you its something that caused things to be this way. Any number of made up gods could be true.

2. What if the reason we have theese constants is that they couldnt have been any different at all? We already baisically have that with gravity. Gravity isnt just some kinda force, its a consequence of the fact that spacetime can be moved and it simply couldnt have been any other value. It could be the same with all other constants. This is just an assumption though.

3. As much as youd like it not to be, this is still god of the gaps thinking. We dont know why exactly the constants are like that, so you assume god. This is really my main point with this comment. Does that mean there isnt any possible way God could exist? Nope. But at the end of the day, the god hypothesis is unfalsifyable. You cant prove it beond reasonable doubt and you cant disprove it with any amount of evidence either. Until some kind of evidence is found that either proves or disproves gods existance, it will stay a hypothesis and wont be accepted as science. We admit that we dont know why the constants are this way yet, instead of trying to make up an explaination that we cant prove.

sorry for any typos or gramatical errors btw :)

Edit: not gonna be answering any more replies anymore scince im getting kinda tired of it. The conversations were surprisingly civil tho :D

[darkwolf]

Of all the arguments for God, fine-tuning is certainly the one I like the most. Chance can't explain it. Multiverses make the problem worse. So it's either a set of necessary conditions or a timeless spaceless entity created the universe 🤔

[cheeselemons-sqpn]

correct me if you think I'm wrong, but the argument that he used to disprove the multiverse is literally the exact argument that disproves God as well...

[axiom]

Is Testify trying to become the strongest Christian apologist???😱😱😱

[MyCupOfTea]

But what if I want to hit the gritty on the Rings of Saturn?

[tylimlibwaar]

I am frustrated by how people try to put limits on God as if He were merely human. God is beyond our understanding; if He desired to be a black hole, He could easily do so. If He chose to manifest as a burning bush, that is within His power as well. Yet, too many people struggle to accept that God made Himself human in mortal flesh, died, and then resurrected Himself. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Let me be clear: we cannot impose human limitations on an all-powerful being. Take matter, for instance. It is a fundamental principle that matter cannot be created or destroyed, yet the galaxy is full of it. So how did it come into existence? It was made. By whom? God. And how? That's the point—He's God, and we will never fully comprehend His ways.

I use the pronoun "He" because the only human form God is known to have taken is that of a man, specifically Jesus Christ. We need to accept the reality of God's nature without confining Him to our limited perspectives.

[talhochberg]

I think you missed the whole point of constants. Constants are numbers or expressions which are, well, constant. They cannot be changed.
So saying "if the gravitational constant would be stronger by 1/1^40 stars wouldn't form" is nonesense, because the gravitational constant can't be changed.
It was derived by the behavior of the physical world, not the other way around. if it was changed it wouldn't be the same constant anymore and we would derive another one.

Take pi for example. Mathematicians found that the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter is a constant number, and called it pi. you can say "if pi was slightly larger then circles won't be circles anymore. That must be evidence that God exists."

[williamli]

Hey, Christian here. I would like to give some comments:

1. So the shooting squad all miss, so there must be something beyond them. The shooting squad analogy assumes that we exist, are capable of understanding our existence, and understand how the shooting squad would nullify it. In retrospect as the victim, it is indeed surprising that I am still alive. One issue I thought of is amount of information. If we knew that the firing squad would miss, it would be a trivial scenario. The non-believer can argue we are rushing to conclusions with our limited knowledge.

2. The "shooting" itself perhaps is better analogous to extinction events or the constancy of universal parameters. I would say it is indeed miraculous that life is capable of surviving all those extinction events (unless you are young Earth creationist, and if so just ignore this point), and has allowed such complex beautiful lifeforms to emerge. I would say instead of pointing to a designer, this points to a protector instead.

3. The fact that the universal are constant is miraculous. This also points towards a sustainer or protector figure. Then again, the non-believer can argue that we simply lack understanding of the universe, and this could be trivial.

4. We do not know what the expected behavior of the universe should be. Going on pure randomness, obviously the parameters could be anything, and the idea of an expected value for the parameters is meaningless. But there might be an a prior probability distribution that narrows down the values. We simply don't know. Perhaps it is God who defined this probability distribution, but we can't definitively prove it for now. The non-believer can argue it is in the nature of the universe to support life, instead of external factors.

6. Infinite dice rolls before time: We only know how long our universe as existed, and it is meaningless to think about 'time before the universe'. As theists we argue that the probability of the universe being the way it is is miniscule, but perhaps all possible iterations have been tried already without us knowing? This is similar to the multiverse argument. The non-believer that we are only aware of the current iteration of the universe, and perhaps the infinite possible combinations of parameters have already been tried sequentially before we came to be.

Again, very nice, and thought provoking video from Testify. I'm just trying to understand the Fine tuning argument more. God bless.