I really want to see how atheists squirm out of this one considering they now have to prove that chaos creates order and design and that 0+0 can equal one. I think we can officially say that logic and science favor God now considering the Goldilocks properties of the universe pointing to a universe which was purposely designed.
No opinions or theories please. I want to see actual scientific evidences defending atheism and the idea of nothing creating something (something which has been scientifically tested with no results...)
The very first argument posted by the video debunks the whole video.
If whoever made it was educated in Science, they would realise the Big Bang Theory does not state that something came from nothing, and also does not state that nothing caused the big bang.
It merely states that the big bang occurred, which we have plenty of evidence to show is correct. This part, to the video's credit is shown in the second frame.... However, The very fact they're opening their argument with a blatant misrepresentation, speaks volumes about the video as a whole.
The third frame is also a misrepresentation, based on the problem from the first frame. The theory does not assert something came from nothing. The very fact you're claiming we think things came from the vacuum proves that.... The vacuum is not a state of nothingness. In a state of nothingness, even the vacuum would not exist.
On that point however, Christians do believe something came from nothing... namely, their God and everything he created. This is a classic example of the "special pleading" logical fallacy.
The conclusion on frame three is also absurd. Since all energy we know of exists within space-time, just making up a transcendent energy source that existed before the big bang is not a logical conclusion. If you're making that argument, there's nothing to say all the matter of the universe existed prior to the big bang as well.
On to the fourth frame:
It starts off by committing the "proof by assertion" fallacy. It has not demonstrated that the energy source from the previous frame exists, however now it is talking about it as an accepted fact despite the complete lack of evidence.
The conclusion it reaches with this energy source being intelligent is also absolutely absurd. It's making the argument that something as complex as the universe to create itself out of natural processes is implausible.... However a force even more complex than the universe, which possesses supreme intelligence just happened to appear/exist out of nothing.
It's shooting down an argument it deems implausible, and replaces it with an argument infinitely more implausible. It's insane.
The fifth frame deals with the "fine tuning" argument, which is compelling to a believer, but weak to anyone else.
There's multiple problems with that argument. First off, we don't even know if it's possible for the "finely tuned" aspects of the universe to be tuned any other way than they are.
Another problem is that even if it is possible to tune them different ways, by necessity they happened to be tuned the way they are, or we wouldn't be here having this debate. In no way does that point to an intelligent force setting those specifications, that's just the way it happened.
And before you try to argue it's a longshot that the tuning would come out that way, you're right, it is. However, what you're not understanding is that it's just as likely to have tuned out this way than any other.
For example, If you buy a lottery ticket, you may have a one in thirty million chance of winning. However, no other ticket has a higher chance of winning than yours does despite the fact it's a longshot.
Assuming the video is correct in stating that the dials can possibly exist in a different setting than they do in the universe as we know it, all that goes to show is that this particular set of dial setpoints won the lottery. That is true by necessity, because we would not exist in any other kind of universe.
If the big bang/big crunch idea is correct, then who's to say this isn't the trillionth version of the universe, and this one happens to have the settings capable of forming life? It's quite plausible that the settings arrived at the way they are now through purely natural, and not intelligent means.
Given the fact the intelligent creator's own existence is very implausible, and completely lacks evidence, he can not be considered the logical answer in any regard.
On to the DNA frame:
That's a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] argument. DNA exists in everything because it's the building blocks of life as we know it. Since we all share common ancestry, our DNA by necessity has many common characteristics. Furthermore, this in no way ties to an intelligent creator.
As for the Archaeological Evidence frame:
This whole page is a bunch of bunk. No historian has a contemporary account of Jesus, and the gospels do not line up with Roman Records. You are right that historians such as Tacitus and Josephus mention early Christians, however neither one of them believed in Christianity. That also makes you wonder if it was true, and they had (as you claim) contemporary evidence, why they didn't accept it themselves?
Archaeological evidence also serves as no proof for God, or an intelligent creator of any kind. 1,000 years from now if they find a spiderman comic, then find the ruins of New York City, that does not prove spiderman existed because the story was set in a real place. Just because some towns mentioned in the bible were real places, does not make any of the claims as to what happened in those towns true.
Here is some compelling historical evidence though: Your God did not exist in any human culture prior to the rise of the early Jews somewhere around 800-1000BC. If God was there from the start, and had contact with the earliest humans as it states in the bible.... then why did no civilization have any knowledge whatsoever of your God for the first 4,000 years of human civilization? The most likely answer to that question is because someone made up your God long after those civilizations rose and fell.
On to the next frame:
None of the prophecies in the Bible have been proven to have happened, and many clearly never occurred. For example, the description of the messiah in the old testament prophecy describes a warlord type figure. That does not fit Jesus's description. Likewise Jesus prophesised he would return within the lifetime of the apostles, that also clearly did not happen. Those are just two I can pull off the top of my head out of many examples of failed prophecy.
Psalm 22 does not describe crucifixion, the Hebrew texts which were available to the translators of the King James Bible did not contain the Hebrew word for pierced (which is the basis of the argument for it being a prophecy), nor describe a crucifixion at all.
In conclusion, not only does every single argument the video made not stand up to criticism, it also provides no evidence for the existence of the God it is trying to make a case for.
Even if every scientific argument the video made was completely true, they never tied it conclusively to a God. The best they can hope to do is tie it to some kind of force that exists outside of the universe, and even then they never demonstrated it has to be intelligent.
Basically, in short the whole video is a pile of unjustified assertions, most of which can be demonstrated to be logically flawed or simply incorrect.
The video is a piece of drivel, nothing more.
