Comment by eis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I finished it now. It did not get any better. Most of his arguments can be boiled down to "science can't explain that so it must be god". No.

Towards the end he shows a lack of understanding of statistics. He claims if any infinitesmally small change to the laws of nature would have caused an uninhabitable universe then it must have been specifically designed the way it is. He brings several examples that actually are all the exact same argument.

The mistake here is that he assumes that there was only one random try at creating this universe and that we cannot have been sooo extremely lucky. There is no reason to believe that there was only one try. What if there were a large number of tries? If all the other tries resulted in uninhabitable universes then of course us being in the lucky version must make us think this was not random chance.

Example: ask a large number of people to flip a coin ten times. Eventually you will reach someone that actually flipped ten times heads in succession. What would that guy think? Clearly that's not a normal coin and you designed the whole thing to be like that because what are the odds of him flipping ten times heads? He does not know about the other thousand people you had play this game that didn't get ten times heads.

> There is no reason to believe that there was only one try.

Exactly what he mentions in his talk, on what are you basing this belief? It's a metaphysical claim that is outside the realm of science. You just proved his point.

Erm, what? I disproved his point. He claims because us being in this unlikely universe is proof for a design. No, it's a logical fallacy as I outlined in the example of flipping coins. The video presenter is the guy who flipped 10 times heads and claims "See! God made this happen!" Can you please point to the exact time in the video where he mentions multiple tries? That would contradict his own point about the low chance and hence design.

He assumes there was only one "flip of the coin". There is zero reason to assume this and so his whole argument falls because when his assumption does not apply then mathematics tells us there is absolutely nothing special about finding ourselves in that "unlikely" universe because actually when taking a step back it isn't unlikely, it is pretty much guaranteed - completely without anyone designing it that way.

> Can you please point to the exact time in the video where he mentions multiple tries?

I was referring to what you wrote. You said that there's no reason that there weren't multiple tries to get the universe just right to support life. I'm saying that's a metaphysical claim you just made, which is outside the realm of science, which is the point the presenter was making.

I can actually use his own logic to prove the opposite point of his claim. Since his reasoning only works if there was one (or very few) tries wouldn't it be very unlikely to have had few tries compared to a much high number of possibly inifite tries? That means his case is in fact the unlikely case (few tries and hence likely design).

What I am saying is that we have no reason to assume and certainly no proof for ANY number of tries so we can't deduce what he claims. But if you follow his reasoning then he actually would need to come to the opposite conclusion that he came to.

I am not making the metaphysical claim, he is making it. I am only showing that his own logic works against him. Anyone who claims god exists is in the realm of metaphysical.

> What I am saying is that we have no reason to assume and certainly no proof for ANY number of tries

Who made the tries?

It seems like he's wanting to borrow science or at least some logic when it supports his argument but when it comes to the gods, he wants to say they exist outside of science and logic. This is a common argument and it's not ultimately falsifiable, ie, 'I say it's true because you can't prove otherwise'. And so too do invisible flying fairies exist who render themselves outside the realms of science due to magic pixie dust.

And so is any other argument to attempt to explain what was before the universe. Those are outside the realms of science. And furthermore, just because something is not falsifiable does not make it untrue. We exist in this world after all, so something had to have happened at the start.

I posted that lecture as an intro to broaden people's perspectives. It is then a proof by induction to reach the correct religion that explains our world. Some signs are summarized on www.provingislam.com. There are lots of great scholars who have presented many proofs on the matter.

  > And so is any other argument to attempt to explain what was before the universe. Those are outside the realms of science.

That's the point of the submitted article. That any theory that cannot be proven should not be paid much attention to. They are nice thought experiments but that's it.

  > And furthermore, just because something is not falsifiable does not make it untrue.

Neither does it make it true. The point is if there can't be proof then it's pointless to think too much about it.

  > I posted that lecture as an intro to broaden people's perspectives.

Unfortunately the video failed miserably at that. It was full of wrong claims and conclusions, logic errors and on top used the same attacks on certain groups that it in the beginning complained about.

  > It is then a proof by induction to reach the correct religion that explains our world. Some signs are summarized on www.provingislam.com. There are lots of great scholars who have presented many proofs on the matter.

You said there were proofs in the video. There were none whatsoever. You can't follow a proof of induction based on wrong premises. Religion does not explain our world, science does (to some extend). Religion is a tool that has been used for good and bad throughout history.

Please don't refer to more outside sources that supposedly contain proof but bring one solid proof here yourself. So far everything has been debunked.

> That any theory that cannot be proven should not be paid much attention to

So we continue to live our life as animals?

As I mentioned elsewhere, in Islam, we have logic, observational evidence, and the honest news to get to truth. Disregarding any one of them is nonsensical.

> Neither does it make it true. The point is if there can't be proof then it's pointless to think too much about it.

Honest news is a source of truth.

> You said there were proofs in the video

There were several arguments made, e.g. fine tuning argument and the fact that something cannot come out of nothing. Those are established, and denying them is basically denying logic.

  >> That any theory that cannot be proven should not be paid much attention to
  > So we continue to live our life as animals?

What? How does yours follow from mine? I absolutely can't follow your way of thinking. Please explain. We seperated from animals long before religions were a thing. I am not living life as an animal just because I am not a theist (nor atheist).

  > As I mentioned elsewhere, in Islam, we have logic, observational evidence, and the honest news to get to truth. Disregarding any one of them is nonsensical.
  > Honest news is a source of truth.

"Honest news" is hearsay. I can't go and verify any of it. I cannot logically explain any of it even. You are asking me to just believe it is true what someone a millenia ago said, something (miracles) that goes against any real life obvervation I can do. Sorry, not happening.

  > There were several arguments made, e.g. fine tuning argument and the fact that something cannot come out of nothing. Those are established, and denying them is basically denying logic.

You said there is proof and yet whenever I ask you to present it you don't. I refused a whole bunch of the arguments made in the video, I think it was extremely misleading and some might call it dishonest.

I specifically refuted his fine tuning argument. I did so using basic logic and understanding of statistics. Can you tell me where exactly I was wrong? Quick recap: he assumes (unjustified) that there was only one try at making the universe and so the chance to get our universe would be excedingly low. There is no reason to make such an assumption and if you remove that assumption then the most likely scenario is actually that you arrive at our universe because with enough tries you will hit the jackpot a hundred times in a row, guaranteed. From our limited point of view that would look like a rigged system, something designed to be that way. This might be unintuitive at first to many people but is a simple mathematical fact.

That is just one of the possible explanation without resulting to intelligent design. Stephen Hawking's top-down cosmology is another. There are a few more.

> "Honest news" is hearsay. I can't go and verify any of it. I cannot logically explain any of it even. You are asking me to just believe it is true what someone a millenia ago said, something (miracles) that goes against any real life obvervation I can do. Sorry, not happening.

Look up the Islamic Isnad system.

Furthermore, if that's how you're going to view the world, then you can't accept any news about history. Obviously that is not wise or rational.

> I did so using basic logic and understanding of statistics. Can you tell me where exactly I was wrong?

By assuming there were many "tries" before the current universe came into existence. Who was behind those tries? When was the first try? Those are all metaphysical claims.

  > Look up the Islamic Isnad system.

I did but I didn't see anything that convinced me. It really is hearsay.

  > Furthermore, if that's how you're going to view the world, then you can't accept any news about history. Obviously that is not wise or rational.

No, you keep on making wrong conclusions. I accept there are historical texts and I can with rational thought come up with rough estimates how likely those events happened as written. Historians are usually honest that they can't be 100% sure that those events happened exactly as written because there is a long history of our understanding of events being incomplete, inaccurate or completely wrong. We can't take historical texts as gospel to build all our system of society and be so brazen to claim it's 100% true. And if some historical text talks about miracles, something which cannot be explained with rational thought and to the best of our current knowledge should be impossible then I have to be extra sceptical.

  > By assuming there were many "tries" before the current universe came into existence. Who was behind those tries? When was the first try? Those are all metaphysical claims.

I showed that when I use his base of reasoning then his conclusion is wrong. Applying statistics leads to the opposite conclusion than what he presented. His hole argument rests on an assumption he picked out of thin air. So if he can do it then I can with equal right assume there were many tries, no? Him and me would both have no justification to pick either.

Now if I give you my own opinion then I would say there is zero reason to make such assumptions and therefor we cannot deduce anything about how many tries there have been, when the first try was, if there even exists time outside our universe or what other rules apply or don't apply. It's all thought experiments. Thinking that the idea of god was there and just willed the universe into existance is a thought experiment just as valid as me claiming a pink machine prints universes. I cannot prove that and you can't disprove it. It's a stalemate. I admit that fact while you are 100% sure of your point of view. And since you are so keen on relying on history: history tells us people that had your point of view eventually were proven wrong.

Like you said, all those things including your claims are metaphysical theories. They are not facts.

> It really is hearsay.

No it's not. Even non Muslims admitted that we Muslims have the right to be proud of it. There's nothing else anywhere like it, secular or non secular texts.

> Historians are usually honest

Our Muslim historians even more so.

> And if some historical text talks about miracles, something which cannot be explained with rational thought and to the best of our current knowledge

Or that God bent the laws of our reality to make a point. Not everything is explainable by logic, especially when we see such events take place thousands of years later in our lifetimes today.

> So if he can do it then I can with equal right assume there were many tries, no?

No, because his claim is that there is a creator, whereas you're just making a claim that has no basis in your secular materialistic world view.

> Now if I give you my own opinion then I would say there is zero reason to make such assumptions

We exist, so there had to be a starting point. We have evidence that people came and claimed to be sent from God, and we proved their claims based on many things (their character, miracles, etc). The Quran to this day stands as a living miracle, and its challenge is up for anyone to take (many centuries after everyone tried and failed).

These things remind me of how new atheists are flimsy with their arguments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn7n-gff-0c

Reply on news.ycombinator.com