Comments by "Michael RCH" (@michaelrch) on "PragerU" channel.

It’s odd that you pick Weinberg and Hawking as “having faith” (as your terminology would have it) when both are on record as being sceptical of the eternal inflation and an infinite number of universes. See the response video from GMS here that covers what they do say here https://youtu.be/bn70wDllW38 More broadly, as has been set out by other commentators, the position you assert that scientists are taking over the hypothesis of the multiverse, or many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, is wildly misrepresentative of the actual position of the physics community on this subject. It’s no more than a hypothesis, awaiting falsification like every other hypothesis that ever was or ever will be. Some physicists believe it is more plausible than others. There is certainly no consensus that it is a valid model, and there is no project on the part of physicists to prove it true as the answer to some mystery of our origins. More disingenuous bunk from Prager so-called U.
2
greg77389 Two things. Atheists don’t typically believe or assert that no god exists. They just don’t see sufficient evidence that one does exist to believe in one. There is a big difference. Second, the reason why videos like this are unhelpful is that they misrepresent the actual scientific position over and over again to discredit a strawman of the real scientific position. Generally, atheists and sceptics more generally reject acceptance of answers to questions when those answers aren’t sufficiently supported by evidence. If you can’t give evidence for your answer then your answer is useless and any other arbitrary answer that also has no evidence is just as useless. You can’t say the “god” is the best answer for how the universe came about until you have demonstrated that a god exists or even can exist. You have to show that first, then you can start ascribing actions to it. If flowers started going missing from my garden overnight and I said it was pink unicorns doing it, you would stop me and say “but do pink unicorns even exist?” If I said yes, you would say “how do you know they exist?”. If I then said “because they are stealing my flowers overnight” you would immediately see the fallacy in my circular reasoning. So it is with arguing that god exists because it’s “the best explanation for the existence of the universe”.
2
greg77389 Really? You know and I know that most atheists are agnostic atheists but your comment strongly implied that generally atheists are asserting no god exists. As for answers to questions being correct despite evidence, again, you are avoiding the issue by resorting to areas of abstract human constructions rather than talking about the nature and properties of the cosmos, which we do have to assess with empirical evidence. The simple point that is perfectly analogous when comparing the questions of the existence of god and the existence of unicorns are firstly that implying that god exists because it’s a good explanation for the existence of the universe as this video explicitly does is circular as per my unicorn example, and secondly that when talking about the existence of god you are talking about whether a certain proposition comports with the reality of the cosmos. They are both truth claims that need to be demonstrated with evidence. This video takes the familiar and unendingly vacuous line, “well if it wasn’t X then it must have been god” and, tragically, people continue to buy it.
1
greg77389 I knew when I commented here that I was probably wasting my time. I don’t believe a god exists. Call me whatever you like. Quibbling about labels is unbelievably dull. “If an explanation is supported” missed the words “by evidence”. And no, when looking at the nature of the universe and explanations for phenomena we don’t draw conclusions based on not being able to find better explanations by means of probability or otherwise because we have no idea what possible explanations exist that we don’t even know about. This is rudimentary to the scientific method. Science forms hypotheses to explain phenomena based on initial observations or by extrapolation from existing hypotheses or theories and then sets about trying to falsify these hypotheses, or validate them, with empirical evidence. No such process is going on with the existence of god, because so far, no falsifiable proposition about god has ever been put forward, or at least those that have been put forward have all been falsified. Why shouldn’t we believe that explanation for the time being? Because there is no reason to. There is no rational empirical cause or basis for such a belief. The same reason you don’t believe that pink unicorns are stealing my flowers in the night. No one has a gun to your head demanding that you answer the question “did a god created the universe?”. So if you are asked “do you believe that a god created the universe”, given the lack of evidence to justify that proposition, the only rational answer is “I don’t know but I have no reason to believe that one did”, or “no” for short. As for the multiverse, we know nothing to strongly confirm whether it does or doesn’t exist. We don’t know that it doesn’t as you suggest. Even if we knew that it didn’t that would say NOTHING about some completely different proposition like god. You are looking at our knowledge like it’s a jigsaw puzzle where we MUST complete the picture with the pieces we have and any gaps must be explained away, and god is your preferred explanation. But that is just not what is happening at all. What is actually going on is that the puzzle is effectively endless and we are spending our time using science and methodical enquiry about the universe to find new pieces that we can then fit into the puzzle. If we find a piece that says God on it, then that is when we can say a god exists, but until then, we simply can’t. We can’t even say a god could exist because nothing we have found to date suggests that it could. We just say nothing and keep studying the universe and fitting in the pieces as we find them.
1
This crap is blown to bits by Potholer54 here https://youtu.be/9XIpTqbLR5Y Aside from being completely wrong, Moore is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry. His business is PR for fossil fuel companies and other major polluters, He touts his early involvement with Greenpeace as so kind of “honest broker” credentials but he is nothing but an apologist for polluters. And while it says in the caption that he was a co founder of Greenpeace, Greenpeace themselves vehemently deny this and have documented evidence to prove their case.
1
Or maybe the oil companies who we know from their own records have known about the damaging effect of their products on the climate, whose own documents show their intention to embark on a plan of misinformation (like this video) and who have spent literally billions of dollars on producing and disseminating that misinformation, are the ones who have had the megaphone.
1