Does Science Argue for or against God?

Does Science Argue for or against God?

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking:
“Is God Dead?” The cover reflected the fact that many people had accepted the cultural
narrative that God is obsolete — that, as science progresses there is less need for
a “God” to explain the universe. It turns out, though, that the rumors of God’s death
were premature. In fact, perhaps the best arguments for his existence come from — of
all places — science itself. Here’s the story: The same year Time featured
its now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two necessary
criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right
distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion planets in the universe — that’s
1 followed by 24 zeros — there should have been about septillion planets — that’s 1
followed by 21 zeros — capable of supporting life. With such spectacular odds, scientists were
optimistic that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, known by its initials, SETI,
an ambitious project launched in the 1960’s, was sure to turn up something soon. With a
vast radio telescopic network, scientists listened for signals that resembled coded
intelligence. But as the years passed, the silence from the universe was deafening. As
of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis, nada, zilch, which is to say zero
followed by an infinite number of zeros. What happened? As our knowledge of the universe
increased, it became clear that there were, in fact, far more factors necessary for life
— let alone intelligent life — than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10, then
20, and then 50, which meant that the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased
accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting. Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem.
Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer, a magazine that strongly affirms
atheism: “In light of new findings and insights . . . . We should quietly admit that the early
estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.” Today there are more than 200 known parameters
necessary for a planet to support life — every single one of which must be perfectly met,
or the whole thing falls apart. For example, without a massive, gravity-rich planet like
Jupiter nearby to draw away asteroids, Earth would be more like an interstellar dartboard
than the verdant orb that it is. Simply put, the odds against life in the universe
are astonishing. Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking
about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been
perfectly met by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that it is science itself
that suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an
intelligence created these perfect conditions in fact require far less faith than believing
that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds? But wait, there’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist
on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all.
For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces
— gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces — were
determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one of these
four values ever so slightly and the universe as we know it could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the strong
nuclear force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the
tiniest, inconceivable fraction then no stars could have formed at all. Multiply that single
parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing
are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies
common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion
times in a row. I don’t think so. Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the
term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” by these developments. One
of the world’s most renowned theoretical physicists, Paul Davies, has said that “the appearance
of design is overwhelming”. Even the late Christopher Hitchens, one of atheism’s most
aggressive proponents, conceded that “without question the fine-tuning argument was the
most powerful argument of the other side.” Oxford University professor of Mathematics
Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis
that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.” The greatest miracle of all time is the universe.
It is the miracle of all miracles, one that inescapably points to something — or Someone
— beyond itself. I’m Eric Metaxas for Prager University.

100 thoughts on “Does Science Argue for or against God?

  1. Your entire argument is a non-sequitur. It basically boils down to, the odds of life existing in the Universe are very very very small, and therefore God.

    That is idiotic. Whether or not the odds of life exists has no bearing on the possibility of the existence of God. Just because it's small doesn't mean that God exists and defined those values.

    You know what is one way something can beat the odds, having more trials than the probability of a particular result. i.e. Our Universe could be one of an infinite numbers and trials of universes. One of them happened to get the numbers right.

    Sure, you may say that God did it, but that is just your opinion, and in no way supports the notion that science proves God's existence.

    (I do believe in God btw, but this line of argument is stupid)

  2. Yet, even though you make an argument that the universe is not likely to have been created by chance, that doesn't automatically mean it was created by a God. God is a human construct that we created to understand the world, when we get more answers then we will know how to name this variability we call God.

  3. Most of these videos are the same thing over and over again, it took almost 6 minutes when they could have just said, the odds for everything to exist is extremely low, and no has explained it yet, so we are gonna say it was god, but they have to streatch it out into almost 6 minutes, some flaws in that reasoning, the odds are not zero, just extremely low, so it is possible for it to happen by chance, so it's not impossible, just highly unlikely, and there is still a lot of things about the universe we still have to learn, now this video claims that science suggests that God created everything, but they not once have explained how science suggests that, first science relies on the scientific method, so they will have to show though the scientific method, that god created everything, and second, just because something highly unlikely happens, doesn't mean it was god who did it, because that is really what they are claiming, that something highly unlikely happened so it must be god, we they are gonna have to show why it must be god just because it was highly unlikely, if something that is highly unlikely happens, they you investigate why it happened, though the scientific method, you don't just say it's god, that's not science

    And on a side note, he said to believe it happened by chance, defies common sense, well quantum mechanics defies common sense, yet it's the truth, so things happen all the time that defies common sense, that don't mean it's god, so this entire 6 minute video can be summed up by 4 simple words
    " god of the gaps"

  4. This video has so many false premises and logical fallacies that its beyond ridiculous. Its what I've grown to expect from Prager U.

  5. They say the greatest trick the devil pulled off was to convince people that he doesn't exist I beg to differ his greatest trick was getting people to think that God doesn't exist…[email protected]

  6. The evidence u presented seems to argue against, rather than for a god! Many planets + a rapidly growing number of factors required for a planet to support life + no other extraterrestrial life nearby – reasonable conclusion- we came about because we happen to be living the 1 in __th lucky planet that supports life 😄

  7. This universe is a sim. And yes, this universe really, really is a sim. Physicists have already found some of the underlying sim programming code. The proof that this universe is a sim already exists.

  8. Um yes it does. Maybe if you put a little attention to your dumb bible and also put attention in class. You wouldn't be making illogical videos.

  9. The evidence shown in the video is about the universe and what we know about it, but because of its dimensions and the limitations of our technology, we know very little about, the number of planets keeps increasing because the universe is expanding and we know that because of the Doppler effect, that we are certain about, estimations on the number of planets existing and the dimension of the universe are not correct not wrong, we do not know, we can't say that there are x ammount of planets and etc. That is my view on it. We first have to know what is God, what is it, we can't reach any conclusions, yet

  10. The answer is neither. Science does not prove or disprove a god. Available literature about gods are disproved by science, but those books were written by people, which means that they are, A. Inaccurate, and/or , B. False.

    I always say, "Just like science can't disprove the existence of a god, religion can't prove the existence of a god."

  11. The Existence of a Creator brings up the Question who created the Creator and so on till infinity. Doesn't sound like "common sense" now.

  12. Actually, the universe is a blob on the toilet rim of an immense alien being, who, should he ever manage take home that twelve-armed babe with thirteen vaginas in accounting, shall surely wipe us from existence with a spritz of cosmic Windex.

  13. Science argues against the existence of God as much as computer science argues against the existence of computer engineers and programmers. Atheists say the silliest things.

  14. Studying and exploring science and concluding God does not exist make as much sense as reading “The God Delusion” and concluding that Richard Dawkins does not exist. Atheism makes zero logical sense in science, while faith in God makes perfect harmonious sense.

  15. The questions one can ask about god/gods are still only answerable by faith, do you believe do you not believe, because you have to admit you don't know. A solution to the near insurmountable odds that life must overcome to exist in our universe, is that there are infinite universes. Naturally life would then find itself existing in a universe where it is possible for it to exist, that's how infinity works. However if your solution involves the existence of all and any possible universes, you now have to come to grips with any and every universe someone could think up being valid.

  16. LOL firstly prager university is not a universtity. It is a conservative think tank. They promote the narratives of christian conservatives. Here we see quote mining of scientists. Followed by few scientists who promote the intelligent design narrative. So the whole info is biased. It does not reflect the vast majority of scientists.
    The fine tuning argument is the best argument from the side of christians because their other arguments come from platonic and kalam philosophy. This is actually the worst argument. It has nothing to do with god's existence. It just tells that life in the universe is less probable, but it has no indication that god made life. Also the factors for life on planets assumes life like the type found on earth. It has no bearing on types of life that survives in a different environment. Extremophiles do not meet any criteria for life, yet they exist.
    PragerU has promoted false narratives before in almost all videos. They are a christian propaganda channel.

  17. If there is an infinite amount of universes then life should also exist in an Infinite quantity no matter how low the chances. If u had a random number generator that made one number out of 1 million let’s say the number 1 so unlikely that it should almost never happen, if u run the rng infinite amount of the times that number should appear infinitely no matter how impossibly low the chances because infinity is not about chances because ever possible chance will be achieved infinite amount of times

  18. It is sad to think one can make fun of others beliefs because they know a portion of scientific belief yet science changes all the time and what you are sure of now will most likely change in the future and you will be the ones who are false about things you are certain of now.

  19. WRONG!!
    Go to this site:
    It proves 100% this video and many others as 100% wrong. It’s indisputable, so far after 5 years nobody managed to show this guy’s arguments as wrong or any fault in his explanation and logic. It’s mind boggling. Majority of you will be awestruck how good this guy is.

    Come on, I challenge you, especially if you are a so called expert physicist or teach physics on any level!

  20. See Jupiter is a perfect example of why this whole video falls apart. Imagine you are God. Why create planet destroying asteroids flying around in the first place and a "shield" to stop them, instead of just, I dont know, not creating asteroids. Secondly asteroids still HAVE and CAN hit earth. It makes utterly no sense to me, when I can look at "gods creation" and think of a 100 ways I could have done it more efficiently. Nothing this whole video in any way shape or form proves a god. It keeps pointing to the odds, that is a red herring. If you roll a million dice, what are the odds for the combination of results you get? Astronomical, but guess what? That is the result that happened. Something else could have happened, but it didn't. There is nothing mystical about this to me. Also, nice quote mine on hitchens without including his response to the argument you dishonest tools.

  21. "God" is the parasite of ignorance…very hard to remove because inhabit the brain…

    3:40 – is is NOT true! It is ONLY the theory…we can't see the dawn of the Universe but time ~100 000 years after when first stars were born :

  22. Let me gues.. You had a specific god/faith in mind 😉 Keep faith out of the school system… Nothing to prove here

  23. I love how time and time again atheism is proven wrong and they change their "theories" and the Bible is still proven accurate. All I can say is haters gonna hate!

  24. Ah, I needed some classic stupidity today. First of all, citation needed for every assertion about the probability of life. Second of all, this is all post hoc rationalisation. We live in the proper conditions for our life, therefore those conditions were created just for us? You do realise that any entity in the universe could make that claim, right? You do realise that even if there is only one other planet in the entire universe, of which we are only even able to observe an unknown fraction, that your entire argument would be even more obliterated than it already is from the get go, right? Anyway, the biggest glaring leap in pseudo-logic here is that, because we haven’t observed radio waves, therefore THERE AIN’T NO LIFE NOWHERE. This is easily dismissed due to the fact that there may simply be no intelligent life, or life so advanced that they long since stopped using waves we can detect, or both. Furthermore, it’s entirely possible that earth is the first planet in the whole universe to support life, and that it is normal for a universe to take this long to form life. We don’t know. But to say “GaWd DuN iT” is the most lazy possible reason, and it undermines the spirit of human curiosity and exploration. And this isn’t even considering the numerous philosophical dismissals of god that remain unanswered. We can scientifically demonstrate that we don’t have free will at this point, we can scientifically prove that we are a process of evolution, we can historically verify that most if not all of the bible never actually happened, and if none of it is literal than there’s no reason to take god literally, etc.

  25. Also, even if everything in this video was true and logical, it still wouldn’t even suggest a god. All it would suggest is that an intelligence created what we perceive to be our universe and our place in it. It just as easily proves simulation theory, or that Q from Star Trek did it, or that this universe is a science project buy hyper intelligent extra-dimensional aliens, or any number of things. There’s no logical place to insert divinity, and even if there was, it would be a deist god at best. And even if it was a god known to man, it could be any number of creator gods, even Kim Il-Sung from the North Korean perspective. So it’s not even in the interest of Christianity to make this video as though it provides proof for god, because the conclusion still fails even if the premise is true.

  26. This is really a stupid question cause there are no gods, none, not one of them. gods don't exist. humans created gods not otherwise. Stupid religiots.

  27. It seems there is no comfort in not knowing anything these days.

    If you don't know how something happened, it makes sense to assume how it happened and tell yourself you are right.
    Does this make any sense?

  28. First of all, the amount of planets in the universe is an almost infinite number (aka a lot) and with 200 conditions there can still be a fair amount of planets with life. And you are only talking about life like on earth, not accounting for more exotic life than our own that can survive say in a subglacial ocean on an ice world. When you see that habitable planets are rare it doesn't mean they don't exist, the universe is vast with trillions of galaxies with billions of stars with a handful of planets each.

  29. Thank you for this info… I've tried telling people this but they kept going off a false narrative about science disproving God…. when in fact God was the Scientist who made everything. We are an experiment… mind you he knew what would and is going to become of us…

  30. The fine tuning argument in no way proves the existence of a god. You don't get to make up that there was a chance the fundamental forces could exert themselves differently. The truth is, we don't know if it was a possibility. I may not be able to assert it wasn't one but you dont get to assert it was. Claiming that the universe was made to fit us is like a puddle of water saying "wow, this hole really fits to my shape"

  31. As Lee Strobel put it, the chances of life on Earth are like billions of monkeys banging on typewriters until 1 write The Hamlet.

  32. These debates are really useless. Even with all we have learned about the universe, we still only know about as much as a newborn baby knows about the contents of the Library of Congress. We can only speculate and list probability.

  33. Answer: Science neither argues for or against God. God is the best argument against God. Science is too busy explaining what actually exists and affects us.

  34. I don't like this argument, we beat the odds so god is likely to exist, I prefer, we beat the odds because they were beatable, clearly astronomically unlikely, however, it would've happened somewhere in an astronomically large universe

  35. A roulette wheel at the Monte Carlo Casino once landed on black 26 times in a row, with only a 1-in-67,108,864 chance of that ever happening. I could make the same arguement the video is about the low probability it could have landed on black so many times. Was that divine intervention, too? The universe is very old (14 billion years old, to be exact). Given so much time, of course unlikely events can happen at some point. The science currently suggests the world came about through a bunch of natural cosmological processes. We don't fully comprehend every aspect them yet, but that doesn't mean divine intervention was required there. Furthermore, why only make Earth able to sustain life? God would just be wasting a lot of space to not make more Earthesque planets. I wish a god existed. Humanity needs one right now. But, wishing for it doesn't make it so….

  36. Thank you Eric. A very good description of the fine-tuning argument. Science is mostly just avoiding this issue. The wonderful Greek word: στρουθοκαμηλισμός best describes this. "Strouthokamilismos" means to behave like an ostrich. That is, to bury your cranium in a bucket of sand to avoid dealing with reality, i.e., the fine-tuning reality.
    My one objection Eric is when you say that Science says that we are a result of "random forces". Not true. Science says we are a result of Natural laws. Important difference.
    But, it IS a BIG issue and no multi-verse ideas really can explain this away.
    It could be an issue of missing physics, e.g., in the fine-tuning of the fundamental forces. And in other cases, it is just a probability issue. For example, there ARE other solar systems with a large gaseous planet "shielding" smaller rocky planets near the star even if they are a minority of star systems. More disturbing to me is those cases where it is not just fine-tuning but it looks like optimization, e.g., the rate of supernova explosions in a galaxy.

  37. 47K likes, 22K dislikes: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

  38. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

  39. God or therefor any higher power could get mistaken by an older and more advanced civilization. e.g. Gods came from the heavens in fiery wagons!
    As some suggest we were created in their image (the other much older civilization) in order to be their slaves (made sure that our 3rd eye was disabled). Taking a look at our DNA compared to apes, it seems that there was some sort of intervention (outside force/intelligence). After we started to interbreed with our masters/gods, the flood came (management had something to say against such things) and so on … on that note you can explain EVERYTHING that the bible says but replace god and other higher beings with aliens. Nibiru or the Annunaki and other stories come to mind. And the funny thing… this type of theory still requires less stetch of your imagination than believing in an allmighty god sitting in the clouds.

  40. This argument has not aged well, lol! Since then, many thousands of planets have been discovered very nearby, of which many could sustain life.

  41. As a physicist, I am annoyed when people use physics discoveries without understanding them. When one talks about fine tuning, one should also talk about the multiverse and also the fact that since we do not yet understand what happened during the very early universe, we do NOT know yet if the fundamental constants are fine-tuned or if there is a physical explanation to their values. Also, one should that when Hoyle coined the term Big Bang during an interview, he was ridiculing the concept of a Big Bang (he was a proponent of the continuous creation theory) and he has since then been proven wrong (the Big Bang theory actually describes the evolution of the Universe after the very early times, and it has been spectacularly confirmed).

  42. The Emperor of Mankind is my only god, anything else is a Heresy.
    1st. God declared he created earth, therefore he’s not from earth = he is a xenos scum!
    2nd. Emperor of Mankind was born in earth. He is earthling. He is not a xenos = the emperor protect.
    Fite me Chaos cult.

  43. If the conditions of the Universe were not correct, we would not be around to observe its and our own existence. For all we know, there could be billions of other universes that did not have life, but since no one was around to see them, they may as well have not existed.

  44. Why we know who are Cristiano Ronaldo, Kardashians, DJ khaled, and many more stupid people but we dont know most of the professors mentioned in the video?

  45. with an infinite universe and an infinite number of tries it was all about time before the conditions of life appeared somewhere

  46. But space is huge like infinty soo an inteligent could be discovered
    As in bacteria could be considerd a intellegent life also accidents can happen like unbelieveble accidents
    Like a coin falling into the ocean an in turn causing a nuclear explosion
    And faith is believing in something with no inherent fact backing it up

  47. I always saw God’s hand in our planet. He is so correct that it’s not just the distance from the sun, and Jupiter helping us but also the creation of the moon and earth, caused by two planets colliding which jumped started the earth’s molten core (which constantly recycled the planet, soil, minerals), earth’s tilt (which gave us seasons and a 24 hour cycle) and magnetic sphere (which protects us from solar radiation and protects our atmosphere from being blasted out into space by solar winds,) and a million other things. When you see all the things that had to occur how can you not see something more than just “random things happening”. Ultimately I think science will prove that God exists. Everything in the universe is based of math. Math could very well be God’s language and thus, science, based on math formulas will prove God’s existence.

  48. I always found it interesting that the sequence of events in Genesis was pretty close, if not exact, to how things actually occurred, which begs the question “how did they know or guess correctly?” If you are immortal and have always existed like God, then one of your days could equal a billion on earth. To God it probably looked like 6 days to create everything. To us: a few billion years. Of course that means that we are technically still on the 7th day. For all we know God will wake up on the 8th day, look down and go “Agh! What the heck happened??! I went to sleep, woke up and now the earth is infested with all these people!! Man, Adam and Eve really got busy!!!”

  49. I don't care what the odds are time is invinite so. Someone good at math give me a ridiculously small chance for life and then multiply that chance by infinity and tell me how many planets with life there could be.

  50. Against God, obviously. Science and religion both give answers, but religion doesn't care whether the answers are true.

  51. It’s either there is God or there isn’t, both are just as likely. Based upon the evidence I have seen.. I believe there is.

  52. Take that a step further… there either is a heaven or there isn’t… I believe there is. When I die if there is I go to heaven because I truly believe. If there isn’t than I have nothing to worry about.

  53. Because there are gaps in the science about creation of the universe, it does necessarily follow that God does (or does not) exist.

  54. Here’s a fun scientific theory I absolutely love, it’s called “life not-as-we-know-it” and suggests that the requirements for life may be much less than we think because we calculate based on what human life required not what life itself requires because we don’t know exactly what life does and does not need because all life on earth started at the same place from the same conditions and with the same stimuli which means they’d logically be similar. Example, all life on earth is carbon based because carbon atoms have four valence electrons and thus can make an infinite number of bonds, ideal for complex organisms, but nothing says we couldn’t use other atoms in the same family as carbon with the same number of valence electrons such as silicon which is very common and could work. Other theories are the necessity of water, in theory you could substitute methane which is much more common in the universe. Another difference is that Jupiter part, a planet like that is needed for surface life on a small planet but what if we had a large planet with a thick atmosphere and life either underground or on the side facing the sun, assuming a stationary planet which does exist. In short this theory almost eliminates any actual requirements for life on the grounds that anything is possible. We have species of bacteria on earth that live in boiling water and acid and everything in between. Sure it’s only bacteria but it’s life nonetheless. Then there’s suddenly a lot more planets available for life. Plus scanning for radio waves assumes that aliens never found a different path to communicate or even developed wireless communication at all. maybe ET has landlines, who can say? Then you have to understand the scope of the galaxy. The Milky Way is a medium to large scale galaxy but nowhere near the biggest we’ve seen (my favorite is the one that’s so massive it has five galaxies the size of ours orbiting it) and ours has around a hundred billion stars as a low estimate. Assume each has an average of three planets, that’s actually a fair guess since most have many but I’m discounting duel star systems from supporting life due to gravitational stress. That would leave us as a one in three hundred billion chance of being alone in our galaxy. Now that goes against common sense. Now compare that to the number of galaxies we know of and the vastness of space. After all andromeda is the nearest galaxy at two million light years away, fair to say we don’t know what’s happening there at this moment. Then the Big Bang. If you want to argue that the odds are too slim for it happen I have two arguments, first off the universe strives for equilibrium anyways so it’s likely that in an event such as that those ratios and conditions would be favored to happen anyways, and second the universe had collapsed to a point the size of an atom or smaller so there’s no way to say this is the first time it’s happened, for all we know the universe collapses and expands over and over again forever and we just got lucky and hit the one with life, after all the lifespan of a universe is expected to be trillions of years, although it’s impossible to know. Heck we don’t even know how red dwarfs age despite them being super common simply because they live notably longer than the universe has been around and thus they’re all in their infancy.
    So to say that god must be real because of the long odds of existence is basically saying you don’t fully understand relatively basic astronomy or mid level biology, both of which are taught in high school. In short this man makes some interesting points to the odds of human life existing as it does, those are long odds indeed, but fails to acknowledge that there are options than just what we did.

  55. Is it possible that the universe is so infinite that life eventually was inevitable even if unlucky.
    Like buying a lottery ticket if you keep buying one eventually you must win if you played it infinitely.
    Maybe life is inevitable as time and space is endless.
    But as a meaningless being amongst this crazy world I can’t rule out a God.

  56. Terrible logic, for the fine tuning of the universe, the multiverse & retroactive causality have been put forward as alternate hypothesis, for life on the Earth, yes highly improbable which means quite possible

  57. scientists worked harder to try to disprove the existence of a being that created the universe and all thats gonna happen is that science will prove that there is

  58. God didn't die, because he was not born. god is only an idea, not existence. Apeman was first to invent idea of god for to overcome his fears. If god is there let him, show up.

  59. Uncomfortable for PragerU, the fine-tuning isn't as fine-tuned as we might have originally expected. The electroweak scale used to be a classic example of fine-tuning since slight deviations would prevent nuclear fission in stars. However, this was assuming that the electroweak scale is the only constant that can be messed with. If we mess other constants at the same time we can create a whole slew of different universities in the total absence of a weak nuclear force.

    Even worse, the entire argument is a non-sequitor anyways. A universe with different physical constants would be different, that's all. Even if the universe as we know it cannot exist, it is entirely possible for life to have emerged differently through some other constants. Like maybe, one universe makes life so common that like 1/10000 planets support some kind of organic life. Or maybe another planet has life in the form of pure elementary particles. Maybe a group of contents can support slime aliens. There are infinite possible universes we can imagine each with different constants. Some were nothing like our universe in the first place.

  60. Best selling author, on what subject? I bet it's not physics, yet you seem pretty comfortable using science and physics that you don't comprehend as your main argument. Also, you present your points but omit information or glare over very important facts that you clearly don't know or don't want your viewers to know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *