@914light Now you're just trying to be stupid. Which is where religion succeeds: Convincing the intellectual mind to reside in being infantile. Hitchens disqualified Richards perfectly when he asked him if he believes in a virgin birth. Richards is not interested in convincing you with science. He's simply interested in your subscription to his belief so you'll buy his books.
"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause but God did not come to existance". How do you know that? This fucking idiot is an affront to Hitchens' intellect.
Arguments from ignorance. Leave it to a particle physicist to say that nothing comes from nothing. Not this asshole Jay. A particle physics will show you that quantum mechanics demonstrates things coming from nothing for no reason i.e., protons in the plank space. Sub atomic particles come from nothing, then disappear. Quit saying the universe had to have a cause if you don't understand the subject matter. Let folks like Lawrence Krauss explain how the universe could come from nothing.
Any presidential candidate who does not believe in Evolution should automatically be disqualified, but he can run for a provincial religious cleric post if he wishes so.
Finally after 9 parts of this debate, 6:35 is when "it" actually provokes a reasonable argument with somewhat of a logical example, but is still shutdown by some reason of truth from Hitchens.
It is really hard to debate this sort of stuff because you need to know the current science on biology, cosmology, etc. It is really hard because when the creationist (like jay richards) misinterprets or misuses the sciences, you have to call him out and be able to point to journals and articles in science.
And oh man, do they ever misrepresent the science so that it helps their arguments. "Evolution says life came from nothing", "the big bang says something came from nothing". No they dont.
Jay is clueless. Something had to cause the existence of the universe, he says. And what caused that cause? Sigh. He has no response to the infinite regress point. So silly.
@KitaTheLittleKat Actually, he cleverly words it as 'everything in the universe has a cause' implying that God is the cause and God exists outside of the universe and therefore is not subject to the laws of physics. It's a bogus argument but Hitch doesn't say it is. Saying 'we don't know the cause' (even though viewing a universe that expands as though it conformed to linear time is fallacious) doesn't mean we can just say "then it was God". Hitch is letting Jay away with too much, here.
@fluffcore21 Exactly! Just because we name something, understand it and wield it, people lose the appreciation for what we're capable of. To the bible writers we'd be fucking sorcerers! What would they make of a fifty megaton hydrogen fusion bomb for God's sake?
Richards is a whiny little bastard. He can't handle the various layers of discourse going on here, which even Stein seems okay with. There's the main question, plus many corollary questions, plus the questions from audience and moderators, but Richards just whines about wanting to stay on just that one main question. Pathetic.
"Everything that comes into existence has a cause."
Even on his mistaken view of big bang causality, this doesn't hold. We only would then have one case of something coming into existence. As it is, the universe didn't come into existence, it always was. So he's wrong twice.
Fundamentally, the fundamental conclusion of this debate is that, fundamentally, Richards is naive, Stein is a dick, and Hitchens is wise, fundamentally.
Richards states at 3:30 "The universe had a beginning and everything that has a beginning has a cause." This is inaccurate if not outright wrong. Quantum physics did away with causality nearly a hundred years ago, and if the universe was created in a similar way to particles in a vacuum due to quantum fluctuations, it wouldn't necessarily have a cause. Particle are come into existence from "nothingness" all the time. We can experimentally verify it.
@rzstyron462 The quantum-universe-from-nothing argument also contradicts Hitchens's account of the baseball-sized wad of super-matter in which all that is was originally condensed, doesn't it?
Lawrence Krauss seems to think that the universe did indeed come from a rare quantum event, as you suggest.
@ChollieD Yeah, I'm not really sure why Hitchens keeps saying that. His weakest area is obviously science when he debates, especially physics.
I think he keeps referring to the baseball wad because of the fact that if you go all the way back the very beginning and not just arbitrarily close to it, you get a singularity.
Jay holds to the idea that, since the universe is not eternal, it must have a cause which must be a designer or a creator. What caused the creator? Hitch presupposes ignorance - we simply don't know the answer. Jay is answering the question with the all-powerful and indefinable... which seems too easy.
@chief0staph Exactly, i dont know, Magic Man in the Sky did it. And Magic Man doesnt need to be created, he is just Magic and there, and thats that. Sounds and stupid as it is. The infinate regress is something that the religious cannot escape from or have any sort of rational, logical, answer on. They "CANNOT" answer who created the creator... thats why its called "Faith"..... Sorry not good enough.
@Wrahns But Richards's argument ( I'm not taking his position, but for the sake of honesty) is that the creator is by its nature exempt from the question "Who created it?" So God is (uniquely) capable of self-creation. Richards thus neatly cuts off the infinite regress, though of course by assertion rather than by proof.
Therefore, I think the proper skeptical/empirical response ought to be, "Well, if God can self-create, then so can the universe." One unprovable assertion deserves another.
@ChollieD Thats exactly my point as well. Its just too "Neat" to say so i actually have an argument position, i will make my "Magic Man" exempt from having to prove he/she/its beginning, he just is and thats that. That proves nothing, just makes the religious look even more ridiculous and quite frankly ignorant. Carl Sagan said if we "Assume that God just existed, why not leave a step and that the assume the universe just existed".
Jay WTF, its a debate! "Take note of the number of insults hurled from one podium to the other"? Should we call Hitchens' mommy and tell her what a bad boy he is as well, gezz.
And yes anything would sound insulting if it goes against theist's beliefs. Thats how you guy view any opinion different to your false doctrines. Heck, you guise killed for less.
Then the religious dude brings up "insult hurling" when all Hitchens is doing is being brutally honest... As if that NOT hurling insults would make his argument more valid.
Everything that has a beginning, has an end... and I know I will have an end. I hope I live to see the day that religion has its end.
God created the universe? Creation implies a before and after. Time started at the beginning of the universe and is integral to space. 'creation' outside of time doesnt even make sense.
@dwellshere Saying that their "Magic Man" is outside of time and space and you cant touch him is the only way the religious have a crutch to support any of their ridiculous arguements. They cant and wont explain how "God" just poofffeed into existence because they know that it makes them look as silly as their proposition is and that they know but wont admit that "The infinite Regress" trumps "Magic man just is!" every time.
change the record Jay - you seem to be not saying enough if you have time to criticise your opponent. Poor form. In response to sdavis - I agree - but wouldn't it be amazing if he had half the intellect supposed and was strong enough to admitt and state - shit, I'm a twat, and I've been barking up the wrong tree for ages!!!
All the "information" Creationists come up with considering the Big Bang do not even promote theism, rather deism. Even if a cosmic consciousness created the Universe (which is highly unlikely), it's a very long jump to concluding that that same consciousness gives a damn about you or your promotion. Add the stupid biology nitpicking and you have these guys.
Moreover, scientists have long since begun thinking on a multiversal level. Who's to say that we live in THE Universe and not AN Universe?
This is the most boring debate with Hitchens I've ever seen. They don't give him anything interesting to defeat. Their points are so dull that listening to them try and debate him is rather like watching a fish slapping and flopping around on its side in too-shallow water.
Oh Jay....Life is mere physics and mere chemistry. It is nothing other than that. All life and all life processes, and the information therein is explained entirely in terms of physics and chemistry.
Jay Richards: "This discussion ought to be based on what we *do* know" Ok "And I do think we know we a fair degree of certainty that the universe is not eternal" We don't know that. "But that it came into existance in a finite past" Okay, yes but thats a vague statement. "We know something doesn't come from nothing" Wrong again. "The universe can't have caused itself" Yes it can "This is strong theistic evidence" No it isnt so much for only talking about things we know huh Jay.
We are now finding that there is no such thing as nothing. It seems to be a seething mass of sub-atomic potential with some experimental evidence to support it.
jay richards cant be that stupid...... the universe began to exist..... IN THIS PARTICULAR FORM..... that doesnt mean it didnt exist in another form previously........i think its just plain intellectual dishonesty.
Christianity doesnt even try to defend itself anymore, at least not in front of serious intellectuals. Now they just defend creationism. As time goes on, sand keeps slipping through their fingers.
I love how all the questions to philosophers or pundits are about biology and physics. Why won't chrisitans ever learn to ask questions to those who can actually answer them? Most likely because they don't want the answers.
There is no fundamental difference of the processes of life that we would see in "mere chemistry or physics." Modern medicine, agricultural science and so on would not be as powerful as it is if this were not true.
Organic chemistry wouldn't be chemistry if it were inherently unknowable, as he seems to blindly assert.
Making this point doesn't help his case any either.
Insert a gag in his mouth, and Jay's actually quite easy on the eyes. I'd like to suck his dick. His god wouldn't mind--he might even enjoy watching.
I've noticed that the Christians have pretty much conceded and no longer debate much the validity of Christianity, but have dialed it back to defending theism. This guy has taken that further and is actually insisting that they focus the discussion on deism. Losing ground much?
Can anyone provide this debate with synchronized visuals-audio? This is Hitch on 'take NO prisoners! / confrontatioal form, even by his standards......which would be very interesting to witness.....if this problem could be fixed?
For a guy that's so "hip" and in tune with the "kids these days", I'm surprised he's using ancient ID arguments like they're something new.
Let's face it, Ben Stein thinks he's on to something. All the while he wastes money on a fruitless documentary that's laughable and parallels right-wing quote-mining. Stein is desperate to stay relevant in a society whose thoughts and cares no longer concern him.
Go away, Stein. Hopefully people won't see this and just remember you as the Clear Eyes guy.
Prior to this video and another, I wasn't sure that I could hate somebody much more than I hate Bill O'Reilly. Ben Stein is placing himself in a close second.
By religions own definition, the all mighty is always an immoral God and thus does not deserve our worship...send me to "hell" please because I will not be a hypocrit for "God". Athiests are on the same coin as faithers because they too could not prove there is no God. Have a cup of Agnostic, keep searching, but certainly do not sheepishly believe in God "just in case". I no longer believe in the tooth fairy either.
The Big Bang Theory says that All matter was once in one spot in the Universe, and coul no longer sustain itself, (kind of like a super big Star) And therefore "Exploaded" and "Expanded", but eventually when enough matter comes together, (i.e. a blackhole forming) All matter will eventually come together again in a single spot (i.e. a coalescence of all blackholes) And the Explosion and Expansion Will happen again! but Due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the next Universe will be bigger! :D
There is new evidence (you can research it for yourself) discovered every year to postulate new theories, such as the multiverse or that the universe will someday collapse on itself and produce another big bang, that do suggest an infinite, timeless universe. It is an insultingly arrogant claim from the religious that they know everything, and painful to watch someone with the unbelievable, clearly man-made fanciful beliefs of religion try to prove his point using science.
What a whiny little bitch Jay Richards is. He's not staying on topic..he's being mean...man up you pussy. Just say that he's kicking your intellectual ass.
At 3;30 Richards again uses the Kalam argument which has been refuted long ago because of serious logical fallacies. But thanks to W. L. Craig it's been resurrected. The best one can do by using the Kalam is possibly a weak argument for deism. There is nothing about the "First Cause" or the "Unmoved Mover" as Aristotle prefers, that would cause one to jump to Theism or more specifically to monotheism as described by Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Stars converted hydrogen to higher elements, such as carbon. 7th graders know this. Jay's speaking on this was a bunch of incoherent rambling. He doesn't accept the existence of stars?
@Tobytrim I so want to agree with you, and on any other video of Hitch debating I would. But here, despite Richards making very flimsy points, Hitchens does not take him up on the central issue of the debate: does the universe require a creator? The answer is 'no'. Even if the universe was finite (and that isn't certain), just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean we need to say "God did it". That answer stops us looking for a scientific, testable solution. Why doesn't Hitch say that???
@bertiethetoupee4 "But here, despite Richards making very flimsy points," I've often felt that Hitchens was incomplete with the formal thread of a debate is in. I only said he handed them their arses. This is only Stein and a spokesman from the Discovery Institute after all!!.
On the point you mentioned, for example, Stein cut him off as he was starting to call Richards on his Ad hoc exemption of "god" from his reasoning. The assumption "Everything had a beginning" uses up too much time.
I love that creationist thing... The universe cannot be created out of nothing crap. A grade 3 could figure this out. Obviously, like in all material, animated substances, there is waste. And just as often as waste occurs, it is recycled into something else. If a creationist believes that trees recycle CO2 into breathable air, then what is so difficult about believing that the big bang was an event that was comprised of waste being reused? Old universe recycled into a new one.
"We know something doesn't come from nothing" .... Ok Mr. Religion, if "God" was the creative force -- fair enough. Who created God? I usually love the "blink blink" that comes with this follow up question and/or reply, "God has always existed." Logic is handy when it's in your favor, not so much when it's against.
@mbdulka It's only logic to say that God is eternal.Even your boy Hitchens attested in this debate that you cannot go on infinitely backwards looking for causes.It's impossible.So LOGIC demands that something is eternal,that something has "BEING" within itself.Now science has proven(hence the debate)that the natural(matter)is not eternal but had a beginning.Therefore something that transcends the natural,something SUPERnatural if you will, is the only LOGICAL cause or starting point.
@josh96748 If you wish to subscribe to the "unknown" an imaginary friends, that's of course your business. Logic doesn't cover everything, and human knowledge about the universe is very limited at this time. However, if I want to take the easy way out, I demand that the "eternal" Being be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
@mbdulka First you demand logic.So then it's given.Now you say logic doesn't cover everything AND that human knowledge is VERY limited at this time.Then please tell me how and on what basis do you reject Richards or my belief when you've cut your own legs out from under you?You cannot use logic to defend yourself nor human knowledge because they are both VERY limited!Tell me the LOGIC in that stance?If anything is to be marked or mocked as an "easy way out" its your reasoning.
@josh96748 Logic is limited if you lack knowledge, but but you can subscribe workable theories when evidence exists to support them. 1 of Zeno's Paradoxes comes to mind -- he states that between 2 points, the space between them can be halfed. This basically can go on forever. However, we're still able to take a step forward, despite the fact there should be an infinity number of points between our steps.
@mbdulka "Logic is limited if you lack knowledge, but but you can subscribe workable theories when evidence exists to support them." I agree.My point is the same.That is,evidence is there to support both theories as I believe is shown in this debate and others(by much smarter men too).I see your point using Zeno's paradox(though even Hitchens disagrees),but theism is also a workable theory with nothing PROVING it false..it is workable and so by your standards at least merits equal respect.
@mbdulka No matter how you slice it BOTH sides are resting on faith and have no evidence to PROVE themselves correct.It's a no win debate.Hitchens uses this truth against religious opponents but its rightly used against him as well.So disagree if you want with one side,but do not lack in character and decency as Hitchens in the process and resort to ridicule and mockery because you have nothing else to prove your opponents wrong.Resorting to this shows not lack of weight in my stance, but yours.
@josh96748 Just because I cannot fill in the gaps with knowledge, doesn't mean I have to automatically subscribe a pie-in-the-sky dictator to fill in the gaps. It's not up to the non-religious to "prove" that God exists ... they cannot, because they don't believe in fiction. It's up to the religious to prove that God does exists. Using Anecdotal arguments does nothing to prove that's the case. My evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monstor creator is just as valid as any other religious argument.
@josh96748 Not sure how Science is a faith ... it was responsible for sending Man to the moon. Seems it's "faith" is pretty practical. If you are obsessed with blindly following something, why not give Science a go then. Seems more useful for all of mankind. Come on, jump onboard, join the team, let's go for the win. :-)
@mbdulka "Not sure how Science is a faith..."Well,proven science is not faith such as your example of man landing on the moon.BUT when it is as you state yourself:"I cannot fill in the GAPS with knowledge","Logic is limited if you lack knowledge" then to hold to your view with such fervor when lacking said knowledge and logic it is faith and not science and the same as "blindly following something".The very def of the word science is"to know", which you admit you do not and CANNOT.That is faith.
@josh96748 Just because I am ignorant of facts, doesn't make things NOT true (ie... others are not ignorant). Best example is that less than 300 years ago, we thought the other planets in our solar system were stars ... we "proved" it -- but, over time and tests, we now know them to be planets (ie.... not stars). More than 300 years ago, they were still planets, even if everybody who looked up at the sky thought otherwise. That's truth vs. reality -- scientific studies aims to align the two.
You cannot have the argument "Everything that has a beginning has a cause, therefore god caused the universe because he doesn't have a cause," because this argument ASSUMES the conclusion it reaches! God (who doesn't need a cause) exists, therefore he explains the creation of the universe (also assuming it needs a cause). If you want to use logic, you MUST say that everything we observe to exist requires a cause, therefore "god" (if you posit his EXISTENCE) requires a cause. cont...
If one counters, "what caused the universe," then they really have misunderstood the BB and space-time. You cannot have "cause and effect" without space-time, and the BB is the edge of space-time, not the "beginning" as such, because this assumes that time and space were existing before the BB, and they were not, as the BB was the expansion of that very thing, space-time. You (nor even "god") cannot "cause" the quality "cause and effect" any more than you can walk north from the north pole. cont
Imagine it this way. Say you stop time at noon on Tuesday. Now, within that stopped time, how do you "cause" something to happen. You cannot "cause" something to happen if time is not a quality of the reality you are inhabiting, so to say that the universe as a whole was "caused" posits that there was "cause and effect" (space-time) "before" "cause and effect" existed. This is circular nonsense that takes common notions and intuitions, like a flat earth, and overgeneralizes them.
If this "god caused the universe" is drawn from the "best science of the day", then the best science is from Aristotle. I think we have more updated science.
I agree with dfoilesku. I don't understand how Mr. Richards makes the case (in seriousness) for the universe having a beginning because something can't come from nothing alongside the idea of god being eternal. If that is true why does he not say where god came from or what beginning god has or had. Or if as he says "we have no reason to believe god had a beginning" how or why are we to believe it is present in there here and now?
It never ceases to amaze me how the religious state so confidently who "God did this", "God thinks this", "God is like this" - so basically they are saying that they know the mind and nature of God. Well, that surely makes them more omniscient than God himself, doesn't it?
Certainly the big bang theory and the theory of evolution by natural selection don't require a god in any capacity. To insert a god is just a violation of Occam's razor. But if we're going to clutter up our thinking with fanciful ideas that can never be proven or disproven, why not a thousand gods? You can get a lot more drama and excitement from a cast of 1000 than from a cast of 1. Look what the Greek and Roman authors were able to get out of this panoply of divinities.
What kind of "moderator" is this?? This seems to be an extremely bias debate on the people who held it. The moderator himself joins in the debate against Hitchens. He let's Ben Stein debate as well as Jay Richards. Then, when he defends against all 3 of them at once they accuse him of filibustering. Having said that, Hitchens still owns them all.
funny how the people debating for religion always want to keep the topic to theism in general because it's easier to bring into the 21st century and argue on a level with science but they can't seem to see avoiding any specific religion is an argument against theism itself because of how primitive the thought process behind all the religions are which ever way you interperate it.
@eezy88 Your argument assumes that primitive equals false. Scripture posited an eternal being (and only does) way before moderns scientists universally started believing the big bang theory. Sometimes that which is "modern" is way worse then the "primitive", we just don't always know it right away.
Richards falls on his face regurgitating flismy philosophical arguments (including ancient ones) and Hitchens, as always, completely obliterates his opponent. Hitchens even destroys Ben Stein as collateral damage.
Hitchens is in the IQ stratosphere in comparison to Richards. When it comes to theists versus atheists, why is it that atheists always have the better arguments? Are we supposed to believe that Satan is trying to fool us? Fanatical adherence to fairy tale ideologies should be the subject of a lengthy study of human psychology and how the brain really works.
at 4:43 "We know the universe is a crummy candidate for that explanation because it began to exist. -God- did not begin to exist nor do we have any reason to think so."
The stench coming off that empty assertion would choke a dung beetle.
He's arguing the eternal nature of an entity that he hasn't even demonstrated exists. Science continues to chip away at religious claims and people like Richards just move that line in the sand and pretend nothing happened.
lol hitchens makes stien and'jay' look and sound like stoopid wee school boys,but they know they have half the country behind them albeit the ignorant half ,but it helps keep their silly smugness intact.
Jay Richards made a great point, that we can prove through the bible that there was a begining that something came from nothing. Can Jay Richards prove that it was the god of the bible that created everything from nothing? Why choose a christian god over all other deities? This is why there are wars amongst religions if you question ones faith in there reason for existance you have a fight?
"The universe had a beginning. We know something doesn't come from nothing. Everything that has a beginning has a cause for it's existence. The universe had a beginning therefore it had a cause for it's existence."
How he gets from that statement to his belief that god is eternal, came from nothing/brought himself into existence and then proceeded to be the first cause is insane. He makes statements then immediately sets God out as an exception. bloody moron.
On the contrary to that, (in which I somewhat agree that that was a contradiction) how can Hitchens state that we evolved from an existing organism and yet deny the original existence of whatever matter that was here or there or whereever before mankind evolved? You cant have it both ways, you cant deny one creation and accept another. And this is whats going on, both sides are just blabbing about who created mankind. Futile debate, waste of time...
@9revolta Ok there are a few problems with the argument you made. One, Hitchens doesn't say we evolved from an existing organism. He says we evolved from a common ancestor that no longer exists, as do all people who follow evolution. This is a common error among the religious people. Second you are lumping a biological argument (evolution) with a physics argument (the beginning of the universe). This is another mistake religious people make. There are no point you can transfer between the two.
@9revolta Thirdly, they are not both debating "WHO" created mankind. That is a loaded statement. Hitchens doesn't believe there was a who nor does he believe we were "created". Lastly, yes you CAN deny one creation viewpoint and accept another if the one you deny is considered wrong. you are basically saying whoever believes in evolution must believe in god. That is sheer stupidity. He does not deny the creation of universe, just the religious view.
Richards seems to confuse Deism with Theism. The fact that we don't KNOW how the cosmos started EXACTLY is not an argument for a god. Leaping from that into a personal, all goodness, intervening deity is a HUGE leap. Deism might be argued
Jay says nothing just comes into existence uncaused and Christopher says except god and jay says no not god. he certainly knows shed loads about god, its as if he's on the god phone getting all this info..what a guy..
Even if Mr. Hitchens was calling them all pig fucks every other word it still wouldn't invalidate the points he's making, but since he's not doing that or anything close to that, I fail to see what the fuck Richards is talking about.
Jay Richards does the best job of arguing his case against Hitchens as I've ever seen, and I've watched a lot of Hitchens' debates. If only Hitchens had a bit more understanding of Quantum Mechanics I feel like this debate would have not been so close. I credit Jay Richards with having his guns loaded before this one began, but he's still arguing a failed position for a terminal cause.
how come its always the person supporting creationism that says "the debate is this, not that!" Hitchens will go anywhere.. he isnt scared to go where you dont want to go Jay Richards..
@53dumey Nice try again, I can hear the panic in your typing, LOL! C'mon man, come to the light, it's BEAUTIFUL! Trust me, I've been where you are and it's the most liberating feeling to renounce delusions and embrace reason and truth. I've never been happier nor a better person morally!
oh yeh even if a creator had to make the universe that doesnt support theism if anything deism so your sky daddy bullshit is still bullshit it seems there whole argument is uh we got here god did and he cares about us WTF
Jay is talking so far above hitchens head ... sad fella, hitchens is so infantile
914light 2 months ago
@914light Now you're just trying to be stupid. Which is where religion succeeds: Convincing the intellectual mind to reside in being infantile. Hitchens disqualified Richards perfectly when he asked him if he believes in a virgin birth. Richards is not interested in convincing you with science. He's simply interested in your subscription to his belief so you'll buy his books.
Draeka 2 months ago
@Draeka ...Wow, you have a great come back to mask the buffoonish hitchens inept abilities to discuss science, if it were not so sad I'd laugh ....
P.S. you such probably stick to bar-room brawls :)
914light 2 months ago
poor hitchens can NOT understand the question ..so he changes the subject .. sad fella
914light 2 months ago
"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause but God did not come to existance". How do you know that? This fucking idiot is an affront to Hitchens' intellect.
Chris197980CH 2 months ago
Arguments from ignorance. Leave it to a particle physicist to say that nothing comes from nothing. Not this asshole Jay. A particle physics will show you that quantum mechanics demonstrates things coming from nothing for no reason i.e., protons in the plank space. Sub atomic particles come from nothing, then disappear. Quit saying the universe had to have a cause if you don't understand the subject matter. Let folks like Lawrence Krauss explain how the universe could come from nothing.
Johnf85 3 months ago
Someone put a diaper on Jay Richards. He is talking out of his asshole and is a child compared to Hitchens.
Stoicone111 5 months ago 2
Any presidential candidate who does not believe in Evolution should automatically be disqualified, but he can run for a provincial religious cleric post if he wishes so.
fidenful 5 months ago 10
Finally after 9 parts of this debate, 6:35 is when "it" actually provokes a reasonable argument with somewhat of a logical example, but is still shutdown by some reason of truth from Hitchens.
RageSchism 6 months ago
How does a finite universe prove the existence of God?
Kleinfurkon 6 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kleinfurkon How does anything prove the existence of God?
Iskander0027 6 months ago
jay richards dodges questions by generalizing and obscuring his answers.
he is a well spoken man but a coward.
rouzbehazshab 6 months ago
It is really hard to debate this sort of stuff because you need to know the current science on biology, cosmology, etc. It is really hard because when the creationist (like jay richards) misinterprets or misuses the sciences, you have to call him out and be able to point to journals and articles in science.
And oh man, do they ever misrepresent the science so that it helps their arguments. "Evolution says life came from nothing", "the big bang says something came from nothing". No they dont.
kittyloaf 6 months ago 2
Jay is clueless. Something had to cause the existence of the universe, he says. And what caused that cause? Sigh. He has no response to the infinite regress point. So silly.
KitaTheLittleKat 6 months ago
@KitaTheLittleKat Actually, he cleverly words it as 'everything in the universe has a cause' implying that God is the cause and God exists outside of the universe and therefore is not subject to the laws of physics. It's a bogus argument but Hitch doesn't say it is. Saying 'we don't know the cause' (even though viewing a universe that expands as though it conformed to linear time is fallacious) doesn't mean we can just say "then it was God". Hitch is letting Jay away with too much, here.
bertiethetoupee4 6 months ago
Haha, "....mere physics or mere chemistry..." No big deal, it's just because of these that we, and everything, exist.
fluffcore21 7 months ago
@fluffcore21 Exactly! Just because we name something, understand it and wield it, people lose the appreciation for what we're capable of. To the bible writers we'd be fucking sorcerers! What would they make of a fifty megaton hydrogen fusion bomb for God's sake?
russellrummage 7 months ago in playlist Hitchens
Richards is a whiny little bastard. He can't handle the various layers of discourse going on here, which even Stein seems okay with. There's the main question, plus many corollary questions, plus the questions from audience and moderators, but Richards just whines about wanting to stay on just that one main question. Pathetic.
paxpaul 7 months ago
the Christian is a well spoken ray comfort
upliftzippy 7 months ago
"Everything that comes into existence has a cause."
Even on his mistaken view of big bang causality, this doesn't hold. We only would then have one case of something coming into existence. As it is, the universe didn't come into existence, it always was. So he's wrong twice.
ralph489 7 months ago
Comment removed
sleeplessmind 7 months ago
You can't get something from nothing...except god of course. What a joke.
hammertime419 7 months ago
Fundamentally, the fundamental conclusion of this debate is that, fundamentally, Richards is naive, Stein is a dick, and Hitchens is wise, fundamentally.
Sidnelsom 8 months ago 2
count how many times this joker says the word fundamentally..
SDIB 8 months ago 3
The universe IS eternal, and anyone who imagines it is eternal has not thought seriously about these topics for very long.
honestann 8 months ago
Ben - YOU ARE LAME! How did natural selection allow for Ben?
EricDavidFloyd 8 months ago 4
Stein is a village idiot. Hitchens is so damn brilliant.
MrJIMMY3009 8 months ago 15
Richards states at 3:30 "The universe had a beginning and everything that has a beginning has a cause." This is inaccurate if not outright wrong. Quantum physics did away with causality nearly a hundred years ago, and if the universe was created in a similar way to particles in a vacuum due to quantum fluctuations, it wouldn't necessarily have a cause. Particle are come into existence from "nothingness" all the time. We can experimentally verify it.
rzstyron462 8 months ago 2
@rzstyron462 The quantum-universe-from-nothing argument also contradicts Hitchens's account of the baseball-sized wad of super-matter in which all that is was originally condensed, doesn't it?
Lawrence Krauss seems to think that the universe did indeed come from a rare quantum event, as you suggest.
ChollieD 8 months ago
@ChollieD Yeah, I'm not really sure why Hitchens keeps saying that. His weakest area is obviously science when he debates, especially physics.
I think he keeps referring to the baseball wad because of the fact that if you go all the way back the very beginning and not just arbitrarily close to it, you get a singularity.
rzstyron462 8 months ago
Poor Jay....insults??? WTF
bermudaguy1 9 months ago
Jay holds to the idea that, since the universe is not eternal, it must have a cause which must be a designer or a creator. What caused the creator? Hitch presupposes ignorance - we simply don't know the answer. Jay is answering the question with the all-powerful and indefinable... which seems too easy.
chief0staph 9 months ago
@chief0staph Exactly, i dont know, Magic Man in the Sky did it. And Magic Man doesnt need to be created, he is just Magic and there, and thats that. Sounds and stupid as it is. The infinate regress is something that the religious cannot escape from or have any sort of rational, logical, answer on. They "CANNOT" answer who created the creator... thats why its called "Faith"..... Sorry not good enough.
Wrahns 8 months ago
@Wrahns But Richards's argument ( I'm not taking his position, but for the sake of honesty) is that the creator is by its nature exempt from the question "Who created it?" So God is (uniquely) capable of self-creation. Richards thus neatly cuts off the infinite regress, though of course by assertion rather than by proof.
Therefore, I think the proper skeptical/empirical response ought to be, "Well, if God can self-create, then so can the universe." One unprovable assertion deserves another.
ChollieD 8 months ago
@ChollieD Thats exactly my point as well. Its just too "Neat" to say so i actually have an argument position, i will make my "Magic Man" exempt from having to prove he/she/its beginning, he just is and thats that. That proves nothing, just makes the religious look even more ridiculous and quite frankly ignorant. Carl Sagan said if we "Assume that God just existed, why not leave a step and that the assume the universe just existed".
Wrahns 8 months ago
Jay WTF, its a debate! "Take note of the number of insults hurled from one podium to the other"? Should we call Hitchens' mommy and tell her what a bad boy he is as well, gezz.
And yes anything would sound insulting if it goes against theist's beliefs. Thats how you guy view any opinion different to your false doctrines. Heck, you guise killed for less.
geradical 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ben Stein... what a tool.
Then the religious dude brings up "insult hurling" when all Hitchens is doing is being brutally honest... As if that NOT hurling insults would make his argument more valid.
Everything that has a beginning, has an end... and I know I will have an end. I hope I live to see the day that religion has its end.
ffgew22 9 months ago
Comment removed
ffgew22 9 months ago
there's no such thing as 'before' the universe. I wish theists would understand the physics they rely on before entering debates like this
dwellshere 9 months ago
God created the universe? Creation implies a before and after. Time started at the beginning of the universe and is integral to space. 'creation' outside of time doesnt even make sense.
dwellshere 9 months ago
@dwellshere Saying that their "Magic Man" is outside of time and space and you cant touch him is the only way the religious have a crutch to support any of their ridiculous arguements. They cant and wont explain how "God" just poofffeed into existence because they know that it makes them look as silly as their proposition is and that they know but wont admit that "The infinite Regress" trumps "Magic man just is!" every time.
Wrahns 8 months ago
What a joke. Ben Stein rigs the debate. Luckily Hitchens is smarter than all three of them combined.
dpnmnwgo1 9 months ago 2
God cut his veins with Occam's razor. nuff said
R2rGangstaFC 9 months ago 2
@R2rGangstaFC
lolz
kurdt40894 9 months ago
Ben Stein makes me nausious. Instant cure for a hardon any day.
AnotherMasterMind 9 months ago
Jay is so sad.
Avaricesa 9 months ago
This Jay person makes absolutly no sense. He talks in circles and is a clone of his chosen peers. Christoper is too advanced for this kid to keep up.
RratsArtStudio 9 months ago 2
change the record Jay - you seem to be not saying enough if you have time to criticise your opponent. Poor form. In response to sdavis - I agree - but wouldn't it be amazing if he had half the intellect supposed and was strong enough to admitt and state - shit, I'm a twat, and I've been barking up the wrong tree for ages!!!
Mantajourneys 10 months ago
change the record Jay - you seem to be not saying enough if you have time to criticise your opponent. Poor form.
Mantajourneys 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens wiped his ass with this dude !
13lael 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens wiped his ass with this dude !
13lael 10 months ago
blondie speaks well !.... But ain't got shit to say !
13lael 10 months ago
All the "information" Creationists come up with considering the Big Bang do not even promote theism, rather deism. Even if a cosmic consciousness created the Universe (which is highly unlikely), it's a very long jump to concluding that that same consciousness gives a damn about you or your promotion. Add the stupid biology nitpicking and you have these guys.
Moreover, scientists have long since begun thinking on a multiversal level. Who's to say that we live in THE Universe and not AN Universe?
LordPylon 10 months ago
This is the most boring debate with Hitchens I've ever seen. They don't give him anything interesting to defeat. Their points are so dull that listening to them try and debate him is rather like watching a fish slapping and flopping around on its side in too-shallow water.
AlaskaWolf 10 months ago
The incentive for people like Jay to cling to theology is admitted gigantic. What a bummer to recognize that your entire career is a sham.
sdavis3398 10 months ago
Argh- the sound and video aren't synchronized!
writersblock26 11 months ago
Oh Jay....Life is mere physics and mere chemistry. It is nothing other than that. All life and all life processes, and the information therein is explained entirely in terms of physics and chemistry.
kshackleton 11 months ago
As soon as Mr. Richards started talking about information, he completely lost the plot. He OBVIOUSLY has not idea what he's talking about.
mdiem 11 months ago
DrDopehat 11 months ago
We are now finding that there is no such thing as nothing. It seems to be a seething mass of sub-atomic potential with some experimental evidence to support it.
EndeavourAlways 11 months ago
jay richards cant be that stupid...... the universe began to exist..... IN THIS PARTICULAR FORM..... that doesnt mean it didnt exist in another form previously........i think its just plain intellectual dishonesty.
scottpastry 11 months ago
Christianity doesnt even try to defend itself anymore, at least not in front of serious intellectuals. Now they just defend creationism. As time goes on, sand keeps slipping through their fingers.
shortfuse41 11 months ago
SI actually don't dislike Jay Richards. Ben Stein, however, is an idiot.
Gludd2 11 months ago
I love how all the questions to philosophers or pundits are about biology and physics. Why won't chrisitans ever learn to ask questions to those who can actually answer them? Most likely because they don't want the answers.
qtzlctl2012 11 months ago
There is nothing in life that is not chemistry. The 'information' arguement is bogus.
‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.
gamesbok 11 months ago
Did he just say that DNA coding regions are not explainable by bonding affinities or physical laws?
That's blatantly false. We have a pretty clear idea of how polypeptide synthesis works (amongst other things).
Shit son. Do you think doctors just pump chemicals into you without understanding what that meant physically?
dhx84 11 months ago
As an aspiring chemist:
STFU Mr. Richards.
There is no fundamental difference of the processes of life that we would see in "mere chemistry or physics." Modern medicine, agricultural science and so on would not be as powerful as it is if this were not true.
Organic chemistry wouldn't be chemistry if it were inherently unknowable, as he seems to blindly assert.
Making this point doesn't help his case any either.
dhx84 11 months ago
Insert a gag in his mouth, and Jay's actually quite easy on the eyes. I'd like to suck his dick. His god wouldn't mind--he might even enjoy watching.
jajohnson7809 11 months ago
I've noticed that the Christians have pretty much conceded and no longer debate much the validity of Christianity, but have dialed it back to defending theism. This guy has taken that further and is actually insisting that they focus the discussion on deism. Losing ground much?
TheSinisterKitty 11 months ago 2
Can anyone provide this debate with synchronized visuals-audio? This is Hitch on 'take NO prisoners! / confrontatioal form, even by his standards......which would be very interesting to witness.....if this problem could be fixed?
TheHitchDawk 1 year ago
jay richards keps repeating to please note that his stupid explanations are being hruled without answer from htichens hahahahahahahaha asshole
fouche1820 1 year ago
When does Napoleon Dynamite start to dance??
sickoftypingthisshit 1 year ago
Yeah, why doesn't the sound synchronize with the video?
thegreatatheismo 1 year ago
There is definately no intelligence allowed in Ben Stein's movie!
doriamedina 1 year ago
For a guy that's so "hip" and in tune with the "kids these days", I'm surprised he's using ancient ID arguments like they're something new.
Let's face it, Ben Stein thinks he's on to something. All the while he wastes money on a fruitless documentary that's laughable and parallels right-wing quote-mining. Stein is desperate to stay relevant in a society whose thoughts and cares no longer concern him.
Go away, Stein. Hopefully people won't see this and just remember you as the Clear Eyes guy.
visualkei72 1 year ago
Prior to this video and another, I wasn't sure that I could hate somebody much more than I hate Bill O'Reilly. Ben Stein is placing himself in a close second.
ClayVansickle 1 year ago
By religions own definition, the all mighty is always an immoral God and thus does not deserve our worship...send me to "hell" please because I will not be a hypocrit for "God". Athiests are on the same coin as faithers because they too could not prove there is no God. Have a cup of Agnostic, keep searching, but certainly do not sheepishly believe in God "just in case". I no longer believe in the tooth fairy either.
Ninetyone11 1 year ago
@Ninetyone11
Either God exsists or (s)he doesn't. Agnostic is the least plausible stance.
floydoid 1 year ago
1+1=3; therefore, "God" exists?
Ninetyone11 1 year ago
The Big Bang Theory says that All matter was once in one spot in the Universe, and coul no longer sustain itself, (kind of like a super big Star) And therefore "Exploaded" and "Expanded", but eventually when enough matter comes together, (i.e. a blackhole forming) All matter will eventually come together again in a single spot (i.e. a coalescence of all blackholes) And the Explosion and Expansion Will happen again! but Due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the next Universe will be bigger! :D
nazmibest 1 year ago
If the Universe had to have a cause, Why is it OK to say that God had no cause?
(i.e. he was always there.)
nazmibest 1 year ago
stein is not suppose to be in the debate shut the fuck up you third rate actor queez master commercial jerk off
phildirt3 1 year ago
There is new evidence (you can research it for yourself) discovered every year to postulate new theories, such as the multiverse or that the universe will someday collapse on itself and produce another big bang, that do suggest an infinite, timeless universe. It is an insultingly arrogant claim from the religious that they know everything, and painful to watch someone with the unbelievable, clearly man-made fanciful beliefs of religion try to prove his point using science.
heartoftheisland 1 year ago 3
@heartoftheisland
i absolutely agree with you. It sickens me.
jacynm 1 year ago
What a whiny little bitch Jay Richards is. He's not staying on topic..he's being mean...man up you pussy. Just say that he's kicking your intellectual ass.
straydoglogic 1 year ago
At 3;30 Richards again uses the Kalam argument which has been refuted long ago because of serious logical fallacies. But thanks to W. L. Craig it's been resurrected. The best one can do by using the Kalam is possibly a weak argument for deism. There is nothing about the "First Cause" or the "Unmoved Mover" as Aristotle prefers, that would cause one to jump to Theism or more specifically to monotheism as described by Jews, Muslims and Christians.
burkerow 1 year ago
Where did organic matter come from?
Stars converted hydrogen to higher elements, such as carbon. 7th graders know this. Jay's speaking on this was a bunch of incoherent rambling. He doesn't accept the existence of stars?
nerocritic 1 year ago
"Three against one. Hitchens still holds his own."
Holds his own???!!! - He handed them their freshly pressed, neatly folded arses!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago 46
@Tobytrim I so want to agree with you, and on any other video of Hitch debating I would. But here, despite Richards making very flimsy points, Hitchens does not take him up on the central issue of the debate: does the universe require a creator? The answer is 'no'. Even if the universe was finite (and that isn't certain), just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean we need to say "God did it". That answer stops us looking for a scientific, testable solution. Why doesn't Hitch say that???
bertiethetoupee4 6 months ago
@bertiethetoupee4 "But here, despite Richards making very flimsy points," I've often felt that Hitchens was incomplete with the formal thread of a debate is in. I only said he handed them their arses. This is only Stein and a spokesman from the Discovery Institute after all!!.
On the point you mentioned, for example, Stein cut him off as he was starting to call Richards on his Ad hoc exemption of "god" from his reasoning. The assumption "Everything had a beginning" uses up too much time.
Tobytrim 6 months ago
@Tobytrim like a boss
jronzonb 6 months ago
"Get real" - I LOVE IT!
That was the best line so far, and it's absolutely true.
ElDuorPaso 1 year ago 2
*makes up some shitty uneducated comment because i think i know what im talking about*
robotfamilygchicken 1 year ago
Match the sound and FUCKING VIDEO!
popceed 1 year ago 82
@popceed It's the poster's own comical way of refuting the fine tuning argument.
554466551 1 year ago
@popceed People who bitch about free content amuse me. = )
AriloeuLaleelae 9 months ago
At 6:00, what is this guy talking about?
Is he making this up on the spot, or are there really people that are serious about this ?
This is certainly not anything that is discussed among real scientists.
This Hitchens guy is much to lenient on these idiots.
He must think highly of his audience.
nemirn 1 year ago
Jay Richards can not stick to a point, or argue any point successfully. Hitchens wins at all times in this debate.
SethHesio 1 year ago 2
I love that creationist thing... The universe cannot be created out of nothing crap. A grade 3 could figure this out. Obviously, like in all material, animated substances, there is waste. And just as often as waste occurs, it is recycled into something else. If a creationist believes that trees recycle CO2 into breathable air, then what is so difficult about believing that the big bang was an event that was comprised of waste being reused? Old universe recycled into a new one.
lesterismyname 1 year ago
Richards stupidity and theology is in itself an insult being hurled at Hitchens.
dutchbert420 1 year ago
Richards keeps trying to trot out the Kalam argument and Hitchens has none of it. :)
dhaddox 1 year ago
"We know something doesn't come from nothing" .... Ok Mr. Religion, if "God" was the creative force -- fair enough. Who created God? I usually love the "blink blink" that comes with this follow up question and/or reply, "God has always existed." Logic is handy when it's in your favor, not so much when it's against.
mbdulka 1 year ago
@mbdulka It's only logic to say that God is eternal.Even your boy Hitchens attested in this debate that you cannot go on infinitely backwards looking for causes.It's impossible.So LOGIC demands that something is eternal,that something has "BEING" within itself.Now science has proven(hence the debate)that the natural(matter)is not eternal but had a beginning.Therefore something that transcends the natural,something SUPERnatural if you will, is the only LOGICAL cause or starting point.
josh96748 1 year ago
@josh96748 If you wish to subscribe to the "unknown" an imaginary friends, that's of course your business. Logic doesn't cover everything, and human knowledge about the universe is very limited at this time. However, if I want to take the easy way out, I demand that the "eternal" Being be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
mbdulka 1 year ago
@mbdulka First you demand logic.So then it's given.Now you say logic doesn't cover everything AND that human knowledge is VERY limited at this time.Then please tell me how and on what basis do you reject Richards or my belief when you've cut your own legs out from under you?You cannot use logic to defend yourself nor human knowledge because they are both VERY limited!Tell me the LOGIC in that stance?If anything is to be marked or mocked as an "easy way out" its your reasoning.
josh96748 1 year ago
@josh96748 Logic is limited if you lack knowledge, but but you can subscribe workable theories when evidence exists to support them. 1 of Zeno's Paradoxes comes to mind -- he states that between 2 points, the space between them can be halfed. This basically can go on forever. However, we're still able to take a step forward, despite the fact there should be an infinity number of points between our steps.
mbdulka 1 year ago
@mbdulka "Logic is limited if you lack knowledge, but but you can subscribe workable theories when evidence exists to support them." I agree.My point is the same.That is,evidence is there to support both theories as I believe is shown in this debate and others(by much smarter men too).I see your point using Zeno's paradox(though even Hitchens disagrees),but theism is also a workable theory with nothing PROVING it false..it is workable and so by your standards at least merits equal respect.
josh96748 1 year ago
@mbdulka No matter how you slice it BOTH sides are resting on faith and have no evidence to PROVE themselves correct.It's a no win debate.Hitchens uses this truth against religious opponents but its rightly used against him as well.So disagree if you want with one side,but do not lack in character and decency as Hitchens in the process and resort to ridicule and mockery because you have nothing else to prove your opponents wrong.Resorting to this shows not lack of weight in my stance, but yours.
josh96748 1 year ago
@josh96748 Just because I cannot fill in the gaps with knowledge, doesn't mean I have to automatically subscribe a pie-in-the-sky dictator to fill in the gaps. It's not up to the non-religious to "prove" that God exists ... they cannot, because they don't believe in fiction. It's up to the religious to prove that God does exists. Using Anecdotal arguments does nothing to prove that's the case. My evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monstor creator is just as valid as any other religious argument.
mbdulka 1 year ago
@josh96748 Not sure how Science is a faith ... it was responsible for sending Man to the moon. Seems it's "faith" is pretty practical. If you are obsessed with blindly following something, why not give Science a go then. Seems more useful for all of mankind. Come on, jump onboard, join the team, let's go for the win. :-)
mbdulka 1 year ago
@mbdulka "Not sure how Science is a faith..."Well,proven science is not faith such as your example of man landing on the moon.BUT when it is as you state yourself:"I cannot fill in the GAPS with knowledge","Logic is limited if you lack knowledge" then to hold to your view with such fervor when lacking said knowledge and logic it is faith and not science and the same as "blindly following something".The very def of the word science is"to know", which you admit you do not and CANNOT.That is faith.
josh96748 1 year ago
@josh96748 Just because I am ignorant of facts, doesn't make things NOT true (ie... others are not ignorant). Best example is that less than 300 years ago, we thought the other planets in our solar system were stars ... we "proved" it -- but, over time and tests, we now know them to be planets (ie.... not stars). More than 300 years ago, they were still planets, even if everybody who looked up at the sky thought otherwise. That's truth vs. reality -- scientific studies aims to align the two.
mbdulka 1 year ago
You cannot have the argument "Everything that has a beginning has a cause, therefore god caused the universe because he doesn't have a cause," because this argument ASSUMES the conclusion it reaches! God (who doesn't need a cause) exists, therefore he explains the creation of the universe (also assuming it needs a cause). If you want to use logic, you MUST say that everything we observe to exist requires a cause, therefore "god" (if you posit his EXISTENCE) requires a cause. cont...
greyeyed123 1 year ago
If one counters, "what caused the universe," then they really have misunderstood the BB and space-time. You cannot have "cause and effect" without space-time, and the BB is the edge of space-time, not the "beginning" as such, because this assumes that time and space were existing before the BB, and they were not, as the BB was the expansion of that very thing, space-time. You (nor even "god") cannot "cause" the quality "cause and effect" any more than you can walk north from the north pole. cont
greyeyed123 1 year ago
Imagine it this way. Say you stop time at noon on Tuesday. Now, within that stopped time, how do you "cause" something to happen. You cannot "cause" something to happen if time is not a quality of the reality you are inhabiting, so to say that the universe as a whole was "caused" posits that there was "cause and effect" (space-time) "before" "cause and effect" existed. This is circular nonsense that takes common notions and intuitions, like a flat earth, and overgeneralizes them.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
If this "god caused the universe" is drawn from the "best science of the day", then the best science is from Aristotle. I think we have more updated science.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
Its adorable how Mr. Stein swoops in with another baited question whenever Mr. Richards is drowning in the bog of his theological nonsense.
rhatcher010 1 year ago
Hitchslapped
caseybv74 1 year ago
I agree with dfoilesku. I don't understand how Mr. Richards makes the case (in seriousness) for the universe having a beginning because something can't come from nothing alongside the idea of god being eternal. If that is true why does he not say where god came from or what beginning god has or had. Or if as he says "we have no reason to believe god had a beginning" how or why are we to believe it is present in there here and now?
joshuha231984 1 year ago
It never ceases to amaze me how the religious state so confidently who "God did this", "God thinks this", "God is like this" - so basically they are saying that they know the mind and nature of God. Well, that surely makes them more omniscient than God himself, doesn't it?
InitiumNovum 1 year ago
@InitiumNovum Sneaky fuckers would say that god gives them clues,hints in daily life on his mind or intentions.
BenDoverman 1 year ago
Certainly the big bang theory and the theory of evolution by natural selection don't require a god in any capacity. To insert a god is just a violation of Occam's razor. But if we're going to clutter up our thinking with fanciful ideas that can never be proven or disproven, why not a thousand gods? You can get a lot more drama and excitement from a cast of 1000 than from a cast of 1. Look what the Greek and Roman authors were able to get out of this panoply of divinities.
idleflaborgy 1 year ago
What kind of "moderator" is this?? This seems to be an extremely bias debate on the people who held it. The moderator himself joins in the debate against Hitchens. He let's Ben Stein debate as well as Jay Richards. Then, when he defends against all 3 of them at once they accuse him of filibustering. Having said that, Hitchens still owns them all.
Accessdenied89 1 year ago
funny how the people debating for religion always want to keep the topic to theism in general because it's easier to bring into the 21st century and argue on a level with science but they can't seem to see avoiding any specific religion is an argument against theism itself because of how primitive the thought process behind all the religions are which ever way you interperate it.
eezy88 1 year ago
@eezy88 Your argument assumes that primitive equals false. Scripture posited an eternal being (and only does) way before moderns scientists universally started believing the big bang theory. Sometimes that which is "modern" is way worse then the "primitive", we just don't always know it right away.
solaphyde 1 year ago
Richards falls on his face regurgitating flismy philosophical arguments (including ancient ones) and Hitchens, as always, completely obliterates his opponent. Hitchens even destroys Ben Stein as collateral damage.
Blackshayde 1 year ago
Hitchens is in the IQ stratosphere in comparison to Richards. When it comes to theists versus atheists, why is it that atheists always have the better arguments? Are we supposed to believe that Satan is trying to fool us? Fanatical adherence to fairy tale ideologies should be the subject of a lengthy study of human psychology and how the brain really works.
scasired 1 year ago
Hitchens is the man. End of story.
Traumarituel 1 year ago
fucking stein...trying to sound intelligent while he doubts evolution...what a moron
erikmania 1 year ago 5
what hitch said on the end was brilliant well put
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
At 9:41 Hitchens says "The rantings of frightened children trying to make sense of things they don't understand."
I don't think I've ever heard a better definition of religion.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago 2
at 4:43 "We know the universe is a crummy candidate for that explanation because it began to exist. -God- did not begin to exist nor do we have any reason to think so."
The stench coming off that empty assertion would choke a dung beetle.
He's arguing the eternal nature of an entity that he hasn't even demonstrated exists. Science continues to chip away at religious claims and people like Richards just move that line in the sand and pretend nothing happened.
Their batting average sucks.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
Ben is a goober, Jay is a nimrod...thought i'd do the name calling for Christopher.
artwdog 1 year ago
lol hitchens makes stien and'jay' look and sound like stoopid wee school boys,but they know they have half the country behind them albeit the ignorant half ,but it helps keep their silly smugness intact.
megamus3 1 year ago 2
Three against one. Hitchens still holds his own.
AIRDAM1 1 year ago 66
@AIRDAM1 quality over quantity, baby.
ytfmichaelxu 1 year ago
@AIRDAM1 no he kicks ass
phildirt3 1 year ago
@AIRDAM1 the truth always outshines the ridiculous,
highlanderdurp 10 months ago 2
@AIRDAM1 sounds like 2v2
Bluebalz 10 months ago
The only thing we are taking into account it that Jay Richards is a crackpot creationist.
JerezJulio 1 year ago 3
Thank god for the gift of mr. Hitchen's intellect and courage to open doors and inspire the modern world grow up and open their ignorant eyes.
kick08ful 1 year ago
his major arguement for god, the universe began, has been addressed by stephen hawking.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
Jay Richards made a great point, that we can prove through the bible that there was a begining that something came from nothing. Can Jay Richards prove that it was the god of the bible that created everything from nothing? Why choose a christian god over all other deities? This is why there are wars amongst religions if you question ones faith in there reason for existance you have a fight?
Lazybate 1 year ago
"The universe had a beginning. We know something doesn't come from nothing. Everything that has a beginning has a cause for it's existence. The universe had a beginning therefore it had a cause for it's existence."
How he gets from that statement to his belief that god is eternal, came from nothing/brought himself into existence and then proceeded to be the first cause is insane. He makes statements then immediately sets God out as an exception. bloody moron.
ragerancher 1 year ago
@ragerancher
On the contrary to that, (in which I somewhat agree that that was a contradiction) how can Hitchens state that we evolved from an existing organism and yet deny the original existence of whatever matter that was here or there or whereever before mankind evolved? You cant have it both ways, you cant deny one creation and accept another. And this is whats going on, both sides are just blabbing about who created mankind. Futile debate, waste of time...
9revolta 1 year ago
@9revolta Ok there are a few problems with the argument you made. One, Hitchens doesn't say we evolved from an existing organism. He says we evolved from a common ancestor that no longer exists, as do all people who follow evolution. This is a common error among the religious people. Second you are lumping a biological argument (evolution) with a physics argument (the beginning of the universe). This is another mistake religious people make. There are no point you can transfer between the two.
ragerancher 1 year ago
@9revolta Thirdly, they are not both debating "WHO" created mankind. That is a loaded statement. Hitchens doesn't believe there was a who nor does he believe we were "created". Lastly, yes you CAN deny one creation viewpoint and accept another if the one you deny is considered wrong. you are basically saying whoever believes in evolution must believe in god. That is sheer stupidity. He does not deny the creation of universe, just the religious view.
ragerancher 1 year ago
This debates Are awesome !!!!! But they sould be Re-Posted In-Synch !!!! Voice and Action In Synch !!!! But Thanks For Posting !!
AgroDTOP 1 year ago
Three against one and the one is winning. You just got Hitchslapped.
Flipper79able 1 year ago
Richards seems to confuse Deism with Theism. The fact that we don't KNOW how the cosmos started EXACTLY is not an argument for a god. Leaping from that into a personal, all goodness, intervening deity is a HUGE leap. Deism might be argued
....Theism is just ridiculous.
luisgarcia28 1 year ago
i love how genuinely righteous christopher gets towards the end
makes my faith in humanity comeback a little
wwyd4akb 1 year ago
Jay says nothing just comes into existence uncaused and Christopher says except god and jay says no not god. he certainly knows shed loads about god, its as if he's on the god phone getting all this info..what a guy..
ristan57 1 year ago
@ristan57
No, his source is Kalamity Craig.
hackenbollox 1 year ago
Richards damns himself by saying that because we know that the universe exists and CAME into existence, it must be the MAGIC MAN!
lewisbreland 1 year ago
Even if Mr. Hitchens was calling them all pig fucks every other word it still wouldn't invalidate the points he's making, but since he's not doing that or anything close to that, I fail to see what the fuck Richards is talking about.
samOFblorx 1 year ago
Jay Richards does the best job of arguing his case against Hitchens as I've ever seen, and I've watched a lot of Hitchens' debates. If only Hitchens had a bit more understanding of Quantum Mechanics I feel like this debate would have not been so close. I credit Jay Richards with having his guns loaded before this one began, but he's still arguing a failed position for a terminal cause.
PurpleChevron 1 year ago
@PurpleChevron Nicely put, if you don't mind my saying.
CornCob6000 1 year ago
Jay they are not insults being hurled but intelligent observation of your inability to answer the questions put to you.
kramdoog 1 year ago
how come its always the person supporting creationism that says "the debate is this, not that!" Hitchens will go anywhere.. he isnt scared to go where you dont want to go Jay Richards..
JaushuaGuy 1 year ago
The problem is theists like Richard and Stein seam to think they know everything. Anything science can't explain, god must have done it!
The infallibility of an argument is a sign of its weakness, not its strength.
Crazytalk589 1 year ago
Hitchens is avoiding the Matter question.
He would rather go on an anti-religous rant and hog all the time.
He lost the debate 40 mins ago.
53dumey 1 year ago
@53dumey Nice try again, I can hear the panic in your typing, LOL! C'mon man, come to the light, it's BEAUTIFUL! Trust me, I've been where you are and it's the most liberating feeling to renounce delusions and embrace reason and truth. I've never been happier nor a better person morally!
244Ohiro 1 year ago
@244Ohiro
And I'm sure you would also say that your more intelligent.
LOL
It does'nt work that way and we all know the truth.
If you were where I am, you'd would'nt give up your faith because someone like Dawkins or Hitchens told you to.
I use reason and truth when I say " Who the hell is Hitchens and Dawkins to tell me how I should Think ?"
53dumey 1 year ago
Ben Has to step in to back his boy when he's getting curbstomped
Abel2Cum 1 year ago
oh yeh even if a creator had to make the universe that doesnt support theism if anything deism so your sky daddy bullshit is still bullshit it seems there whole argument is uh we got here god did and he cares about us WTF
patrickledford420 1 year ago
evolution? ughhh how can we still be debating that it is undeniable if you denie it then i have they right to call you a willful ignorant FOOL
patrickledford420 1 year ago