What a silly thing to say, Dinesh. Occam's Razor says that the argument with the least amount of assumption is most likely to be true. Unfortunately, everything this guy has ever said is standing on a foundation of fluid assumption. Anything can be reduced to completely simple terms if you want it to be.
The universe couldn't have come from nothing. It must have been created by something. Therefore it must have been made by the flying spaghetti monster. And remember kids, the flying spaghetti monster gets very angry if you jack off, and especially if you haven't cut the skin off the end of your dick. And homos are dirty! Trust me, I know this because it says so in my magic book. Q.E.D.
I like it how according to theologians a such complex thing as the universe requires a cause, but something even more complex like a god who is supposed to have created it... somehow doesn't...
Because there is a universe with a beginning, there has to be a creator. Because there is a creator, there has to be... * Come on D'Souza, please follow your own logic!
Guys like D'Souza fear education and knowledge. Critical thinking will be their demise!
@Jmsadv So did George W. Bush, so excuse me if I not immediately fall to my knees in devotion. But ivy league or not, I'm not denying that D'souza is a smart guy, anyway. The problem with him is that he uses all his intellectual capacities to rationalize things, that are not rational. If everything has a creator, and that's his prove that so has the universe, then who created the creator? Oh, right, that's an illegitimate questions because THAT was before time and space existed, right?
Ever notice how when these religious types are debating, they always hop up on that soap box and start pontificating? The voice ramps up in cadence, pitch and volume as if they're giving the frickin' sermon on the mount. They don't talk *to* you, they talk *at* you. Bloody bastards.
@jq747 Have you ever seen John lennox or Craig or Habermas do that? I think not. Its just preference you cannot generalize that all religious debaters "give a sermon on the mount". And In fact, I'm sure there are atheist debaters that at times ramp up in cadence, and pitch and volume at certain points in their arguments as well. So please, be fair here.
@Jmsadv I like to think that I am, yes. Simplicity can be a virtue.
And yes, I have. Pretty much all of them. And Hitchens tends to be quite calm and quiet in his debates, except when he actually wants to be loud (like when he famously asks "How dare You...?"). Meaning he actually uses volume as a tool. Dinesh is just loud all the time, and while that certainly says nothing about his arguments, it's just very irritating and does contribute to the listener being receptive.
However, what is annoying about this type of debate is that it's basically a brawl between two grossly deficient views of God.
It's smart-and-shallow vs ridiculous-and-shallow. It's hard to care how it comes out.
Neither of those clowns would know how to debate a real theologian. They'd have to resort to: That doesn't make sense to me, therefore it is nonsense."
@anomalogue ...Clearly you do n 't even bother to see that these people HAVE debated 'real' theologians. Hell, Dennett has debated WLC, who is considered the best christian debater od our time, and come out on top. Dennett has been in several debates with 'real' theologians, and consistently comes out on top...so...I'm confused as to your statement, is it based in the ignorance of all the times both speakers HAVe debated theologians?
@BigLundi Now we will have to bicker over what a real theologian is. Or more accurately: what is theological profundity? And if we are going to do that I need some assurance this isn't going to be an utter waste of my time. Can you summarize this debate with a 'real' theologian?
@anomalogue Well, I know that Hitchens has debated the Archbishop of Canterbury as to the usefulness of god, which consisted of the archbishop attempting to defend the affirmative with Christopher attacking from the negative. In summary, Hitchens made it clear that he felt God was a useless hypothesis, and inndeed was a demonstrable changing wit hthe time cultural thing, instead of anything real, while the Archbishop defended the profundity of Scripture and the goodness of Jesus Christ.
@anomalogue dinesh D'Souza has debated Theologians that were of the Islamic variety as to the divinity of Jesus as well as having admonished Islamic critiques for being islamophobic, by citing research he's done into the area of the Quran for several years.
Both Hitchens AND D'Souza have demonstrated that they are well versed in religious discussion and philosophy, for you to come and say that neither of them have a modern view of God, and as such wouldn't be able to debate a real theologian.
@anomalogue Cont'd. Is extremely arrogant. Define what YOU believe "god" to be and inform me how you know this is the common view of God that's worth debating over.
Those who listen to him and cannot detect the obvious limitations of his thought, who enjoy the truthy mouthfeel of fact-spew with no regard to whether the man is making a valid point or not... what can you say to them?
@nyscholartist "The universe is rational" The universe is intelligibly rational, that's the whole reason for why we can do science. You been smoking that dumb shit weed?
So the bible said that the universe had a beginning...ancient man, ignorant of the correct answer, could only come up with one of two answers. So the writer of Genesis 1 flipped a coin and got it right. Wow! That's your evidence for the bible being inspired.
I've heard him debate Christopher Hitchens too and each time I'm left scratching my head. Regardless of the Pol Pot-Stalin-Hitler argument (easily obvious each thought of themselves as god-like), but to be able to rationalize not teaching students the history of all religions in an unbiased manner I feel is a robbery of knowledge.
if you can't move the "dials" of the natural laws of the universe, then it hardly makes since for them to be adjustable dials in the first place, except if Dinesh needs this poorly constructed analogy to hold to his point.
It amuses me to see the comments from people who are sitting at home on their computer calling two accomplished authors debating at a distinguished university "stupid" or "idiots". It's a kin to the overweight guy sitting at home in his recliner watching football, calling the quarterback a bum who can't play.
Occam's Razor suggests that there's a god? In either case, something would have to come from nothing, or have not had a beginning. Whether that be matter, or a creature that can create matter, is debatable, but an infinitely more complex creature would require an infinitely more complex explanation. Matter poofing out of nowhere versus a matter creating creature (God) poofing out of nowhere, to say that God is less extraordinary should be an insult to his god.
When he asks why the universe must match up with our logical brains I feel like banging my head against the wall to get the stupid I heard out of there. Has this guy ever heard of quantum mechanics? Does the special theory of relativity match up with our normal sense of logic? How about black holes, and the big bang? Talk about scientific ignorance.
Man, this guy is fucked up. I don't want to go point by point here, because it would be pointless (har har har). But I thought I should respond to this question of his: "What is the atheist explanation for how [the laws of the universe] came to be what they are?" There is no "atheist explanation" of anything. He's a grown man. He should know that atheism is merely a single position on a single issue, not a lifestyle, ideology, belief system, world view, etc.
The "intelligence out of nature" argument has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. It's like saying "we've discovered that rocks are grey, but who made the information that they are grey?" WE DID. The "intelligence" was not placed, it's our own interpretation of the universe, codified into our own language. I hate this guy.
Copernicus was declared a heretic by the Roman Church. This D'Souza has no understanding of modern science at all! This is the most ridiculous hodge-podge and poorest reading of history that I've ever heard. While the Big Bang certainly seems to have happened, we may exist in one Universe in an infinity of Universes.In such a large number, some Universe will have constants like ours. By the way, Augustine also favored the murder of heretics.
Did he really just imply that St Augustine predicted the Big Bang?
As he went through his pseudo-cosmological bullshit, I kept wondering "How does this ever lead him to theism?" I was genuinely surprised when the fine-tuning explanation became his reason for the Christian god.
@DJGutekunst Screw that, he's holding St. Augustine as some sort of authority on what religion has to say about anything. To me, either your book is all containing, or it's not. You can use somebody like Augustine who was an interpreter of that little book to be an authoritative representation of the whole philosophy. I don't know if that made sense, but I hope it did.
@fifimsp No, that makes perfect sense. If the Bible really is the wisest and most relevant book every written it should be self-evident, or at the least not be a mere tale of bronze-age barbarism. The thing about Christianity is that most of the modern arguments are really just rehashing what Augustine and Descartes said a long time ago and their arguments have both been proven to be circular. I actually just finished a course on the subject for which I got A's all around (not to brag!).
@tjweiler1 Good, I did make sense then. Yeah, I know most of modern Christianity is not the product of Ancient times. I actually don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with Christians who don't know that.
Dinesh ignores all of modern physics that doesn't comport with his simplistic theology. M Theory pwns his arguments completely. But of course he ignores that. A slimy tactic.
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more aggressive claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
Why do people have the need for god? The universe and its laws are so beautiful that it is easy to see how small of a probability it was that they were created. We are lucky to be here and have the time we have to live the best life we can/
@Mattiewolftalks D'Souza makes me suspect theory of evolution. Natural selection should not select this guy with this brainless, third class anti - communism
God is real and He is so good to the nth power. Atheism is the deception of Satan. Atheism maybe does not believe that there is evil but evil is real and he will deceive as many as possible and God allowed him. God has a purpose in everything. My cousin has seen Him and talked to Him. He may not show Himself to everybody but He loves evrybody so much. Kindly visit valtorta.org to know Him and thereby will love Him. God loves us all so much!
@krizzia1000 Atheism is not a deception of a scary evil being. I think atheists in general care more about the world around us, because we know that right here and right now is what matters. While the religious seem to turtle-shell themselves within their respective communities, distracting themselves with imaginary problems, atheists can be said to be more involved with addressing real world problems like climate change, health care, and equal rights. Does not sound devilish to me.
Dinesh always say the exact same things. Always the same crappy arguments. Why don't his critics make proper rebuttals? It wouldn't be too hard. Dinesh actually believes in intelligent design, the biggest scientific sham of the last few years. He obviously knows very little about science. These new atheists can be kinda disappointing.
This so called dinesh talks about physics as he has understood everything...and in fact what he talking total shit. If he doesnt understand physics he better shut his mouth !
This so called dinesh talks about physics as he has understood everything...and in fact what he talking total shit. If he doesnt understand physics he better shut his mouth !
Denish constantly misses the point, twists what was said by Daniel and then responds to what HE said Daniel said in the best "scientific" language he can munster filled with half truths and complete untruths to and make it seem like he is winning the debate.
C'mon people. It's not even close. Anyone willing to leave their ideology at the door can see that Dennet is not even close to being in D'Souza's league. The irony of these debates between "faith" and "science" is that the guy who is supposed to be the "faith" guy actually at least uses some science to make his case while the so-called "science" guy doesn't even attempt to do so! Dennett's opening is an absolute joke!
@MrFreeLibertarian Really? The man brought up Hitler and Eugenics 2 minutes into his opening statement. It went downhill from there. This isn't a logical argument, it's an impassioned sermon full of factual errors, opinions and half-truths.
You're one to be talking about leaving ideologies at the door.
@MrFreeLibertarian Dennett is a philosopher. He studies evolution & science but he is first and foremost a philosopher. He isn't the "Science Guy". There is a long tradition in philosophy of questioning the validity of scientific method, especially with David Hume and the problem of induction. It's clear that science works, but it doesn't necessarily get you philosophically objective truth. I wasn't especially impressed with either side but D'Souza certainly didn't stick out as "winning"
I have met men in the ward who can fire themselves up and rant far more convincingly than Mr D'Souza. At least they are consistant within the context of their own delusions. Mr D'Souza insists that evolution is true then completely misses the point when grasping the concept in action. the fact that the laws of the universe fit us so well is proof we evolved within it, not that it was created for us.... Keep your self under control Dinesh, or you may find yourself debating to a captive audience
D'Souza seemingly has no philosophical, scientific nor historical training. He also hasn't read Augustine. Further, what the hell is "Darwinian means" in relation to physics? Nothing he says actually makes any sense.....I know all the words, but he is nonsensical.
I am not at all attacking a strawman. At odds of 1 in 10^123rd against, the chances of chance being the right 'answer' are ridiculous. Don't go near the stock market or gamble if you really think otherwise. The cliche what other kind of world answer doen't begin to argue the point. Then firing squad members all missing requires an explanation. How uncurious can one get? See Penrose at Oxford or Robert J Spitzer.
an infinite series of finite causes is impossible by definitiion.
@ultimatumjs Let's see..Augustine was right, the universe is in fact fine-tuned. The Borde, Guth Vilenkin proofs show that even bubble expanding universes would have to be finite in the past. This is not a God of the gaps argument, but metaphysical fact. It must be painful as you clearly don't even understand it. Do electrons 'follow' laws? You just don't get it. Things are ordered very , very preciseily.
You are attacking a straw man. Plus your claim that the universe is finite (and your fallacious conclusions) does not lead to a logical postulation of a divine creator.
@PanWolven Its just you, he has always been this stupid. Although when you hear the same argument again and again it certainly sounds worse with repeat viewing.
As an interesting aside I have heard Dannett propose this in three or four different videos now as well as his book but he is still as engaging as ever.
@kairobinson It is an interesting contrast isn't it. :) I can't say Dennet was at his best in this debate though, but then he didn't really need to be, considering the opposition.
"why is the universe fine tuned for life" - this is a great example of "puddle thinking", from the puddles point of view some random hole would seem like its perfectly designed fit.
why would it be surprising that the kind of life we are would be "perfectly tuned" to the laws of the universe we live in? what other kind of life could exist in such a universe?
@mrmelkor1 Actually Penrose at Oxford points out that the odds against a low entropy universe that generates intelligent life is about 10 ^123rd against. There is NO evidence of other universes, "bubble " calculations are ad hoc, not scientific facts like the Big Bang of Fr. Gorges LeMaitre, and for comparison there are only about 10^60th electrons and protons in the etire universe. In no area of life would one take odds approaching infinity to one and bet on them. That is not rational.
This is why "Appeal to authority" is a useless argument to make.
those sorts of numbers are based on what exactly, humanities boundless understanding of how life starts?
I hate to point out the obvious - that we know very little on this point, this is basically the whole point of the arguments being made in these videos. you cant take zero understanding, and translate that into a formula to prove something. The universe that we can SEE is so huge, what of the unknown?
@mrmelkor1 Yes, the view opposite to Dinesh's is that we are here because the universe is this way, and not that the universe is this way so we could be here. Not to mention this idea of a ''fine-tuned'' universe is totally subjective. I don't think the universe is fine-tuned because there are no blue-ponies around.
@mrmelkor1 I don't see how this solves anything; I call this line of reasoning drawing a target around the arrow. Aside from how tautological that reasoning is, the outcome is still troubling because we know of no other intelligent forms of life and we most certainly do not know of any other planet that contains homo sapiens. BTW, just for reference, what's being expressed by mrmelkor1 is the anthropic principle.
@mrmelkor1 The point was not 'what kind of life" but life at all. For all of the possible configurations of a universe, how many of those could support any life?
@mrmelkor1 The point is valid against Dinesh - but the fine tuning argument can be formulated in a way that I think overcomes puddle thinking - if not for specific physical constants existing, there wouldn't be not just life, but the varied elements that our universe has. If these constants were off by even a tiny bit, there would only be hydrogen. Youtube comments are too short for such points, and I'm not even religious, but it's an interesting take.
@mrarcher857 A multiverse isn't that improbable. Why should our universe be the only one? At some point we thought, earth was the only planet, later we thought our planetary system was the only one, and so on. There's billions of galaxies, so why shouldn't there be as many or more universes? Besides, even if our universe is the only one, we don't have others to compare it to. Who would be there to complain that "his" universe isn't suitable for life?
@ThePixel1983 I don't know on what grounds you say it 'isn't that improbable', since you can only judge probability from a context. Our current context is that we have 1 universe and that's it, with no reason to think there are any others besides wanting to avoid theism. I don't understand your last point, but I think the main issue here is that to dismiss God because there *might* be an infinity of other universes is fatuous.
You can't argue that he tells christians what they want to hear and does it well, however, I deeply regret mentioning the word 'respect'. I was just trying to be nice and reasonable. I've since watched more clips of him and come to the conclusion that he's fucking snake. Please forgive me.
D'Souza fails physics, fails histrory, & fails biology ... If I were the dean of the university that handed him paper , I'd put a contract out on him to cover up my own negligence ...
Also, there are variables in our universe which could be changed slightly and still allow for life. So Dinesh saying NON can be changed, is a lie. This is just creationist propaganda sprinkled with misinformed science.
Primitive explanations for the Big Bang stated that space and time started only then. Many theories exist today (in quantum theory as well) that show that non-supernatural events can occur from "nothing". And research is constantly on this concept. The whole argument that nature does not follow laws is stupid. And it seems Dinesh cannot fathom the idea that a universe not fine-tuned to allow for life would not be the universe we exist in. Thus, since THIS universe works well, we exist.
Dinesh is completely wrong: the universe is not fine-tuned for our existence, OUR EXISTENCE is fine-tuned for the universe! In order for life to exist, it must be a kind of life that can exist in this particular universe, so it doesn't require a creative tuner! It's called the Anthropic Principle.
All D'Souza was able to prove with this section of video is that he does not comprehend that time is just a relation to objects in space. He's using a bastardized definition of time. This is no evidence for D'Souza's point, it actually proves that there is no god, at least before the big bang. Not very good debating Mr D'Souza, undermining your arguments is usually a bad thing.
@SmogHouseTradingCo I think the point was that it is irrelevant to include time into the discussion of whether or not God exists. It is hard to comprehend time. And the very fact that time is relative to "objects", that is physical objects because that is what our understanding is based on, it is irrelevant to try to apply time to a being that isn't physical. Especially since our relative "time" came into existence when objects came into existence.
lol Every time I hear Dinesh discuss the fundamental forces he says "Electro-Weak Force". This makes him sound a little ignorant. Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electromagnetic Force, Gravity.
Dinesh didn't answer the direct questions he was asked. He did not address the idea that in his book he quotes Dennett for ridicule, but doesn't have the guts to say what he believes.
Everything Dinesh says regarding God just insert "The Invisible Man" or "Elvis" to understand how ridiculous this argument is to a non believer - But who made Elvis??? no one - Elvis has just always been there...
Yelling doesn't make what Dinesh is saying sound any better, or any more true... Using "laws" to represent both legal and physical laws without any distinction between the two shows either great ignorance or a wicked attempt to trick those who are feeble minded. It just shows how weak his argument is to begin with. Dinesh should be ashamed that he has stooped to such a level.
@jujumen Not exactly. There are 'descriptive' and 'proscriptive' laws to consider. Gravity is one example. Bodies in motion will behave the same way regardless of how we like to think about it.
@jujumen Not really. Celestial objects don't behave according to our written law, but they do act in ways that are foreseeable if one unnderstands gravity. Gravity exists whether we accept it or not.
dinesh is freaking thick headed. all of matter came into existence implies matter didn't exist yet he says there was a singularity which existed then became matter.
The singularity was condensed matter ........ dumdum.
Great opening so far but I really wish he wouldn't sell out to evolution. I could maintain my belief in Go if it were true. But there really is ZERO evidence for it. Perhaps agreeing with it just takes it off the table and prevents the argument from appearing anti scientific.
I really, really, really wish that theists wouldn't try to justify their beliefs through science (especially non-scientists like D'Souza). That's shaky ground for them to begin with, and most of the typical theist "scientific arguments" have been blown out of the water long ago.
Also... Dinesh, buddy, you have a bloody microphone. You don't need to shriek for people to hear you.
Blaming Nietzsche and atheism ORreligion as prime motivators for totalitarian violence is indicative of an extremely myopic view of the world. Like Nietzsche, many prophets came across experiences of life that they tried to articulate with writing and speech as best they could, but perversion and misunderstanding mutated these ideas and later cunning power mongers used these ideas as tools for power. However, Dennett makes a relatively coherent argument, this Dinesh guy is just babbling.
Time to jump into a volcano for my morning bath. Actually while I'm at it, since I'm already sick of breathing in oxygen, why not start breathing in carbon monoxide... or methane? Then after all that relaxing fume-breathing and magma soaking I should soak down my parched throat with some nice, cool bottle of mercury.
Dinesh as always, once again brilliant, and as always when some people here do not have any arguments begin to get nervous and speechless, talk about anything to diminish as a person who has the courage and Dinesh intelligence to overthrow that atheists do not believe in spirituality, neither in God, but not dealing with anything but that.
How completely inappropriate to put the rational assumptions our brains automatically make in order for us to function, into the category of "belief". We don't "believe" that physical laws are consistent; that we *act as though they are*, is merely a statement of how our brains function. On the neurological level, there is no similarity between holding a religious belief and holding a "belief" that, say, gravity won't spontaneously reverse itself as we're walking down the street.
So Dawkins, who regularly converses with bishops and Christian apologists, shouldn't be allowed to "leave the lab", as D'Souza says, but D'Souza, who's a complete nobody outside of his political career, is a qualified astrophysicist and cosmologist?!
"i think i can do some more damage...", HA!!! dinesh, the only thing you're damaging is your own credibility. if the universe was "tuned" differently, and we didn't exist, it wouldn't inconvenience me in the slightest; i wouldn't be here to know the difference. it's so pompous of theists to think that the universe came into being with us in mind. human life (or life in general) was not "the ultimate goal" of the universe, but rather a biproduct of it.
Dinesh reminds me of those guys on Fox news. If they shout it out enough times with the air of authority, then it becomes true. Dinesh is engaging in his own intellectual dishonesty yet sadly, he honestly believes what he says and will never change his mind. Show him the proof and he will deny it.
Dennet on the other hand, will eagerly change his mind if the proof is there. Science evolves, religion remains absolute.
dinesh seems not to understand what the microphones function is. dinesh you may speak normal and yet still be heard by the rest of the listeners. he appears to use the tactic of "my volume is one with my meaning", the forceful approach is one that i would assume most people find demeaning as if we need to be spoken AT rather than too. a calm "listenable" voice would probably suit this kind of audience much better and allow what ever point hes trying to debate come across more clearly
It is a fact people have been killed in the name of atheism like some of my relatives in the soviet union under Lenin. you cant escape it like Dawkins does, these people have been killed in the name of atheistic Ideologies simply because they were religious But the number is not so high as D`Souza says. Most of the victims of communist regimes have been killed for other causes. Whats kind of sad is that both Dinesh and Dawkins use these victims to support their viewpoints.
@5:40
What a silly thing to say, Dinesh. Occam's Razor says that the argument with the least amount of assumption is most likely to be true. Unfortunately, everything this guy has ever said is standing on a foundation of fluid assumption. Anything can be reduced to completely simple terms if you want it to be.
WeyeMusic 12 hours ago
Does he ever stop yelling?
nazrinalaskarov 3 days ago
when he drank some water i realized how thirsty i was...hi point of the lecture lol
dovox15 1 week ago
Today I feel sad to be an Indian.
nsugathadasa 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The universe couldn't have come from nothing. It must have been created by something. Therefore it must have been made by the flying spaghetti monster. And remember kids, the flying spaghetti monster gets very angry if you jack off, and especially if you haven't cut the skin off the end of your dick. And homos are dirty! Trust me, I know this because it says so in my magic book. Q.E.D.
huwrj 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 3 weeks ago
I like it how according to theologians a such complex thing as the universe requires a cause, but something even more complex like a god who is supposed to have created it... somehow doesn't...
TaoTeChing00 3 weeks ago in playlist Altri video di tothesource1
Actually he conveniently ignored the fact that black holes do not follow these laws at all....
TheHunterCook 3 weeks ago
Because there is a universe with a beginning, there has to be a creator. Because there is a creator, there has to be... * Come on D'Souza, please follow your own logic!
Guys like D'Souza fear education and knowledge. Critical thinking will be their demise!
EquinoxIV 1 month ago
@EquinoxIV Dinesh graduated from a ivy league school. Who the hell are you?
Jmsadv 1 week ago
@Jmsadv So did George W. Bush, so excuse me if I not immediately fall to my knees in devotion. But ivy league or not, I'm not denying that D'souza is a smart guy, anyway. The problem with him is that he uses all his intellectual capacities to rationalize things, that are not rational. If everything has a creator, and that's his prove that so has the universe, then who created the creator? Oh, right, that's an illegitimate questions because THAT was before time and space existed, right?
EquinoxIV 1 week ago
Ever notice how when these religious types are debating, they always hop up on that soap box and start pontificating? The voice ramps up in cadence, pitch and volume as if they're giving the frickin' sermon on the mount. They don't talk *to* you, they talk *at* you. Bloody bastards.
jq747 1 month ago 7
@jq747
Debating at a disadvantage due to being wrong can be frustrating, so it's understandable
DZ252 1 month ago
@jq747 Have you ever seen John lennox or Craig or Habermas do that? I think not. Its just preference you cannot generalize that all religious debaters "give a sermon on the mount". And In fact, I'm sure there are atheist debaters that at times ramp up in cadence, and pitch and volume at certain points in their arguments as well. So please, be fair here.
trealboihottie 2 weeks ago
Does he have to shout like this...?
It doesn't help that he's making little sense...
~Sylv
Sylvine 1 month ago
@Sylvine Dinesh shouting,have you ever seen Hitchens debate? Are you simple?
Jmsadv 1 week ago
@Jmsadv I like to think that I am, yes. Simplicity can be a virtue.
And yes, I have. Pretty much all of them. And Hitchens tends to be quite calm and quiet in his debates, except when he actually wants to be loud (like when he famously asks "How dare You...?"). Meaning he actually uses volume as a tool. Dinesh is just loud all the time, and while that certainly says nothing about his arguments, it's just very irritating and does contribute to the listener being receptive.
~Sylv
Sylvine 3 days ago
Why this guy is so noisy?
MrFaisoly 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
atheist fools
Seigu007 2 months ago
However, what is annoying about this type of debate is that it's basically a brawl between two grossly deficient views of God.
It's smart-and-shallow vs ridiculous-and-shallow. It's hard to care how it comes out.
Neither of those clowns would know how to debate a real theologian. They'd have to resort to: That doesn't make sense to me, therefore it is nonsense."
anomalogue 3 months ago
@anomalogue ...Clearly you do n 't even bother to see that these people HAVE debated 'real' theologians. Hell, Dennett has debated WLC, who is considered the best christian debater od our time, and come out on top. Dennett has been in several debates with 'real' theologians, and consistently comes out on top...so...I'm confused as to your statement, is it based in the ignorance of all the times both speakers HAVe debated theologians?
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi Now we will have to bicker over what a real theologian is. Or more accurately: what is theological profundity? And if we are going to do that I need some assurance this isn't going to be an utter waste of my time. Can you summarize this debate with a 'real' theologian?
anomalogue 2 months ago
@anomalogue Well, I know that Hitchens has debated the Archbishop of Canterbury as to the usefulness of god, which consisted of the archbishop attempting to defend the affirmative with Christopher attacking from the negative. In summary, Hitchens made it clear that he felt God was a useless hypothesis, and inndeed was a demonstrable changing wit hthe time cultural thing, instead of anything real, while the Archbishop defended the profundity of Scripture and the goodness of Jesus Christ.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@anomalogue dinesh D'Souza has debated Theologians that were of the Islamic variety as to the divinity of Jesus as well as having admonished Islamic critiques for being islamophobic, by citing research he's done into the area of the Quran for several years.
Both Hitchens AND D'Souza have demonstrated that they are well versed in religious discussion and philosophy, for you to come and say that neither of them have a modern view of God, and as such wouldn't be able to debate a real theologian.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@anomalogue Cont'd. Is extremely arrogant. Define what YOU believe "god" to be and inform me how you know this is the common view of God that's worth debating over.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi I'm not trying to be arrogant. I'm just trying to decide if we have anything to learn from one another.
anomalogue 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anomalogue I see no atheism in your comment. Only the insecurity of an agnostic.
Seigu007 2 months ago
D'Souza is a classic Dunning-Kruger case.
Those who listen to him and cannot detect the obvious limitations of his thought, who enjoy the truthy mouthfeel of fact-spew with no regard to whether the man is making a valid point or not... what can you say to them?
anomalogue 3 months ago
Help! I'm trapped inside my mind and can't get out!
anomalogue 3 months ago
The universe is rational? Wtf is Dinesh smoking? The Jesus weed.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nyscholartist "The universe is rational" The universe is intelligibly rational, that's the whole reason for why we can do science. You been smoking that dumb shit weed?
atheistrocker100 2 months ago in playlist More videos from tothesource1
Follow his argument starting at 8:20 ...he then contradicts this, by using special pleading at 8:50 .
mjt532 3 months ago
So the bible said that the universe had a beginning...ancient man, ignorant of the correct answer, could only come up with one of two answers. So the writer of Genesis 1 flipped a coin and got it right. Wow! That's your evidence for the bible being inspired.
mjt532 3 months ago
Why is he shouting right into the mic? It's so annoying!
themonkeywrench 3 months ago
D'Souza proves Dennett's point that declining religions are getting louder.
whauffend 3 months ago 3
@whauffend I was thinking the same. Nothing but noise, I might add. If I was there, I'd be compelled to say simma down nah!
ballerine11 3 months ago
Dinesh is a boss!
santisevenX 3 months ago
Dinesh is such a funny looking and sounding character, haha.
MysteryoftheGods 4 months ago
Dinesh D'Souza is such a funny looking and sounding character, haha.
MysteryoftheGods 4 months ago
I've heard him debate Christopher Hitchens too and each time I'm left scratching my head. Regardless of the Pol Pot-Stalin-Hitler argument (easily obvious each thought of themselves as god-like), but to be able to rationalize not teaching students the history of all religions in an unbiased manner I feel is a robbery of knowledge.
AneTix101 4 months ago
Dinesh is shaking in his boots. His dog ate his presentation.
rockos414 4 months ago
if you can't move the "dials" of the natural laws of the universe, then it hardly makes since for them to be adjustable dials in the first place, except if Dinesh needs this poorly constructed analogy to hold to his point.
hikermanwa 4 months ago
"do some more damage"? check yourself before you wreck yourself, fool
gnarctopus 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It amuses me to see the comments from people who are sitting at home on their computer calling two accomplished authors debating at a distinguished university "stupid" or "idiots". It's a kin to the overweight guy sitting at home in his recliner watching football, calling the quarterback a bum who can't play.
JcbYoung 4 months ago
Comment removed
tsarenvy 4 months ago
100 values? how about six ya stupid bitch
FellowshipPictures 5 months ago
Christian metaphysics? Scientific laws (and their research) has Cristian origins? What is this guy??
THEBHUPINDER1984 5 months ago
dude take the xtianity out of it and I agree completely!
Taokidz 5 months ago
Occam's Razor suggests that there's a god? In either case, something would have to come from nothing, or have not had a beginning. Whether that be matter, or a creature that can create matter, is debatable, but an infinitely more complex creature would require an infinitely more complex explanation. Matter poofing out of nowhere versus a matter creating creature (God) poofing out of nowhere, to say that God is less extraordinary should be an insult to his god.
CaptSeriouspants 5 months ago
When he asks why the universe must match up with our logical brains I feel like banging my head against the wall to get the stupid I heard out of there. Has this guy ever heard of quantum mechanics? Does the special theory of relativity match up with our normal sense of logic? How about black holes, and the big bang? Talk about scientific ignorance.
aabulow2 5 months ago
I had to turn down the volume a lot when he started speaking...
ThePhilosorpheus 5 months ago
"I've got ten more minutes. Okay. I think I can do some more damage."
... Yeah, to your reputation.
Savipalooza 6 months ago
Man, this guy is fucked up. I don't want to go point by point here, because it would be pointless (har har har). But I thought I should respond to this question of his: "What is the atheist explanation for how [the laws of the universe] came to be what they are?" There is no "atheist explanation" of anything. He's a grown man. He should know that atheism is merely a single position on a single issue, not a lifestyle, ideology, belief system, world view, etc.
Savipalooza 6 months ago
Dan, your cool-headedness and straight thinking is amazing. Thank you!
Dinesh, please stop yelling...
karlhschro 6 months ago
Atheist speakers on these debates and their followers who comment on youtube seem so negative and hateful.
Hank8841 6 months ago
@Hank8841
and abusive!
joystic08 6 months ago
@Hank8841 Shut it, Hank.
lpearsonsov 2 months ago
The "intelligence out of nature" argument has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. It's like saying "we've discovered that rocks are grey, but who made the information that they are grey?" WE DID. The "intelligence" was not placed, it's our own interpretation of the universe, codified into our own language. I hate this guy.
deathtris 7 months ago
Copernicus was declared a heretic by the Roman Church. This D'Souza has no understanding of modern science at all! This is the most ridiculous hodge-podge and poorest reading of history that I've ever heard. While the Big Bang certainly seems to have happened, we may exist in one Universe in an infinity of Universes.In such a large number, some Universe will have constants like ours. By the way, Augustine also favored the murder of heretics.
BrentGrainger2000 7 months ago
Did he really just imply that St Augustine predicted the Big Bang?
As he went through his pseudo-cosmological bullshit, I kept wondering "How does this ever lead him to theism?" I was genuinely surprised when the fine-tuning explanation became his reason for the Christian god.
What an angry, ignorant tool.
DJGutekunst 8 months ago
@DJGutekunst Screw that, he's holding St. Augustine as some sort of authority on what religion has to say about anything. To me, either your book is all containing, or it's not. You can use somebody like Augustine who was an interpreter of that little book to be an authoritative representation of the whole philosophy. I don't know if that made sense, but I hope it did.
fifimsp 7 months ago
@fifimsp No, that makes perfect sense. If the Bible really is the wisest and most relevant book every written it should be self-evident, or at the least not be a mere tale of bronze-age barbarism. The thing about Christianity is that most of the modern arguments are really just rehashing what Augustine and Descartes said a long time ago and their arguments have both been proven to be circular. I actually just finished a course on the subject for which I got A's all around (not to brag!).
tjweiler1 7 months ago
@tjweiler1 Good, I did make sense then. Yeah, I know most of modern Christianity is not the product of Ancient times. I actually don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with Christians who don't know that.
fifimsp 7 months ago
"I've got ten more minutes, I think I can do some more damage."
Sorry buddy, you damaged yourself, irreparably, within the first 30 seconds. And it all went downhill from there.
MrHowToDoIt 8 months ago
D'Souza has much to learn of the evidences thaat life did not evolve but was created. Shame on him for neglecting this area.
NephilimFree 8 months ago
Dinesh ignores all of modern physics that doesn't comport with his simplistic theology. M Theory pwns his arguments completely. But of course he ignores that. A slimy tactic.
watch?v=OhG6K6UfNG4
disrxt 8 months ago
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more aggressive claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 8 months ago
did anyone else get to the last 10 seconds and answer dinesh's question with:
'oh for fucks sake, yes you do have 10 more minutes.'
Buddyvision2010 8 months ago
Why do people have the need for god? The universe and its laws are so beautiful that it is easy to see how small of a probability it was that they were created. We are lucky to be here and have the time we have to live the best life we can/
ss101188 9 months ago
Can you please, please, stop shouting! Argh, always hated his rhetoric.
Mattiewolftalks 9 months ago
@Mattiewolftalks D'Souza makes me suspect theory of evolution. Natural selection should not select this guy with this brainless, third class anti - communism
kemalcs 8 months ago
Dinesh needs to learn something about the big bang... and cosmology in general... and evolution... and basic reasoning skills....
LeonhardEuler1 9 months ago
"I got more time, I think I can do more damage" =(
MabiSayo 9 months ago
God is real and He is so good to the nth power. Atheism is the deception of Satan. Atheism maybe does not believe that there is evil but evil is real and he will deceive as many as possible and God allowed him. God has a purpose in everything. My cousin has seen Him and talked to Him. He may not show Himself to everybody but He loves evrybody so much. Kindly visit valtorta.org to know Him and thereby will love Him. God loves us all so much!
krizzia1000 10 months ago
@krizzia1000 Atheism is not a deception of a scary evil being. I think atheists in general care more about the world around us, because we know that right here and right now is what matters. While the religious seem to turtle-shell themselves within their respective communities, distracting themselves with imaginary problems, atheists can be said to be more involved with addressing real world problems like climate change, health care, and equal rights. Does not sound devilish to me.
scsublett 9 months ago
Dinesh is correct; I am not worried- we will ALL FIND OUT ONE DAY! God is real. Some of us call him "God" but whatever his "name" is, He is real.
divawriter 10 months ago
@divawriter there is only one god and his name is Odin
bebopuk88 9 months ago
Did Dinesh just say that inventing the idea of a "designer" is the simpler explanation to the origin of the universe?
estevancarlos 10 months ago
Dinesh always say the exact same things. Always the same crappy arguments. Why don't his critics make proper rebuttals? It wouldn't be too hard. Dinesh actually believes in intelligent design, the biggest scientific sham of the last few years. He obviously knows very little about science. These new atheists can be kinda disappointing.
AmokBR 10 months ago
Dinesh always say the exact same things. Always the same crappy arguments. Why don't his critics make proper rebuttals? It wouldn't be too hard.
AmokBR 10 months ago
2:35 we're not here debating proofs, we are debating evidence. Is is just me or does that not make any sense at all??
Hermy1138 10 months ago
I wonder if Dinesh realized that he has just drunk water from Dennett's bottle?
fatalbliitz 10 months ago
This so called dinesh talks about physics as he has understood everything...and in fact what he talking total shit. If he doesnt understand physics he better shut his mouth !
loozifere 10 months ago
This so called dinesh talks about physics as he has understood everything...and in fact what he talking total shit. If he doesnt understand physics he better shut his mouth !
loozifere 10 months ago
This guy's accent annoys me lol, i realize it has nothing to do with his intelligence or lack there of, but it's just a random comment.
janjust 10 months ago
Denish constantly misses the point, twists what was said by Daniel and then responds to what HE said Daniel said in the best "scientific" language he can munster filled with half truths and complete untruths to and make it seem like he is winning the debate.
nystrom 10 months ago
C'mon people. It's not even close. Anyone willing to leave their ideology at the door can see that Dennet is not even close to being in D'Souza's league. The irony of these debates between "faith" and "science" is that the guy who is supposed to be the "faith" guy actually at least uses some science to make his case while the so-called "science" guy doesn't even attempt to do so! Dennett's opening is an absolute joke!
MrFreeLibertarian 10 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian Really? The man brought up Hitler and Eugenics 2 minutes into his opening statement. It went downhill from there. This isn't a logical argument, it's an impassioned sermon full of factual errors, opinions and half-truths.
You're one to be talking about leaving ideologies at the door.
rjc34 10 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian Dennett is a philosopher. He studies evolution & science but he is first and foremost a philosopher. He isn't the "Science Guy". There is a long tradition in philosophy of questioning the validity of scientific method, especially with David Hume and the problem of induction. It's clear that science works, but it doesn't necessarily get you philosophically objective truth. I wasn't especially impressed with either side but D'Souza certainly didn't stick out as "winning"
CrapnellGates 9 months ago
I have met men in the ward who can fire themselves up and rant far more convincingly than Mr D'Souza. At least they are consistant within the context of their own delusions. Mr D'Souza insists that evolution is true then completely misses the point when grasping the concept in action. the fact that the laws of the universe fit us so well is proof we evolved within it, not that it was created for us.... Keep your self under control Dinesh, or you may find yourself debating to a captive audience
HoffaInExile 10 months ago
D'Souza seemingly has no philosophical, scientific nor historical training. He also hasn't read Augustine. Further, what the hell is "Darwinian means" in relation to physics? Nothing he says actually makes any sense.....I know all the words, but he is nonsensical.
But why is he so angry?
LordProfBear 10 months ago
d'souza would make so much more sense if he was a deist and not a theist.
then again d'souza making much more sense perhaps still wouldn't be very sensible.
itchynights 10 months ago
God created time. Thats so foolish. Then who created God ? Theological are intellectual midgets
srikargottipati 11 months ago
aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh, I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMOOOOORE !!!!!!!
twentyinchsoul 11 months ago 4
I am not at all attacking a strawman. At odds of 1 in 10^123rd against, the chances of chance being the right 'answer' are ridiculous. Don't go near the stock market or gamble if you really think otherwise. The cliche what other kind of world answer doen't begin to argue the point. Then firing squad members all missing requires an explanation. How uncurious can one get? See Penrose at Oxford or Robert J Spitzer.
an infinite series of finite causes is impossible by definitiion.
Youdamana 11 months ago
It may not be just you but it certainly includes you.
Youdamana 11 months ago
False Dichotomies, false analogies, arguments from ignorance and incredulity, not to mention God of the gaps. This is painful to listen to
ultimatumjs 11 months ago
@ultimatumjs Let's see..Augustine was right, the universe is in fact fine-tuned. The Borde, Guth Vilenkin proofs show that even bubble expanding universes would have to be finite in the past. This is not a God of the gaps argument, but metaphysical fact. It must be painful as you clearly don't even understand it. Do electrons 'follow' laws? You just don't get it. Things are ordered very , very preciseily.
Youdamana 11 months ago
@Youdamana
You are attacking a straw man. Plus your claim that the universe is finite (and your fallacious conclusions) does not lead to a logical postulation of a divine creator.
ultimatumjs 11 months ago
is it just me, or is Dinesh actually getting dumber with time?
PanWolven 11 months ago 26
@PanWolven Its just you, he has always been this stupid. Although when you hear the same argument again and again it certainly sounds worse with repeat viewing.
As an interesting aside I have heard Dannett propose this in three or four different videos now as well as his book but he is still as engaging as ever.
kairobinson 11 months ago
@kairobinson It is an interesting contrast isn't it. :) I can't say Dennet was at his best in this debate though, but then he didn't really need to be, considering the opposition.
PanWolven 11 months ago
@PanWolven running out of smart things to say about religion.. and that list is rather slim to begin with (:
Okami87 10 months ago
@PanWolven lol. Maybe we should update the definition for time?
Time - a continuum measurable by Dinesh' rapidly declining IQ, from one nonspatial point to another.
zyrphath 8 months ago
@PanWolven it's just you, believe me.
0thereaper0 7 months ago
@PanWolven it's not just you.
doaftheloaf 4 months ago
"why is the universe fine tuned for life" - this is a great example of "puddle thinking", from the puddles point of view some random hole would seem like its perfectly designed fit.
why would it be surprising that the kind of life we are would be "perfectly tuned" to the laws of the universe we live in? what other kind of life could exist in such a universe?
mrmelkor1 11 months ago 31
@mrmelkor1 A perfect rebuttal. :)
kairobinson 11 months ago
@mrmelkor1 Actually Penrose at Oxford points out that the odds against a low entropy universe that generates intelligent life is about 10 ^123rd against. There is NO evidence of other universes, "bubble " calculations are ad hoc, not scientific facts like the Big Bang of Fr. Gorges LeMaitre, and for comparison there are only about 10^60th electrons and protons in the etire universe. In no area of life would one take odds approaching infinity to one and bet on them. That is not rational.
Youdamana 11 months ago
@Youdamana
This is why "Appeal to authority" is a useless argument to make.
those sorts of numbers are based on what exactly, humanities boundless understanding of how life starts?
I hate to point out the obvious - that we know very little on this point, this is basically the whole point of the arguments being made in these videos. you cant take zero understanding, and translate that into a formula to prove something. The universe that we can SEE is so huge, what of the unknown?
mrmelkor1 11 months ago
@mrmelkor1 Yes, the view opposite to Dinesh's is that we are here because the universe is this way, and not that the universe is this way so we could be here. Not to mention this idea of a ''fine-tuned'' universe is totally subjective. I don't think the universe is fine-tuned because there are no blue-ponies around.
AmokBR 10 months ago
@mrmelkor1 I don't see how this solves anything; I call this line of reasoning drawing a target around the arrow. Aside from how tautological that reasoning is, the outcome is still troubling because we know of no other intelligent forms of life and we most certainly do not know of any other planet that contains homo sapiens. BTW, just for reference, what's being expressed by mrmelkor1 is the anthropic principle.
WowThisWasntTaken 10 months ago
@mrmelkor1 All hail Douglas Adams
Mattmurr150 8 months ago
@mrmelkor1 The point was not 'what kind of life" but life at all. For all of the possible configurations of a universe, how many of those could support any life?
poprockssuck87 7 months ago
@mrmelkor1 The point is valid against Dinesh - but the fine tuning argument can be formulated in a way that I think overcomes puddle thinking - if not for specific physical constants existing, there wouldn't be not just life, but the varied elements that our universe has. If these constants were off by even a tiny bit, there would only be hydrogen. Youtube comments are too short for such points, and I'm not even religious, but it's an interesting take.
royalcrown 7 months ago
@mrmelkor1 Er, the analogy only works if we live in a multiverse, and there's no evidence we do.
mrarcher857 7 months ago
@mrarcher857 A multiverse isn't that improbable. Why should our universe be the only one? At some point we thought, earth was the only planet, later we thought our planetary system was the only one, and so on. There's billions of galaxies, so why shouldn't there be as many or more universes? Besides, even if our universe is the only one, we don't have others to compare it to. Who would be there to complain that "his" universe isn't suitable for life?
ThePixel1983 6 months ago
@ThePixel1983 I don't know on what grounds you say it 'isn't that improbable', since you can only judge probability from a context. Our current context is that we have 1 universe and that's it, with no reason to think there are any others besides wanting to avoid theism. I don't understand your last point, but I think the main issue here is that to dismiss God because there *might* be an infinity of other universes is fatuous.
mrarcher857 6 months ago
@mrarcher857 Just as getting from "We don't know why our universe is the way it is" to "my holy book is true"^^
ThePixel1983 6 months ago
@ThePixel1983 You don't have to be religious to point out holes in atheist arguments (I'm agnostic).
mrarcher857 6 months ago
Lol...This guy is awesome!
buitrami 11 months ago
Respect to D'Souza - he is an excellent speaker. Still don't believe in God though.
Zenhumanist 1 year ago
@Zenhumanist He really, really, really isn't.
kairobinson 11 months ago
@kairobinson
You can't argue that he tells christians what they want to hear and does it well, however, I deeply regret mentioning the word 'respect'. I was just trying to be nice and reasonable. I've since watched more clips of him and come to the conclusion that he's fucking snake. Please forgive me.
Zenhumanist 11 months ago
steven hawkings also says that there is no god, you forgot about that souza
HippieDrummer06 1 year ago
@HippieDrummer06 That's why the religious are so fond of virginity. They love picking them cherries. ;)
PanWolven 11 months ago
@PanWolven Oh that's just nasty.
Airmanf7 11 months ago
Dinesh is like a logical fallacy shotgun ... WTF !?!?!?! He truly doesn't even care about being right ....
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago 3
D'Souza fails physics, fails histrory, & fails biology ... If I were the dean of the university that handed him paper , I'd put a contract out on him to cover up my own negligence ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago 3
Also, there are variables in our universe which could be changed slightly and still allow for life. So Dinesh saying NON can be changed, is a lie. This is just creationist propaganda sprinkled with misinformed science.
ImBackAJ20101 1 year ago
Primitive explanations for the Big Bang stated that space and time started only then. Many theories exist today (in quantum theory as well) that show that non-supernatural events can occur from "nothing". And research is constantly on this concept. The whole argument that nature does not follow laws is stupid. And it seems Dinesh cannot fathom the idea that a universe not fine-tuned to allow for life would not be the universe we exist in. Thus, since THIS universe works well, we exist.
ImBackAJ20101 1 year ago
Dinesh is quite loud when making his "points". I find he really has nothing original to say, so he shouts what others have said in the past.
kidhadoken 1 year ago
I love Dinesh D'Souza.
dvc5797 1 year ago
7:00 Okay from here on he sounded like a god dame idiot. Pardon the language. Nature follows laws you idiot!!!!! *sigh*...........
funnystarchild 1 year ago
Dinesh is completely wrong: the universe is not fine-tuned for our existence, OUR EXISTENCE is fine-tuned for the universe! In order for life to exist, it must be a kind of life that can exist in this particular universe, so it doesn't require a creative tuner! It's called the Anthropic Principle.
theocean1973 1 year ago
All D'Souza was able to prove with this section of video is that he does not comprehend that time is just a relation to objects in space. He's using a bastardized definition of time. This is no evidence for D'Souza's point, it actually proves that there is no god, at least before the big bang. Not very good debating Mr D'Souza, undermining your arguments is usually a bad thing.
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo I think the point was that it is irrelevant to include time into the discussion of whether or not God exists. It is hard to comprehend time. And the very fact that time is relative to "objects", that is physical objects because that is what our understanding is based on, it is irrelevant to try to apply time to a being that isn't physical. Especially since our relative "time" came into existence when objects came into existence.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
lol Every time I hear Dinesh discuss the fundamental forces he says "Electro-Weak Force". This makes him sound a little ignorant. Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electromagnetic Force, Gravity.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
Dinesh didn't answer the direct questions he was asked. He did not address the idea that in his book he quotes Dennett for ridicule, but doesn't have the guts to say what he believes.
sketto 1 year ago
Everything Dinesh says regarding God just insert "The Invisible Man" or "Elvis" to understand how ridiculous this argument is to a non believer - But who made Elvis??? no one - Elvis has just always been there...
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago 2
@Cougar139tweak Also someone needs to tell dinesh that Scientific Law = explanation of facts and not an explanation that directs the facts.
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago 2
Yelling doesn't make what Dinesh is saying sound any better, or any more true... Using "laws" to represent both legal and physical laws without any distinction between the two shows either great ignorance or a wicked attempt to trick those who are feeble minded. It just shows how weak his argument is to begin with. Dinesh should be ashamed that he has stooped to such a level.
feierstr 1 year ago
the universe does not obey laws....... we observe the universe and describe what we see as laws.
jujumen 1 year ago
@jujumen Not exactly. There are 'descriptive' and 'proscriptive' laws to consider. Gravity is one example. Bodies in motion will behave the same way regardless of how we like to think about it.
LothairOfLorraine 1 year ago
@LothairOfLorraine that is an observed behaviour not some written law that bodies must obey.
jujumen 1 year ago
@jujumen Not really. Celestial objects don't behave according to our written law, but they do act in ways that are foreseeable if one unnderstands gravity. Gravity exists whether we accept it or not.
LothairOfLorraine 1 year ago
dinesh is freaking thick headed. all of matter came into existence implies matter didn't exist yet he says there was a singularity which existed then became matter.
The singularity was condensed matter ........ dumdum.
jujumen 1 year ago
Dan Dennett explains in a Darwinian way why people go to the toilet? Oh god I lol'd. Dinesh is so fucking retarded.
Klazzt 1 year ago
dinesh is freakin brilliant
LCXXXSR 1 year ago
gee, his arguments are so weak that he even has to shout into the microphone.
liandzbergis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@liandzbergis : "gee, his arguments are so weak that he even has to shout into the microphone"
Which of his arguments do you think are weak and why do you think so?
sameer137 1 year ago
Great opening so far but I really wish he wouldn't sell out to evolution. I could maintain my belief in Go if it were true. But there really is ZERO evidence for it. Perhaps agreeing with it just takes it off the table and prevents the argument from appearing anti scientific.
9pt9 1 year ago
I really, really, really wish that theists wouldn't try to justify their beliefs through science (especially non-scientists like D'Souza). That's shaky ground for them to begin with, and most of the typical theist "scientific arguments" have been blown out of the water long ago.
Also... Dinesh, buddy, you have a bloody microphone. You don't need to shriek for people to hear you.
jkropfreiter 1 year ago
@jkropfreiter I like Dinesh, but here you are right...he was shrieking the entire time. It becam annoying.
LothairOfLorraine 1 year ago
Blaming Nietzsche and atheism ORreligion as prime motivators for totalitarian violence is indicative of an extremely myopic view of the world. Like Nietzsche, many prophets came across experiences of life that they tried to articulate with writing and speech as best they could, but perversion and misunderstanding mutated these ideas and later cunning power mongers used these ideas as tools for power. However, Dennett makes a relatively coherent argument, this Dinesh guy is just babbling.
otakingkohkun 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrKirkr 1 year ago
Universe is fine-tuned for life! WOW...
Time to jump into a volcano for my morning bath. Actually while I'm at it, since I'm already sick of breathing in oxygen, why not start breathing in carbon monoxide... or methane? Then after all that relaxing fume-breathing and magma soaking I should soak down my parched throat with some nice, cool bottle of mercury.
Sceraph 1 year ago
Dinesh as always, once again brilliant, and as always when some people here do not have any arguments begin to get nervous and speechless, talk about anything to diminish as a person who has the courage and Dinesh intelligence to overthrow that atheists do not believe in spirituality, neither in God, but not dealing with anything but that.
ElenDiana1 1 year ago
@ElenDiana1 brilliant? mr "darwinian explanation for the universe"? what, do you heap your praises on the banana man ray comfort as well?
johnpatrick818 1 year ago
This man had the ear of Reagan? Reagan made America so awesome. God must exist. Obviously. Hurrrr
wequalsbob 1 year ago
0:39-0:51
First, not theism, but deism. Get it right.
And second, no. That is all.
wequalsbob 1 year ago
How completely inappropriate to put the rational assumptions our brains automatically make in order for us to function, into the category of "belief". We don't "believe" that physical laws are consistent; that we *act as though they are*, is merely a statement of how our brains function. On the neurological level, there is no similarity between holding a religious belief and holding a "belief" that, say, gravity won't spontaneously reverse itself as we're walking down the street.
PerilocutionAZ09 1 year ago
So Dawkins, who regularly converses with bishops and Christian apologists, shouldn't be allowed to "leave the lab", as D'Souza says, but D'Souza, who's a complete nobody outside of his political career, is a qualified astrophysicist and cosmologist?!
PerilocutionAZ09 1 year ago
he just keeps getting louder and louder as he feels himself more and more insecure, Shhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
Shaghayegh11 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shaghayegh11 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shaghayegh11 1 year ago
why does he yell? I had to bring down the volume once he started rambling on.
Shaghayegh11 1 year ago
A stop sign? Really Dinesh?
McLarenF1God 1 year ago
"i think i can do some more damage...", HA!!! dinesh, the only thing you're damaging is your own credibility. if the universe was "tuned" differently, and we didn't exist, it wouldn't inconvenience me in the slightest; i wouldn't be here to know the difference. it's so pompous of theists to think that the universe came into being with us in mind. human life (or life in general) was not "the ultimate goal" of the universe, but rather a biproduct of it.
022171 1 year ago
Dinesh reminds me of those guys on Fox news. If they shout it out enough times with the air of authority, then it becomes true. Dinesh is engaging in his own intellectual dishonesty yet sadly, he honestly believes what he says and will never change his mind. Show him the proof and he will deny it.
Dennet on the other hand, will eagerly change his mind if the proof is there. Science evolves, religion remains absolute.
kaduisaui 1 year ago
dinesh seems not to understand what the microphones function is. dinesh you may speak normal and yet still be heard by the rest of the listeners. he appears to use the tactic of "my volume is one with my meaning", the forceful approach is one that i would assume most people find demeaning as if we need to be spoken AT rather than too. a calm "listenable" voice would probably suit this kind of audience much better and allow what ever point hes trying to debate come across more clearly
rekcilkcid 1 year ago
You atheists reeeeally suck balls
0thereaper0 1 year ago
It is a fact people have been killed in the name of atheism like some of my relatives in the soviet union under Lenin. you cant escape it like Dawkins does, these people have been killed in the name of atheistic Ideologies simply because they were religious But the number is not so high as D`Souza says. Most of the victims of communist regimes have been killed for other causes. Whats kind of sad is that both Dinesh and Dawkins use these victims to support their viewpoints.
lakeoffuckinfire 1 year ago
Why are all these religious nuts such weirdos? -- ahh there's a correlation....
SteveGBell 1 year ago