Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers.
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
@DuNyceBeats Want to hear another one? Do you know what Harry Potter and God has in common? They both have fanatic followers and can do magic. And they are both obviously fictional!
I can't wait until Dawkins meet God like Hitchenson will be doing shortly. I don't want them to go to hell. I don't wish hell on my worse enemy. But I wouldn't mind expediting their deaths. I apologize for any one who is offended by this comment, but the day they discover they are wrong They will not be able come back and tell their followers that believe their nonsense to prevent them from going the same place they are headed, they were wrong and for that I am angry.
@Mschocolalicious No offence, bro, but if it's a choice between believing a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders who thought the entire world was within walking distance of Noah's front door or believing the guys in lab coats, I'll go with the men in lab coats.
At least they don't want me to get up on a Sunday and apologise for being human to a wizard who lives on a cloud in the sky and will have me tortured forever after I die because he created me flawed - but who loves me and needs my money.
@Mschocolalicious I could just as easily say (if you suppose that I am a Muslim), that I cannot wait for you to die and meet God and Muhammad to find out how wrong you were in believing in Christ as the only revelation (provided you are a Christian, which is what I suspect. If not reverse the Muslim-Christian analogy here).
If anyone is interested in the topic of quantum weirdness, I would point to Richard Feynman's great book "QED."
QED: Quantum Electro-Dynamics (for which he received his Nobel Prize)
He wrote the book for the layperson. Pay partibular attention to his explanation of the double-slit experiment. It can drive you to insanity (because its REAL)
But as Feynam correctly states: Anyone claiming to UNDERSTAND quantum dynamics - obviously does not.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
A theist will hear this and think "They're just making up nonsense about these 6 numbers that they don't know anything about. Obviously, god made it all work."
A person of scientific learning will hear this and think "It's frickin unreal how much work, and thought, and measuring, and comparing, and confirming, and falsifying, has actually gone into the development of these six simple constants."
Its so strange tho hear theists talk about how their God is a grand designer. Why on earth would I care about a God who just starts up the universe, but who doesn't care about me?
Why worship a being who started the universe, but also lets children die of aids?
i don't like the word "multi-verse" it implies multiple universes. the correct term should be "mini-verse" with all of the mini-verses combined to make up the universe. the word universe implies all encompassing. the word universe means all that exists. it leaves no room for exclusion, exclusion from the universe by definition means that it does not exist.
universe = all that exists. if a god exists than a universe also exists. if god could leave the universe than he would stop existing.
According to any proper definition of "Universe", there is but one. That is precisely what Universe means: "All things existing". To attempt discussing the possibility of 'multiple universes' is as much of a waste of time as a discussion of the 'multiplicity' of the 'individual'. Lynne Atwater
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When I listen to Dawkins - I imagine that in the privacy of his hotel, he is a total nutcase. I could see him speaking demonically to himself as he goes through the rubbish he spews out, he tries to act like a super intelligent and logical man - yet if you listen carefully to him - he actually is a nutcase. Every now and again, he throws in this flying spaghetti monster ans ju ju beans etc In reality he speaks nothing but a pool of swilring vomit, in which the vortex goes absolutely no where.
@TheRoss10001 Everything he says makes perfect sense, and you notice that never once does he claim anything he say to be absolute truth, but merely theories which are at least more plausible than any mystical being. He brings up the noodly overlord as a way of making the ridiculousness of the concept of an omnipotent deity.
You attack him with absolutely no facts at your disposal to refute a word he says. If you can come up with independant proof of the existance of a deity, i may believe then
great, I finally get the details of what other universes are like. I knew of the concept, but never knew the word, anthropic principle. this video is simple and perhaps not all that interesting, but it is a very precious educational video.
For a Biologist, Dawkins certainly has a handle on Astrophysics and is very good at explaining it in terms that are easy to understand.
People who marvel at the Universe to the point where they blow their mind and conclude that God MUST have done it are essentially blowing the whistle that ends the game of Science. That conclusion is a dead end and goes nowhere. Religion is the end of discovery, it's where you go if you blow your brain fuse. From that point you THINK you have all the answers.
where did the big bang come from? and that and that and that and that and that and that and that times that by one hundred trillion billion squillion (squillion lol) no but really . . . .how can something have always been there? bangs head against wall . . .ouch . . .ouch . . . ouch . . . .ouch
@british123able There does not always have to be a beginning to something. Time doesn't necessarily have to move linear. We simply perceive it that way because we have a Beginning, and an End in our lifetime. Time can be circular. Just because our brains are not equip to perceive infinity, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Time could very well have always been there. Look up the "Big Bounce" theory. Similar to the big bang but with a finishing claps and re burst starting the process all over again.
Actually only a vanishingly small part of this universe allows life to exist at all, so there may be other universes where lfe is so much more robust that death is rare or nonexistent - up to the point where the entire universe is alive, self-aware and so powerful that it would make our pretend gods look pathetic by comparison. It's pure speculation (as is the multiverse), but why no one ever mentions this possibility is a mystery to me.
@Ender0410 No she isn't. Paula has organized and participated in many events and discussions over the last several years. Don't judge her by a few seemingly awkward moments in one video.
So 6 constants have to be "fine-tuned" to the exact value in order to the universe to support life. I can imagine 'God' madly turning the knobs (who created those knobs anyway?) until he gets the universe right. "Good job Yahweh, you get a B+ on knob turning. Now let's try a universe with fotons, shall we?"
Watch the "God is not God" series in YT by TrenchantAtheist, and how the fine-tuning argument utterly fails to establish the existence of an omnipotent creator.
The biggest 'proof' in my opinion against the notion of a god creating the universe is the concept of infinity.
Such a being, who is 'eternal' as many in religious circles conclude, would have been around infinitely long PRIOR to the creation of our universe. So what occurred prior to that creation point? A sentient, omnipotent being was doing what in the interim?
@Diomedes01 Infinity is not physically realizable. There was only a finite amount of time before now. Nothing occurred before t = 0. There have been a finite number of past events. The first cause was not temporally prior to the first effect, but it was causally prior. By your reasoning, nothing at all could be here right now, for what was anything doing for an infinite amount of time?
@Ledwix I am actually not advocating the notion of time occuring prior to the origin of the universe. As space/time are inexorably linked, time in our sense has an origin point. What I was stating is that religious dogma often cites eternality in its doctrine. Refering to god as the alpha and omega and so forth. Which is what I was arguing against.
What would an atheist say about those people, like me, that know the truth of a gospel that has a God. (The gospel of Jesus Christ, but it doesn't necessarily matter which gospel it is). And not because religious leaders have told me so or the scriptures work as an escape goat for things I don't understand, but because I KNOW that this gospel is true.
So apart from the "you're brain washed and "that's illogical" what is your view of us; who could be considered opposites to you.
@juanisimoss I would introduce you to the Muslim that knows their viewpoint is TRUE and the Hindu that knows their viewpoint is true. Then the jew, then the follower of Wotan, then the follower of Ra, then the follower of Zeus, then the follower Odin, then the follower of Taoism, then the follower of Buddha, et cetera, et cetera. Then I would sit back and watch the show, hoping that the usage of analogy would finally get the point across.
@Diomedes01 In a well thought out argument from all of us, however, I would find it very likely that we would at least respect each other's religions. I mean if I were to argue about my religion I wouldn't be trying to convince anyone else, I would try to make them question how I personally know truth that cannot be explained with human rational or logic.
In the end, though, I would expect us to at least agree in the idea of a creator, or one who controls what we know as reality.
There is no concept of a 'creator' in either Buddhist or Taoist philosophies. They ascribe to the notion of a 'life energy' that is not sentient in any sense, but is persistent and eternal. That is where George Lucas derived the concept of 'The Force' for the Star Wars films.
So no, not all religions have a unified creator within their mythos. And a great many religions are also polytheistic in nature, with 'creators' (plural).
@Diomedes01 You're right in that, but the main idea I think is still noticeable in those religions. The fact that there is something more than the physical, logical world which we can sense. More specifically it could be shown in the respect religions universally have toward something bigger than humans, giving us more or less a purpose.
@juanisimoss Simple. If you KNOW it is true, then you should be able to demonstrate it. If you can't, then you don't KNOW and should use another term.
If you have ever had this. It is 100% evidence of evil spirits. Why don't you go have a look. The video shows over and over it has nothing to do with falling asleep and waking up as your are asleep and still dreaming. This is the only scientific explanation for it. Other than that it's pointing allot more towards evil spirits as the video plainly shows.
@peazythatsmeazy By "tappin that" you mean the Prof is diseminating his gentic material for the propogation of the species and ensuring the survival of his selfish genes?
Richard Dawkins will not debate Ray Comfort because he knows he will lose. if you don't believe me, just watch the interview where Dawkins interviews Ted Haggard. Dawkins was absolutely destroyed when Haggard confronted him with simple questions. Dawkins is probably the biggest fake of the 21st century wh has no clue about the origins of the universe.
@MrGeorgios2020 What possible qualification could YOU have to state your opinions eh? WHO ARE YOU to say who is intelligent and who is not? Are you the judge of humankind? Are you the very scale that measures a man's worth and abilities?
Do not forget human that you are nothing more than a speck as compared to the numbers of the population in this world and are not fit to judge anyone by your own standards... your self-worth is simply an illusion until you've earned and proven it..
I'd have to say that since science is the only real constant amongst human cultures, the only way we can judge different intelligences in any meaningful way is their understanding of science. Under this framework, Mr Comfort has the intelligence of a child.
Of course, this slightely narrow framework leaves out artists. Since Mr Comfort hasn't produced any art that I know of, we'll assume he doesn't qualify anyway.
@champjklccmk I dunno. Richard Dawkins loves to make that claim about intelligence and delusion upon others that don't agree with him. To each his own I say. To scientifically entertain the notion of multiverses without a single shred of evidence for them is justly as far fetched to any claim of supernatural entities, probably moreso since there happen to be people that testify throughout history to the latter.
@sgreen71778 No there isn't. There is a presumption (no such thing as creation)based upon a presumption (there are multiverses). And when math is applied, it looks pretty (IF there are multiverses, THEN our universe and physics are not special). But that is not evidence. Nor is mathematics built upon a presumption evidence. If there were multiverses, then the math we apply in this universe wouldn't necessarily apply to the others.... how then can we use it to justify them?
Why should he have a clue about the origin of the universe? He's a biologist. Everything he says about cosmology is what he's just getting from physicists. He is pretty knowledgable on evolution though, his book 'the selfish gene' is very highly regarded by evolutionary biologists.
I would even go as far to say that Ray Comfort is even brighter than Einstein. His theories are simple and cannot be disputed. Everybody knows that Relativity and the Big Bang theories are pure nonsense. For God's sake people open your eyes, Richard Dawkins is just an angry middle-aged Pom. No wonder his two wives left him. And for the record, have a listen to Ted Haggard. He is another genius who deserves mention.
@MrGeorgios2020 Your ignorance ASTOUNDS me. I watched the Richard Dawkins program in which he talks with Ted Haggard. Ted uses circular reasoning and does what he falsely claims Dawkins does. He basically says that people should believe the Bible because the Bible says it's right, and that it doesn't contradict itself, which it does. If 'God' created everything, who or what created 'God'? I have yet to get an intelligent, logical answer for this, so please give me one.
Ray Comfort has challenged Richard Dawkins to a debate many times and Richard Dawkins has refused. The reason is because Dawkins does not know what to say when he is challenged. I recently saw a video where Dawkins admits to a creator! Ray Comfort is possibly the brightest academic of our era and desreves the highest accolade.
@MrGeorgios2020 hahaha you are a complete fucking moron.... Dawkins doesnt want to debate Ray Comfort "The Banana in the Mouth man", because he will say the same stupid arguments, like you do here. These videos are for smart people, not assholes like you... so please go a watch the Banana Man putting his banana in your mouth....
@MrGeorgios2020 Really? Ray Comfort is the most unintelligent person I have ever seen. He has lost every debate I have seen him in. And who cares about who wins debates? Just buy one guys book, and then the other's so you can plainly see all of their opinions and facts laid out, and make your decision there. I think it is an intelligent move on Dawkin's part to stop debating these people, because it doesn't prove anything, "win or lose".
The reason Mr Dawkins refuses to debate with Ray Comfort is because he knows he will lose. Ray Comfort is the Einstein of our generation. Dawkins is just a whinging Pom who wants to sell a book in his old age. Grow up you gullible people!!!!
@MrGeorgios2020 Einstein is a GOD compared to Ray Comfort! So is Richard Dawkins for that matter, or any other scientist. It would be like Michael Jordan "competing" in the special olympics.
Agreed! Richard Dawkins thinks he knows it all. I dare to see him debate intellectual heavyweights such as Ray Comfort, Dr Paul Ruckman or even Dr Kent Hovind.
Dawkins is too slow and he can't keep up with things as he gets bombarded with facts. But there's no doubt that this airhead monkey-man will deny evidence even if its given to him.
@TruthfulChristian2 RAY COMFORT Banana man? these people should not be idolized, its not the fact that your crazy, but your encouraging normal people to think like you, WHY?
One thing I don't get about this 'multiple realities' idea, is that some realities ought to be completely illogical. Like one where I'd suddenly jump out of a window for no reason. Or one where Dawkins, exactly the same as our Dawkins, suddenly in the middle of a speech, converts to fundamentalist islam.
I mean, it's not impossible in terms of physics, but it makes no SENSE.
People who haven't studied nature believe scientists come up with weird ideas (big bang, multiverse, billions of galaxies, evolution) out of some odd-ball scientist mindset.
That's not how these ideas come about. Nature is weird first.and the ideas are most logically consistent (so-far) explanations of what nature has presented. . Only the least weird of the alternatives wint out. The world isn't a cube, starlight isn't from alien ray guns.
A glass of water has higher entropy than a glass of the same amount of H2O molecules in crusehd ice form, although "naively" one would say the glass of water is "more ordered".
If we imagine the universe giving birth to other baby universes, each of which sprout branches which become other universes to form a multiverse, and one of these universes curves around in time to become the main trunk in the past, then in a sense the whole process is self-generating.
When Dawkins says "complexity can't just happen," he should instead say "I can't imagine complexity just happening." Just because we can't comprehend something doesn't mean it can't happen.
I think the original phrasing is correct because the term "just happen" implies that something goes from state A to state B with no intervening steps or rational cause. Complexity cannot indeed "just happen". There must be a progression from simpler to more complex forms, however fast or slow or large or minute that process is. It's not about our comprehension, but our ability to observe it. Just my 2c.
Clearly it seems impossible to you for something complex to just happen. It seems impossible to me as well, but consider that to a super-intelligence life form or a god, it is very plausible for complexity to just happen. I'm just saying that when you are trying to disprove a hypothetical supernatural being, you have to consider that the laws of nature and logic may not apply. That's why it's impossible to disprove anything supernatural.
Personally, I don't believe that anything 'supernatural' can exist. That is to say, anything that exists in this universe, no matter how bizarre, must obey all the laws of physics and is therefore 'natural'.
You might say, there are exceptions to the laws of physics, such as around black holes. But I don't think so. It's just that the rules are far more intricate and complicated than we know.
There might very well be something out there, but that something is natural.
Yes, it is faith, but not in the way you mean, I think.
I have faith that our scientific knowledge of reality is fairly accurate, and improving.
I have faith that the universe obeys the laws of physics and will continue to do so.
Given that, I think about how a 'supernatural' being would interact with this universe and I realise: it must obey the rules or there can be no interaction. What can it do without real mass or real energy? Nothing in or to this universe.
First, your questions are amazing, and I cannot express in this comment how appreciative I am of them. I think it is the same faith. Those are the very things that build up my faith: the fine tuning of the universe, etc. I think at times if one wants to be "cynical" (I use that very loosely, not to offend) then he arrives at evidence for his cynicism. If one wants to find God, then he will find the evidence of the divine. I personally believe the supernatural has interacted: Jesus.
The evidence does not Exclusively assert Divinity; I do think it testifies to Him. It comes down to your choice. I believe, (and the Bible affirms) that anyone who really wants to approach God must go ahead and believe both that He exists and that He cares enough to respond to those who seek Him. It is a leap of faith, and once you jump you will land sqaurely on Him. But you gotta jump. And let me go ahead an apologize for all the hypocrtical believers you will run into on your search.
To forestall any confusion, I should say I'm not on a search for god. I'm just interested in why other people are.
You make a good point that seeking god requires a belief that he can and wants to respond to us. That's reasonable. I can't imagine somebody attempting something unless they imagine there's some chance of success.
Although, to be objective, it makes me wonder if it isn't a case of either conciously or unconciously massaging the evidence to fit the theory.
@mrjosephbell You do see, however, that this argument works for EVERY deity? A Muslim would tell you the exact same thing. You're Christian religion is wrong, he'd say, and you have to take a leap of faith to arrive at Islam, the one true religion.
A Buddhist might say the same, and so do Scientologists, Mormons, whatever.
On entropy vs complexity - you're making the assumption that disorder is opposite to complexity. What if it's not?
Entropy is described as a measure of the number of ways a system may be arranged.
If we imagine a star, there are finite ways in which the atoms of a star may be arranged and still be called a star.
But if the star dies and dissipates its atoms, there are now far more ways for the atoms to be arranged. It could be said that disorder has led to more complexity.
It is indeed impossible for me to imagine something complex 'just happening' which I understand to mean 'arising from nothing'.
I think there must be a progression from something simpler, but that the intervening steps or period might just be too difficult for us to observe or understand.
I would think a super-intelligence being, on the other hand, should be more capable of experiencing the progression and should be even less likely to imagine complexity 'just happening'.
You can't possibly speculate on what a super-intelligent being can or cannot imagine. That would be like an insect trying to image what a human can or cannot imagine.
I do consider your assumption that you don't believe anything supernatural exists to be valid. They are philosophies of physicalism or naturalism. In that case, you must dismiss the idea of a supernatural god based on your assumption.
I said consider that complexity can just happen. I didn't say it can. I am merely saying that when discussing a super-natural entity, you should consider that possibility.
If the cosmos is truly infinite, consisting of universes wihin universes, there may indeed be entities so vast and mysterious that they may or may not be described as having something like consciousness, whose will may affect our plane of existence. But that's a far cry from the gods promoted by traditional, earthly religious organizations.
it is also equally impossible to prove that there is anything supernatural because the laws of nature and logic don't apply. Also just as it is seems unlikely for a complex universe to arise it is also unlikely for a complex, intelligent creator to arise.
Excellent point. If a SUPERnatural being is plausible, how is using natural laws going to reveal anything. We have to admit that we are limited and that a supernatural creation is just that...plausible. There is so much more to say, but I just had to agree.
My understanding of the original phrase was "can complexity arise from nothing?" to which I say, no. I believe there must be a progression from something simpler, albeit the progression may be difficult to observe or understand.
Your phrasing suggests another view: "there is a progression, but is it intentional?"
The first response must be, what does 'intentionality' actually mean and who has it? Animals? Plants? Single-celled organisms?
I agree complexity cannot "arise" form nothing. But, what about a complex being giving way to a complex creation. Plausible. A human painting the Mona Lisa.
The question arises.. if complexity cannot come from nothing, where does the complex being come from? Does it have predeccessors? Kin? Is it the product of generations of evolution, or is it self-modifying? How did it start and when did it achieve 'sentience'?
You don't need the multiverse to explain why things seem just right in this universe. Life, if it were to exist in any "verse" would be different and adapted to existence in that state.
I don't know, but every system we can observe (earth>solar system>galaxy>universe) seems to be part of a larger system, so perhaps it goes on into infinity, with the multiverse included. I also think infinity may exist at the micro level. Quarks are thought to elementary particles, but we may find one day that even these particles are made from smaller bits, and so on, and so on.
I still have a difficult time reconciling this with science. I thought science settled the issue that the universe had a beginning. I am assuming beginning in the normative since. Nothing then something. So an infinite of anything material just scientifically can't exist. And if there was a infinite of something in some finite point wouldn't inertia keep the infinite in the finite point unless some outside force acted upon it?
The best theory for the observable universe is that it expanded from the "big bang" event. I could be wrong, but I think only hypothesis exists for what caused the big bang, or what was around before the event. Science has not answered the question definately. However, if a multiverse exists, it would probably have it own set of physical laws and not bond by something like inertia as we know it.
Good point. Then is it still not plausible that a god made or put this whole thing in motion? Are we presuming too much when we denounce an immaterial world?
It might be possible that a god set things in motion, but I personally don't see how it can be "plausible" when no evidence at all points us to this explanation. From what we observe in nature, complex systems arise from simpler parts (like the weather for instance). I find it easier to imagine the universe emerging from a simpler "cosmic soup" than something more complex creating it. Where would this complex creator come from?
First, I appreciate and see value in how you see things. Because I'm gonna use something along the same line of thought ;) I personally run into problems thinking of something material being always existent. Because at some point I "believe" we run into the material coming out of nothing. Does that make any sense?
Let's see. Unknown eternal primordial conditions that led to the observable universe, versus an eternal magic man that did it. I'm afraid your solution raises more questions than it answers. Regardless, to invoke a supernatural explanation, you must first provide evidence that supernatural forces even exist.
Even if there was an intelligent first cause, what makes you believe it would give a rat's ass about you and me? We could all be a simulation running on a demon's PC.
Like in your scenario, where does the "cosmic soup" come from. Then after that...then after that...there would be an infinte after thats, which I "think" science rules out. I have an "easier" time believing some intelligent infinite "immaterial" not something "non-existent" but "non-perceivable" give way to something less complex (yet very complex to us). I see nature as tending toward entropy.
I cannot prove the universe emerged, but we can see many examples of emergence in nature and in the cosmos. We also have no evidence that there was an ultimate beginning, so trying to figure out how existence came from nothing is pretty pointless. You have no problem believing in a complex infinite god, but you can't reconcile an infinite simple multiverse? Why do you think there was any intelligence involved with existence?
Before I give you my specific examples of the intelligent, lets have an exercise in philosophy. Science does affirm that the material world is not eternal; it did emerge or begin. Every thing that emerges or begins has a cause. By definition, there cannot be infinite causes with effects. It is illogical. Also, science could not examine the immaterial even if it does exist, so it cannot speak to or pronounce any type of judgment about the immaterials origin or characteristics for instance.
Now follow my logic. Let us suppose there is an eternal immaterial first cause. Does it go against science? No. Does it go against logic? No. And since we are going to have to use faith either way. I think it is more reasonable to place faith in an eternal immaterial first cause than something we already know to be unscientific and illogical. Why keep going down a dead end?
Emergence, is an explanation that does not need a first cause. Our weather system did not need a first cause, it emerged from favourable conditions on Earth. No single factor by itself led to weather.
Speak for yourself, I don't need to take a leap of faith. I accept there are things we don't know. I reject the idea of an "immaterial first cause" because we cannot confirm at this time that there was a first cause for existence. And to consider the immaterial, I would need some examples.
It begs the question of where did the favorable conditions come from. You still have to have something material in order to have conditions. I believe at some point you get back to nothing. The material world is confined to time and change (the theory of relativity).
I think the findings from science I have read have concluded that there is a first cause of existence. And according to entropy, it cannot be a simpler material system giving way to a more complex material system. More to come...
I cannot speculate as to where the favorable conditions for the emergence of the universe came from, until we know what those conditions were. But why do they need to come from somewhere? Why can they not be eternal like you propose your god is? On what existed before the big bang, science has no answer. Science certainly doesn't claim the big bang event had a first cause. Any claim you make about a magic man cause is just fantasy, unworthy of consideration, until you can provide evidence.
Just a bit on my perspective. Please point out any flaws in my logic. I accept evolution as the best explanation for the human species. We came about naturally, on a planet that was formed naturally with the solar system, which is part of a naturally forming galaxy. Seems to me that the default position, is to also think the universe was created naturally until proven otherwise. No leap of faith required.
Agreed. We live in a universe of physical laws. The default position must be to look for an answer within those laws, before considering anything outside. And we haven't yet finished the former...
That may not seem problematic, but let's discuss the following Philosophical issues that insue: Why something rather than nothing at all? Is there purpose? Is there any real morals? While no faith is involved in that, what then is driving our living?
I begin with the following premise: If the necessary and sufficient conditions for spawning the universe were present from eternity, the effect would also be present from eternity. It's impossible to explain how the sufficient conditions could exist timelessly and not also have the effect equally copresent. The only way that a temporal effect could arise from an eternal cause is if the cause is a free, personal agent, able to freely create the universe without antecedent determining conditions.
Exactly. Why would "some being" will the universe into existence? You propose that it was done in order to be recognised? What do you mean by recognised?
Remember, I was just speculating that the conditions were eternal. But if we assume a multiverse, I tend to think of it as a glass of carbonated soda - where each bubble is a different universe. Once a bubble forms, new conditions exist inside the bubble, different than those that created it. Now imagine the bubble is expanding at the speed of light, and you are inside the bubble. You would never see the conditions that created the bubble, without some scifi tech. Impossible is more likely.
(I John 4:10). We begin at the real beginning, with love as the Divine energy. This love is Gift-love. In God there is no hunger that needs to be filled, only plenteousness that desires to give. The doctrine that God was under no necessity to create is not a piece of dry scholastic speculation. It is essential. Without it, we can hardly avoid the conception of what I can only call a "manager" God; a Being whose function or nature is to "run" the universe.
But to be sovereign of the universe is no great matter to God. God, who needs nothing, loves into existence wholly superfluous creatures in order that He may love and perfect them. He creates the universe. If I may dare use the biological image, God is a "host" who deliberately creates His own parasites; causes us to be that we may exploit and "take advantage of Him. Herein is love. This is the diagram of Love Himself, the inventor of all loves.
Does it go against science? YES. Does it go against logic? YES.
What you are doing is defaulting to an answer that has NEVER been observed or supported by any experimentation whatsoever.
We don't know what started the universe, but there was time when an eternal entity also was behind lightning, thunder, reproduction, the sun, but historically, it all has a naturalistic answer, every time.
good point. Yeah that's the thing with all this stuff. Does Dawkins understand that so called "theistic" thought, or spiritual thought, whatever you want to call it, is really just holsim, just moving beyond the minds activity of manipulating symbols and descriptions into a more total experience? I'm not putting him down, there's lots of dumb religious people, but real esoteric spiritual thought is about tracing things back to first causes.
You're not bitter because you don't agree with what he says. You're bitter, and a hypocrite, because (and you say provide some intelligent and persuasive arguments) you attack his character, rather than providing a logical, intelligent response to what was said.
Anyway, people seem to strongly disagree with your comment. I find Hitchens to be obnoxious too, but Sam Harris is great imo. Dawkins is a bit of an uptight person, but i'd argue his intellectual qualities make up for that.
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
England - Tue Oct 25, 2011
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers.
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!
Evidence: FAKE INTELLECTUAL
feanando 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
@DuNyceBeats Oh, thanks for that little gem of information Captain Obvious.
One last joke: Do you know the difference between God and nothing? Trick question! There is no difference!
FrozenPetrolPie 5 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie FTW!
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats Want to hear another one? Do you know what Harry Potter and God has in common? They both have fanatic followers and can do magic. And they are both obviously fictional!
FrozenPetrolPie 5 months ago
@DuNyceBeats lol ofc I haven't met met him, just like I have not met Batman.
FrozenPetrolPie 5 months ago
I can't wait until Dawkins meet God like Hitchenson will be doing shortly. I don't want them to go to hell. I don't wish hell on my worse enemy. But I wouldn't mind expediting their deaths. I apologize for any one who is offended by this comment, but the day they discover they are wrong They will not be able come back and tell their followers that believe their nonsense to prevent them from going the same place they are headed, they were wrong and for that I am angry.
Mschocolalicious 5 months ago
@Mschocolalicious No offence, bro, but if it's a choice between believing a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders who thought the entire world was within walking distance of Noah's front door or believing the guys in lab coats, I'll go with the men in lab coats.
At least they don't want me to get up on a Sunday and apologise for being human to a wizard who lives on a cloud in the sky and will have me tortured forever after I die because he created me flawed - but who loves me and needs my money.
kos 5 months ago
@Mschocolalicious I could just as easily say (if you suppose that I am a Muslim), that I cannot wait for you to die and meet God and Muhammad to find out how wrong you were in believing in Christ as the only revelation (provided you are a Christian, which is what I suspect. If not reverse the Muslim-Christian analogy here).
torontoBluejays87 2 months ago
If anyone is interested in the topic of quantum weirdness, I would point to Richard Feynman's great book "QED."
QED: Quantum Electro-Dynamics (for which he received his Nobel Prize)
He wrote the book for the layperson. Pay partibular attention to his explanation of the double-slit experiment. It can drive you to insanity (because its REAL)
But as Feynam correctly states: Anyone claiming to UNDERSTAND quantum dynamics - obviously does not.
myrtlebox 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
A theist will hear this and think "They're just making up nonsense about these 6 numbers that they don't know anything about. Obviously, god made it all work."
A person of scientific learning will hear this and think "It's frickin unreal how much work, and thought, and measuring, and comparing, and confirming, and falsifying, has actually gone into the development of these six simple constants."
rmcdaniel423 7 months ago
Its so strange tho hear theists talk about how their God is a grand designer. Why on earth would I care about a God who just starts up the universe, but who doesn't care about me?
Why worship a being who started the universe, but also lets children die of aids?
FrozenPetrolPie 8 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie Because it says we should in the bible. I will now hide behind the impenetrable shield of denial.
xfalc0npunchx 8 months ago
@xfalc0npunchx lol, the ultimate defense.
FrozenPetrolPie 8 months ago
@xfalc0npunchx well done;D NOTHING can get you there
mutageno 8 months ago
i don't like the word "multi-verse" it implies multiple universes. the correct term should be "mini-verse" with all of the mini-verses combined to make up the universe. the word universe implies all encompassing. the word universe means all that exists. it leaves no room for exclusion, exclusion from the universe by definition means that it does not exist.
universe = all that exists. if a god exists than a universe also exists. if god could leave the universe than he would stop existing.
greycloud24 8 months ago
According to any proper definition of "Universe", there is but one. That is precisely what Universe means: "All things existing". To attempt discussing the possibility of 'multiple universes' is as much of a waste of time as a discussion of the 'multiplicity' of the 'individual'. Lynne Atwater
lynneatwater 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religion is explained on my channel you ll be amazed..... I invite you there
LordJesusChristtruth 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When I listen to Dawkins - I imagine that in the privacy of his hotel, he is a total nutcase. I could see him speaking demonically to himself as he goes through the rubbish he spews out, he tries to act like a super intelligent and logical man - yet if you listen carefully to him - he actually is a nutcase. Every now and again, he throws in this flying spaghetti monster ans ju ju beans etc In reality he speaks nothing but a pool of swilring vomit, in which the vortex goes absolutely no where.
TheRoss10001 10 months ago
@TheRoss10001 - Hmm, If what 'you' said made sense, people might agree with you..
moelman100 10 months ago
@TheRoss10001 Everything he says makes perfect sense, and you notice that never once does he claim anything he say to be absolute truth, but merely theories which are at least more plausible than any mystical being. He brings up the noodly overlord as a way of making the ridiculousness of the concept of an omnipotent deity.
You attack him with absolutely no facts at your disposal to refute a word he says. If you can come up with independant proof of the existance of a deity, i may believe then
mrsanity 9 months ago 3
@TheRoss10001 You sniff a lot of paint, don't you?
ciaochowbella 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
great, I finally get the details of what other universes are like. I knew of the concept, but never knew the word, anthropic principle. this video is simple and perhaps not all that interesting, but it is a very precious educational video.
7lllll 10 months ago
Comment removed
7lllll 10 months ago
For a Biologist, Dawkins certainly has a handle on Astrophysics and is very good at explaining it in terms that are easy to understand.
People who marvel at the Universe to the point where they blow their mind and conclude that God MUST have done it are essentially blowing the whistle that ends the game of Science. That conclusion is a dead end and goes nowhere. Religion is the end of discovery, it's where you go if you blow your brain fuse. From that point you THINK you have all the answers.
warren52nz 11 months ago 28
Reasons to postulate =/= Proof that it is true.
There are reasons to postulate yellow space monkey's from the planet Zeebox are the makers of all milk on earth.
This is a fundamentally devastating problem to Dawkins' worldview, he is completely dodging here.
He didn't even attempt to answer the question.
The anthropic principle doesn't solve anything, it is a "just so" argument no different from a "proof" of god's existence.
DarkwingScooter 11 months ago
where did the big bang come from? and that and that and that and that and that and that and that times that by one hundred trillion billion squillion (squillion lol) no but really . . . .how can something have always been there? bangs head against wall . . .ouch . . .ouch . . . ouch . . . .ouch
british123able 1 year ago
@british123able There does not always have to be a beginning to something. Time doesn't necessarily have to move linear. We simply perceive it that way because we have a Beginning, and an End in our lifetime. Time can be circular. Just because our brains are not equip to perceive infinity, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Time could very well have always been there. Look up the "Big Bounce" theory. Similar to the big bang but with a finishing claps and re burst starting the process all over again.
TheMasterHippy 11 months ago
82 people have green moustaches and are in denial
ilytopy 1 year ago
Actually only a vanishingly small part of this universe allows life to exist at all, so there may be other universes where lfe is so much more robust that death is rare or nonexistent - up to the point where the entire universe is alive, self-aware and so powerful that it would make our pretend gods look pathetic by comparison. It's pure speculation (as is the multiverse), but why no one ever mentions this possibility is a mystery to me.
hznfrst 1 year ago 3
That lady is dumb, laughing at awkward times, she has no idea what he is talking about lol
Ender0410 1 year ago
@Ender0410 No she isn't. Paula has organized and participated in many events and discussions over the last several years. Don't judge her by a few seemingly awkward moments in one video.
hznfrst 1 year ago
So 6 constants have to be "fine-tuned" to the exact value in order to the universe to support life. I can imagine 'God' madly turning the knobs (who created those knobs anyway?) until he gets the universe right. "Good job Yahweh, you get a B+ on knob turning. Now let's try a universe with fotons, shall we?"
Watch the "God is not God" series in YT by TrenchantAtheist, and how the fine-tuning argument utterly fails to establish the existence of an omnipotent creator.
gininginin 1 year ago
So, the universe is just a knob job?
Then, it follows that God gives a good knob job?
I'm full blooded Atheist, BTW.
Knossos22 1 year ago
The biggest 'proof' in my opinion against the notion of a god creating the universe is the concept of infinity.
Such a being, who is 'eternal' as many in religious circles conclude, would have been around infinitely long PRIOR to the creation of our universe. So what occurred prior to that creation point? A sentient, omnipotent being was doing what in the interim?
Diomedes01 1 year ago
@Diomedes01
Twiddling his infinite thumbs?
tipoomaster 1 year ago 16
@Diomedes01 Infinity is not physically realizable. There was only a finite amount of time before now. Nothing occurred before t = 0. There have been a finite number of past events. The first cause was not temporally prior to the first effect, but it was causally prior. By your reasoning, nothing at all could be here right now, for what was anything doing for an infinite amount of time?
Ledwix 1 year ago
@Ledwix I am actually not advocating the notion of time occuring prior to the origin of the universe. As space/time are inexorably linked, time in our sense has an origin point. What I was stating is that religious dogma often cites eternality in its doctrine. Refering to god as the alpha and omega and so forth. Which is what I was arguing against.
Diomedes01 1 year ago
spooky action at a distance.
BenZeneProject 1 year ago
Dear anybody,
What would an atheist say about those people, like me, that know the truth of a gospel that has a God. (The gospel of Jesus Christ, but it doesn't necessarily matter which gospel it is). And not because religious leaders have told me so or the scriptures work as an escape goat for things I don't understand, but because I KNOW that this gospel is true.
So apart from the "you're brain washed and "that's illogical" what is your view of us; who could be considered opposites to you.
juanisimoss 1 year ago
@juanisimoss I would introduce you to the Muslim that knows their viewpoint is TRUE and the Hindu that knows their viewpoint is true. Then the jew, then the follower of Wotan, then the follower of Ra, then the follower of Zeus, then the follower Odin, then the follower of Taoism, then the follower of Buddha, et cetera, et cetera. Then I would sit back and watch the show, hoping that the usage of analogy would finally get the point across.
Diomedes01 1 year ago
@Diomedes01 In a well thought out argument from all of us, however, I would find it very likely that we would at least respect each other's religions. I mean if I were to argue about my religion I wouldn't be trying to convince anyone else, I would try to make them question how I personally know truth that cannot be explained with human rational or logic.
In the end, though, I would expect us to at least agree in the idea of a creator, or one who controls what we know as reality.
juanisimoss 1 year ago
@juanisimoss And you would be incorrect.
There is no concept of a 'creator' in either Buddhist or Taoist philosophies. They ascribe to the notion of a 'life energy' that is not sentient in any sense, but is persistent and eternal. That is where George Lucas derived the concept of 'The Force' for the Star Wars films.
So no, not all religions have a unified creator within their mythos. And a great many religions are also polytheistic in nature, with 'creators' (plural).
Diomedes01 1 year ago
@Diomedes01 You're right in that, but the main idea I think is still noticeable in those religions. The fact that there is something more than the physical, logical world which we can sense. More specifically it could be shown in the respect religions universally have toward something bigger than humans, giving us more or less a purpose.
juanisimoss 1 year ago
@juanisimoss I would ask you how you KNOW gospel of Jesus Christ to be true.
What is knowledge if it cannot be shown to be true? Nothing more than a feeling. Not knowledge and not truth.
Griexxt 1 year ago 3
@juanisimoss Simple. If you KNOW it is true, then you should be able to demonstrate it. If you can't, then you don't KNOW and should use another term.
ScientificBob 1 year ago
It's important to note that the God hypothesis has nothing, not even mathematics, to back it up.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sleep Paralysis 1/5 Ghost Visions
If you have ever had this. It is 100% evidence of evil spirits. Why don't you go have a look. The video shows over and over it has nothing to do with falling asleep and waking up as your are asleep and still dreaming. This is the only scientific explanation for it. Other than that it's pointing allot more towards evil spirits as the video plainly shows.
Get PWNT dawkins. Get PWNT.
Kr0n1k4Lyfe 1 year ago
Look at the way they look at each other. Richard is totally tappin that.
peazythatsmeazy 1 year ago 6
@peazythatsmeazy
Lol, his wife's a lot better lookin!
chebob2009 1 year ago
@peazythatsmeazy Pound my monkey hole!
MrLiamHenderson 1 year ago
@peazythatsmeazy By "tappin that" you mean the Prof is diseminating his gentic material for the propogation of the species and ensuring the survival of his selfish genes?
Tapiola2007 10 months ago 6
@Tapiola2007 You, good sir, have made my day.
ilovesarakim 8 months ago
Richard Dawkins will not debate Ray Comfort because he knows he will lose. if you don't believe me, just watch the interview where Dawkins interviews Ted Haggard. Dawkins was absolutely destroyed when Haggard confronted him with simple questions. Dawkins is probably the biggest fake of the 21st century wh has no clue about the origins of the universe.
MrGeorgios2020 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 Ah yes Ted Haggard....what a fine christian and pillar of the community he was LMAO
lewisner 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 What possible qualification could YOU have to state your opinions eh? WHO ARE YOU to say who is intelligent and who is not? Are you the judge of humankind? Are you the very scale that measures a man's worth and abilities?
Do not forget human that you are nothing more than a speck as compared to the numbers of the population in this world and are not fit to judge anyone by your own standards... your self-worth is simply an illusion until you've earned and proven it..
champjklccmk 1 year ago
@champjklccmk
I'd have to say that since science is the only real constant amongst human cultures, the only way we can judge different intelligences in any meaningful way is their understanding of science. Under this framework, Mr Comfort has the intelligence of a child.
Of course, this slightely narrow framework leaves out artists. Since Mr Comfort hasn't produced any art that I know of, we'll assume he doesn't qualify anyway.
chebob2009 1 year ago
@champjklccmk I dunno. Richard Dawkins loves to make that claim about intelligence and delusion upon others that don't agree with him. To each his own I say. To scientifically entertain the notion of multiverses without a single shred of evidence for them is justly as far fetched to any claim of supernatural entities, probably moreso since there happen to be people that testify throughout history to the latter.
smawshot 1 year ago
@smawshot There is evidence for the multiverse. It is not observable evidence, though. It is mathematical evidence.
sgreen71778 1 year ago
@sgreen71778 No there isn't. There is a presumption (no such thing as creation)based upon a presumption (there are multiverses). And when math is applied, it looks pretty (IF there are multiverses, THEN our universe and physics are not special). But that is not evidence. Nor is mathematics built upon a presumption evidence. If there were multiverses, then the math we apply in this universe wouldn't necessarily apply to the others.... how then can we use it to justify them?
smawshot 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020
Why should he have a clue about the origin of the universe? He's a biologist. Everything he says about cosmology is what he's just getting from physicists. He is pretty knowledgable on evolution though, his book 'the selfish gene' is very highly regarded by evolutionary biologists.
chebob2009 1 year ago
I would even go as far to say that Ray Comfort is even brighter than Einstein. His theories are simple and cannot be disputed. Everybody knows that Relativity and the Big Bang theories are pure nonsense. For God's sake people open your eyes, Richard Dawkins is just an angry middle-aged Pom. No wonder his two wives left him. And for the record, have a listen to Ted Haggard. He is another genius who deserves mention.
MrGeorgios2020 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 "And for the record, have a listen to Ted Haggard. He is another genius who deserves mention"
Yes mention in the newspapers for cheating on his wife with a male prostitute and snorting crystal met 8-)
lewisner 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 Your ignorance ASTOUNDS me. I watched the Richard Dawkins program in which he talks with Ted Haggard. Ted uses circular reasoning and does what he falsely claims Dawkins does. He basically says that people should believe the Bible because the Bible says it's right, and that it doesn't contradict itself, which it does. If 'God' created everything, who or what created 'God'? I have yet to get an intelligent, logical answer for this, so please give me one.
brj0207 1 year ago
Ray Comfort has challenged Richard Dawkins to a debate many times and Richard Dawkins has refused. The reason is because Dawkins does not know what to say when he is challenged. I recently saw a video where Dawkins admits to a creator! Ray Comfort is possibly the brightest academic of our era and desreves the highest accolade.
MrGeorgios2020 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 hahaha you are a complete fucking moron.... Dawkins doesnt want to debate Ray Comfort "The Banana in the Mouth man", because he will say the same stupid arguments, like you do here. These videos are for smart people, not assholes like you... so please go a watch the Banana Man putting his banana in your mouth....
VOD713 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 Really? Ray Comfort is the most unintelligent person I have ever seen. He has lost every debate I have seen him in. And who cares about who wins debates? Just buy one guys book, and then the other's so you can plainly see all of their opinions and facts laid out, and make your decision there. I think it is an intelligent move on Dawkin's part to stop debating these people, because it doesn't prove anything, "win or lose".
natzeeejesus 1 year ago
The reason Mr Dawkins refuses to debate with Ray Comfort is because he knows he will lose. Ray Comfort is the Einstein of our generation. Dawkins is just a whinging Pom who wants to sell a book in his old age. Grow up you gullible people!!!!
MrGeorgios2020 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 "Ray Comfort is the Einstein of our generation". That statement alone is proof that you are INSANE.
holio84 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 Einstein is a GOD compared to Ray Comfort! So is Richard Dawkins for that matter, or any other scientist. It would be like Michael Jordan "competing" in the special olympics.
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago
When you've ruled out the impossible, whatever remains (however improbable) must be the truth.
blithium 1 year ago
Theories are just theories. The BIBLE is fact. Richard Dawkins is a fool!!
MrGeorgios2020 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020
Agreed! Richard Dawkins thinks he knows it all. I dare to see him debate intellectual heavyweights such as Ray Comfort, Dr Paul Ruckman or even Dr Kent Hovind.
Dawkins is too slow and he can't keep up with things as he gets bombarded with facts. But there's no doubt that this airhead monkey-man will deny evidence even if its given to him.
TruthfulChristian2 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2 RAY COMFORT Banana man? these people should not be idolized, its not the fact that your crazy, but your encouraging normal people to think like you, WHY?
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2 wow. how many times did you repeat kindergarten???
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2 He'll have to wait till "doctor" Hovind gets out of jail in about 5 years.
lewisner 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020 your a fake
azmanabdula 1 year ago
One thing I don't get about this 'multiple realities' idea, is that some realities ought to be completely illogical. Like one where I'd suddenly jump out of a window for no reason. Or one where Dawkins, exactly the same as our Dawkins, suddenly in the middle of a speech, converts to fundamentalist islam.
I mean, it's not impossible in terms of physics, but it makes no SENSE.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
People who haven't studied nature believe scientists come up with weird ideas (big bang, multiverse, billions of galaxies, evolution) out of some odd-ball scientist mindset.
That's not how these ideas come about. Nature is weird first.and the ideas are most logically consistent (so-far) explanations of what nature has presented. . Only the least weird of the alternatives wint out. The world isn't a cube, starlight isn't from alien ray guns.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
A glass of water has higher entropy than a glass of the same amount of H2O molecules in crusehd ice form, although "naively" one would say the glass of water is "more ordered".
lagerbaer 1 year ago
wierd? study Einstein's theory and what happens when you go fast!
gregrutz 1 year ago
If we imagine the universe giving birth to other baby universes, each of which sprout branches which become other universes to form a multiverse, and one of these universes curves around in time to become the main trunk in the past, then in a sense the whole process is self-generating.
luvdomus 2 years ago
this guy is a Bubble head!
JEMOMER 2 years ago
When Dawkins says "complexity can't just happen," he should instead say "I can't imagine complexity just happening." Just because we can't comprehend something doesn't mean it can't happen.
rnvogel05 2 years ago
I think the original phrasing is correct because the term "just happen" implies that something goes from state A to state B with no intervening steps or rational cause. Complexity cannot indeed "just happen". There must be a progression from simpler to more complex forms, however fast or slow or large or minute that process is. It's not about our comprehension, but our ability to observe it. Just my 2c.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
Clearly it seems impossible to you for something complex to just happen. It seems impossible to me as well, but consider that to a super-intelligence life form or a god, it is very plausible for complexity to just happen. I'm just saying that when you are trying to disprove a hypothetical supernatural being, you have to consider that the laws of nature and logic may not apply. That's why it's impossible to disprove anything supernatural.
rnvogel05 2 years ago
Personally, I don't believe that anything 'supernatural' can exist. That is to say, anything that exists in this universe, no matter how bizarre, must obey all the laws of physics and is therefore 'natural'.
You might say, there are exceptions to the laws of physics, such as around black holes. But I don't think so. It's just that the rules are far more intricate and complicated than we know.
There might very well be something out there, but that something is natural.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
That's faith. Mine is simply in a different direction.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
@mrjosephbell,
Yes, it is faith, but not in the way you mean, I think.
I have faith that our scientific knowledge of reality is fairly accurate, and improving.
I have faith that the universe obeys the laws of physics and will continue to do so.
Given that, I think about how a 'supernatural' being would interact with this universe and I realise: it must obey the rules or there can be no interaction. What can it do without real mass or real energy? Nothing in or to this universe.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
First, your questions are amazing, and I cannot express in this comment how appreciative I am of them. I think it is the same faith. Those are the very things that build up my faith: the fine tuning of the universe, etc. I think at times if one wants to be "cynical" (I use that very loosely, not to offend) then he arrives at evidence for his cynicism. If one wants to find God, then he will find the evidence of the divine. I personally believe the supernatural has interacted: Jesus.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
@mrjosephbell how come every religious person, personally knows god?
azmanabdula 1 year ago
The evidence does not Exclusively assert Divinity; I do think it testifies to Him. It comes down to your choice. I believe, (and the Bible affirms) that anyone who really wants to approach God must go ahead and believe both that He exists and that He cares enough to respond to those who seek Him. It is a leap of faith, and once you jump you will land sqaurely on Him. But you gotta jump. And let me go ahead an apologize for all the hypocrtical believers you will run into on your search.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
@mrjosephbell,
To forestall any confusion, I should say I'm not on a search for god. I'm just interested in why other people are.
You make a good point that seeking god requires a belief that he can and wants to respond to us. That's reasonable. I can't imagine somebody attempting something unless they imagine there's some chance of success.
Although, to be objective, it makes me wonder if it isn't a case of either conciously or unconciously massaging the evidence to fit the theory.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
@mrjosephbell You do see, however, that this argument works for EVERY deity? A Muslim would tell you the exact same thing. You're Christian religion is wrong, he'd say, and you have to take a leap of faith to arrive at Islam, the one true religion.
A Buddhist might say the same, and so do Scientologists, Mormons, whatever.
lagerbaer 1 year ago
Also, what about the LAW of entropy. So we have a universe get complex and then switch and grow toward disorder. Doesn't sound like a law to me.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
@mrjosephbell,
On entropy vs complexity - you're making the assumption that disorder is opposite to complexity. What if it's not?
Entropy is described as a measure of the number of ways a system may be arranged.
If we imagine a star, there are finite ways in which the atoms of a star may be arranged and still be called a star.
But if the star dies and dissipates its atoms, there are now far more ways for the atoms to be arranged. It could be said that disorder has led to more complexity.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
It is indeed impossible for me to imagine something complex 'just happening' which I understand to mean 'arising from nothing'.
I think there must be a progression from something simpler, but that the intervening steps or period might just be too difficult for us to observe or understand.
I would think a super-intelligence being, on the other hand, should be more capable of experiencing the progression and should be even less likely to imagine complexity 'just happening'.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
You can't possibly speculate on what a super-intelligent being can or cannot imagine. That would be like an insect trying to image what a human can or cannot imagine.
I do consider your assumption that you don't believe anything supernatural exists to be valid. They are philosophies of physicalism or naturalism. In that case, you must dismiss the idea of a supernatural god based on your assumption.
rnvogel05 2 years ago
Weeelll... we CAN speculate. But we just don't know. That's a better way of putting it, I think.
But back to basics... when you say "complexity can just happen" what exactly do you mean?
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
I said consider that complexity can just happen. I didn't say it can. I am merely saying that when discussing a super-natural entity, you should consider that possibility.
rnvogel05 2 years ago
Understood, though I still think it all depends on the definition of "just happen".
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
If the cosmos is truly infinite, consisting of universes wihin universes, there may indeed be entities so vast and mysterious that they may or may not be described as having something like consciousness, whose will may affect our plane of existence. But that's a far cry from the gods promoted by traditional, earthly religious organizations.
luvdomus 2 years ago
it is also equally impossible to prove that there is anything supernatural because the laws of nature and logic don't apply. Also just as it is seems unlikely for a complex universe to arise it is also unlikely for a complex, intelligent creator to arise.
MegaRatking 2 years ago
Excellent point. If a SUPERnatural being is plausible, how is using natural laws going to reveal anything. We have to admit that we are limited and that a supernatural creation is just that...plausible. There is so much more to say, but I just had to agree.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
Good point, but when do we something move from simple to complex without intentionality?
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
@mrjosephbell,
That's another question altogether.
My understanding of the original phrase was "can complexity arise from nothing?" to which I say, no. I believe there must be a progression from something simpler, albeit the progression may be difficult to observe or understand.
Your phrasing suggests another view: "there is a progression, but is it intentional?"
The first response must be, what does 'intentionality' actually mean and who has it? Animals? Plants? Single-celled organisms?
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
I agree complexity cannot "arise" form nothing. But, what about a complex being giving way to a complex creation. Plausible. A human painting the Mona Lisa.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
@mrjosephbell,
The question arises.. if complexity cannot come from nothing, where does the complex being come from? Does it have predeccessors? Kin? Is it the product of generations of evolution, or is it self-modifying? How did it start and when did it achieve 'sentience'?
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
Time itself began at the point of inception. Thus In theory, this being would have to be timeless. It is existence in the purest form.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
That really doesn't help. If the argument is, "It exists because it exists." there's really nowhere else to go with it.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
You don't need the multiverse to explain why things seem just right in this universe. Life, if it were to exist in any "verse" would be different and adapted to existence in that state.
tastybrain 2 years ago
Where does the "multiverse" (foam) come from?
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
the multiverse comes from burp of the flying spaggethimonster
rugbyanden 2 years ago 7
@rugbyanden Nah, more like his computer.
spartacandream 1 year ago
I would ask Dr.Michio Kaku. 8)
temporaldisplacement 2 years ago
I don't know, but every system we can observe (earth>solar system>galaxy>universe) seems to be part of a larger system, so perhaps it goes on into infinity, with the multiverse included. I also think infinity may exist at the micro level. Quarks are thought to elementary particles, but we may find one day that even these particles are made from smaller bits, and so on, and so on.
gigantibyte 2 years ago 3
I still have a difficult time reconciling this with science. I thought science settled the issue that the universe had a beginning. I am assuming beginning in the normative since. Nothing then something. So an infinite of anything material just scientifically can't exist. And if there was a infinite of something in some finite point wouldn't inertia keep the infinite in the finite point unless some outside force acted upon it?
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
The best theory for the observable universe is that it expanded from the "big bang" event. I could be wrong, but I think only hypothesis exists for what caused the big bang, or what was around before the event. Science has not answered the question definately. However, if a multiverse exists, it would probably have it own set of physical laws and not bond by something like inertia as we know it.
I'm just speculating of course.
gigantibyte 2 years ago
Good point. Then is it still not plausible that a god made or put this whole thing in motion? Are we presuming too much when we denounce an immaterial world?
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
It might be possible that a god set things in motion, but I personally don't see how it can be "plausible" when no evidence at all points us to this explanation. From what we observe in nature, complex systems arise from simpler parts (like the weather for instance). I find it easier to imagine the universe emerging from a simpler "cosmic soup" than something more complex creating it. Where would this complex creator come from?
gigantibyte 2 years ago
First, I appreciate and see value in how you see things. Because I'm gonna use something along the same line of thought ;) I personally run into problems thinking of something material being always existent. Because at some point I "believe" we run into the material coming out of nothing. Does that make any sense?
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
Let's see. Unknown eternal primordial conditions that led to the observable universe, versus an eternal magic man that did it. I'm afraid your solution raises more questions than it answers. Regardless, to invoke a supernatural explanation, you must first provide evidence that supernatural forces even exist.
Even if there was an intelligent first cause, what makes you believe it would give a rat's ass about you and me? We could all be a simulation running on a demon's PC.
gigantibyte 2 years ago 19
Or a mac.
Ryosuke1208 2 years ago
Take that back! No universe could be that fiendish! ;)
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
@gigantibyte Or we could just be in a matrix game, and not even know it. XD
All Praise be to Cyber FSM!!!!!!
spartacandream 1 year ago
@gigantibyte agree but supernatural forces can't be proven. If you do, they are natural forces.
todomusika 1 year ago
Like in your scenario, where does the "cosmic soup" come from. Then after that...then after that...there would be an infinte after thats, which I "think" science rules out. I have an "easier" time believing some intelligent infinite "immaterial" not something "non-existent" but "non-perceivable" give way to something less complex (yet very complex to us). I see nature as tending toward entropy.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
I cannot prove the universe emerged, but we can see many examples of emergence in nature and in the cosmos. We also have no evidence that there was an ultimate beginning, so trying to figure out how existence came from nothing is pretty pointless. You have no problem believing in a complex infinite god, but you can't reconcile an infinite simple multiverse? Why do you think there was any intelligence involved with existence?
gigantibyte 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
Before I give you my specific examples of the intelligent, lets have an exercise in philosophy. Science does affirm that the material world is not eternal; it did emerge or begin. Every thing that emerges or begins has a cause. By definition, there cannot be infinite causes with effects. It is illogical. Also, science could not examine the immaterial even if it does exist, so it cannot speak to or pronounce any type of judgment about the immaterials origin or characteristics for instance.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
Now follow my logic. Let us suppose there is an eternal immaterial first cause. Does it go against science? No. Does it go against logic? No. And since we are going to have to use faith either way. I think it is more reasonable to place faith in an eternal immaterial first cause than something we already know to be unscientific and illogical. Why keep going down a dead end?
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
Emergence, is an explanation that does not need a first cause. Our weather system did not need a first cause, it emerged from favourable conditions on Earth. No single factor by itself led to weather.
Speak for yourself, I don't need to take a leap of faith. I accept there are things we don't know. I reject the idea of an "immaterial first cause" because we cannot confirm at this time that there was a first cause for existence. And to consider the immaterial, I would need some examples.
gigantibyte 2 years ago
It begs the question of where did the favorable conditions come from. You still have to have something material in order to have conditions. I believe at some point you get back to nothing. The material world is confined to time and change (the theory of relativity).
I think the findings from science I have read have concluded that there is a first cause of existence. And according to entropy, it cannot be a simpler material system giving way to a more complex material system. More to come...
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
I cannot speculate as to where the favorable conditions for the emergence of the universe came from, until we know what those conditions were. But why do they need to come from somewhere? Why can they not be eternal like you propose your god is? On what existed before the big bang, science has no answer. Science certainly doesn't claim the big bang event had a first cause. Any claim you make about a magic man cause is just fantasy, unworthy of consideration, until you can provide evidence.
gigantibyte 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
Just a bit on my perspective. Please point out any flaws in my logic. I accept evolution as the best explanation for the human species. We came about naturally, on a planet that was formed naturally with the solar system, which is part of a naturally forming galaxy. Seems to me that the default position, is to also think the universe was created naturally until proven otherwise. No leap of faith required.
gigantibyte 2 years ago
@gigantibyte,
Agreed. We live in a universe of physical laws. The default position must be to look for an answer within those laws, before considering anything outside. And we haven't yet finished the former...
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
That may not seem problematic, but let's discuss the following Philosophical issues that insue: Why something rather than nothing at all? Is there purpose? Is there any real morals? While no faith is involved in that, what then is driving our living?
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
@mrjosephbell,
A small interjection there - I question your assumption that our creation by some entity obliges us to recognise that entity. Why?
I also question your assumption that it created us for the purpose of being recognised. Can you elaborate on these?
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
I begin with the following premise: If the necessary and sufficient conditions for spawning the universe were present from eternity, the effect would also be present from eternity. It's impossible to explain how the sufficient conditions could exist timelessly and not also have the effect equally copresent. The only way that a temporal effect could arise from an eternal cause is if the cause is a free, personal agent, able to freely create the universe without antecedent determining conditions.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
If you accept that premise, let the following question burn in you: why would some being will the universe into existence?
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
@mrjosephbell,
Exactly. Why would "some being" will the universe into existence? You propose that it was done in order to be recognised? What do you mean by recognised?
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the next two comments under this and tell me what you think?
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
Remember, I was just speculating that the conditions were eternal. But if we assume a multiverse, I tend to think of it as a glass of carbonated soda - where each bubble is a different universe. Once a bubble forms, new conditions exist inside the bubble, different than those that created it. Now imagine the bubble is expanding at the speed of light, and you are inside the bubble. You would never see the conditions that created the bubble, without some scifi tech. Impossible is more likely.
gigantibyte 2 years ago
(I John 4:10). We begin at the real beginning, with love as the Divine energy. This love is Gift-love. In God there is no hunger that needs to be filled, only plenteousness that desires to give. The doctrine that God was under no necessity to create is not a piece of dry scholastic speculation. It is essential. Without it, we can hardly avoid the conception of what I can only call a "manager" God; a Being whose function or nature is to "run" the universe.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
But to be sovereign of the universe is no great matter to God. God, who needs nothing, loves into existence wholly superfluous creatures in order that He may love and perfect them. He creates the universe. If I may dare use the biological image, God is a "host" who deliberately creates His own parasites; causes us to be that we may exploit and "take advantage of Him. Herein is love. This is the diagram of Love Himself, the inventor of all loves.
mrjosephbell 2 years ago
Does it go against science? YES. Does it go against logic? YES.
What you are doing is defaulting to an answer that has NEVER been observed or supported by any experimentation whatsoever.
We don't know what started the universe, but there was time when an eternal entity also was behind lightning, thunder, reproduction, the sun, but historically, it all has a naturalistic answer, every time.
ChaseKittens 2 years ago
Dawkins, I'm absolutely enthralled by everything so you. Keep it up!
redlightklondike 2 years ago
If we had all the answers to the universe , then science woulnt exist , because there is nothing to study :P
cyberdaemon 2 years ago
good point. Yeah that's the thing with all this stuff. Does Dawkins understand that so called "theistic" thought, or spiritual thought, whatever you want to call it, is really just holsim, just moving beyond the minds activity of manipulating symbols and descriptions into a more total experience? I'm not putting him down, there's lots of dumb religious people, but real esoteric spiritual thought is about tracing things back to first causes.
Will1471987 2 years ago
If there is such thing as "first cause" and i think that holism is pretty damn valid way of seeing this universe too.
cyberdaemon 2 years ago
I wouldn't equate "theistic" thought with holism or esoteric spiritual thought. Not the same thing.
BTNH24 2 years ago
dawkins understands more than will85647474754786596797 does
dumbnetworks 2 years ago
You're not bitter because you don't agree with what he says. You're bitter, and a hypocrite, because (and you say provide some intelligent and persuasive arguments) you attack his character, rather than providing a logical, intelligent response to what was said.
silencesoloud12 2 years ago 3
You couldn't be more right !
AuToSn1Pe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why am I getting so many thumbs down? I don't even remember what my comment said... I'm even theist you retards.....
braino2000 2 years ago
1. Your comment is right below, figure out how to display it.
2. It says you're agnostic. Now, 1 month later you seem to define yourself a theist?
3. Calling other viewers retards won't give this comment any thumbs up either.
HiAdrian 2 years ago
Excuse that mistake :) I meant to say I'm NOT even a theist.
Please, no one assume that I hold a theist stance!!
braino2000 2 years ago
Ok then, typos happen.
Anyway, people seem to strongly disagree with your comment. I find Hitchens to be obnoxious too, but Sam Harris is great imo. Dawkins is a bit of an uptight person, but i'd argue his intellectual qualities make up for that.
HiAdrian 2 years ago
BTW, its Atheist not a theist
RapidNova 2 years ago