It is not possible to have the firmist and fairest of perspectives on matters such as these, until you can understand that faith is believing without knowing.
People who do not know who this man is should really look at his CV. On the surface, it is easy to see him as a typical apologist here but the Big Bang question IS an interesting one. Stephen Hawking said that it was like asking what was south of the south pole,but all the answers are just as frustratingly circular as answers from apologists to other Qs. At least until some ongoing speculation and investigation into it. There's no point in saying that there's no point in asking this question.
The big bang did happen by itself. but that still does not answer every question. Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING? therefore, a God. most likely the Holy God revealed through Jesus.
Science cannot explain the Big Bang - it has INVENTED Dark Matter and Dark Energy (unobserved hypothetical concepts) which make up a HUGH 96% of the universe, created simply to make the Big Bang equations work in understanding the OBSERVED gravitational effects in space and increased movement of galaxies respectively.
@MrAliyak How many atheists have conducted experiments to show DNA assembling it self.. Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins! and how would the big bang be produced from NOTHING!
Francis - your Bible tells you what happens when you die - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:16-18
@MrAliyak How many atheists have conducted experiments to show DNA assembling it self.. Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins! and how would the big bang be produced from NOTHING!
@BlongBarble - Is there more to the physical world than what we know? Of course there is - because we haven't learned EVERYthing, and likely never will. Saying that there is more TO the physical world is not the same as saying that there is more THAN the physical world.
There is no reason (other than ignorance to all that we don't know) to believe that there is more THAN just the natural, physical world. Your mind & your spirit are products of your physical brain.
Thats the problem with Dawkins, he doesn't understand simple logical concepts like Faith. Faith does not have to be blind. I Have faith that my paycheck will be wired to me Friday, it has not happened yet so its possible it wont, but the evidence leads me to believe it will.
@lion575 How many atheists have conducted experiments to show DNA assembling it self.. Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins! and how would the big bang be produced from NOTHING!
@lion575 Presumptions based on evidence and past experience is what science is. Using your past experience with receiving your paycheck, you effectively have performed repeated experiments to conclude that it's reasonable you will receive your next one. If you want to call that "faith", that's fine - but when Dawkins talks about faith, he's specifically talking about faith without evidence and that within religion it's actually *more* virtuous to have this kind of faith.
@hughJ25 It would take more faith to conclude A Physical System, with 4 fundamental forces (electromagnetic fields, weak interaction, strong interaction, and gravitation) and fixed constants, spontaneously created itself, than it would to conclude the universe has intelligence behind its design. Hence the reason you don't find very many Atheist Scientists out there.
@lion575 If you're trying to argue that the reason most scientists are not atheists is due to coming to a rational conclusion, then those scientists should be deists rather than theists. There are no logical steps that have you arrive at one of the books being holy or significant. Collins is a theist because he had an religious experience seeing a waterfall split in three and drew a parallel to christian theology - not because of the proposed rationality of a creator rather than none.
@hughJ25 "If you're trying to argue that the reason most scientists are not atheists is due to coming to a rational conclusion, then those scientists should be deists rather than theists."
Agreed - whats your point? Based solely on scientific evidence no rational mind would come to the conclusion of Atheism. Thats why it is absolutely ridiculous when someone argues that science disproves religion. As an actual scientist who has taught at the university level, I find it insulting.
@lion575 My point is that your example of there being few atheist scientists is meaningless, because much of those theist scientists (including Collins) did not reach their theistic world view through deductive reasoning, but either through childhood "education" and indoctrination, or by spiritual experiences, neither of which are in anyway propped up by rational or logical deduction. Those deductions come *after* they've already committed themselves to the proposition.
@hughJ25 Sad atheists, They believe the universe created itself from NOTHING! and the INFORMATION inside DNA wrote itself!! Atheists need to learn Homochirality! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@5tonyvvvv Atheists don't "believe" the universe created itself from nothing. The problem that an atheist would have with the divine creator explanation, is that it ends up dragging a whole lot of superstitious, nonsensical baggage along with it to the discussion. It also brings forward a whole host of questions that most theists would reject without consideration due to their dogmatic beliefs. Maybe it's more than one creator? Maybe it/they are indifferent to human existence?
@hughJ25 What produced the energy for the big bang? and how was it set in motion? How did the first atom form? If atheists dont believe something from nothing like what Collins says, then Atheists believe Matter, Energy, and time always existed! and I would not dismiss Jesus christ as just mythology!
@5tonyvvvv I could actually discuss or even expand on those questions, but as I said before, it's really not worth while trying to have a sensible conversation with someone who has already made up their mind based on superstition and dogma. That's the sad part in asking those questions; they are very interesting questions within the domain of cosmology and are well worth discussing, but here they are representative of an "ah ha, gotcha!", rather than a genuine inquisitive desire to understand.
@hughJ25 There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is often a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God. Antony flew and Collins followed logic, viewed all the evidence with no prejudice! The finely tuned universe and The INFORMATION inside proteins, Homochirality and DNA is what changed them!! But let me guess you know more then them right!
@5tonyvvvv The problem with arguing with theists is that they're generally tethered to their assertion of the existence of a personal God that they've come to be familiar with through their religion. That sort of tether does not exist for an atheist. I'm more than open to talking sensibly about evidence suggesting the need for a creator. But I can only do that with people who are able to be equally sensible and discard their grip on mythology that is clearly the product of man.
@lion575 I would also say that the general thrust of your argument is really nothing more than the common religious practice of inserting God where there are gaps in scientific understanding. If we were having this discussion a thousand years ago, your argument would also include how the Earth and Sun came to exist without a creator, you would point to the apparent 'design' of living things, and the natural order in which they live. Science has explained these things in great detail now...
@lion575 ...so it's only reasonable to assume that the present gaps in our understanding regarding the initial state of the Universe (present Big Bang Theory does not go back to the very beginning) will gradually erode, and the spookiness and apparent design that you see in the Universe will continue to erode as it has ever since humans started to educate themselves about the world around them.
@hughJ25 "so it's only reasonable to assume that the present gaps in our understanding regarding the initial state of the Universe "
If you want to be taken seriously I would avoid quoting Richard Dawkins. He has a degree in Evolutionary Biology (which is categorization, a lot like archeology). He has no understanding of Math or Physics and really isn't a reputable source.
@lion575 I wasn't quoting anyone, it's a deduction that anyone can make. We're talking about the fringe of scientific understanding, and you can take any point in the history of science and draw the parallels where what seemed not knowable, testable, or understandable ended up being the domain of God, only to be later explained, or at the very least better understood for which further questions could then be asked.
@hughJ25 If you asked Stephen Hawking he would tell you those mysteries will never be solvable since your operating from within the physical system (you cant measure the outside of a fish tank from within it and you cant measure 3dimensions if your a 2d object). His quote was we've reached a wall with this search. Additionally origins of the Universe are hardly the only gaps. Their are still huge evolutionary gaps that exist (consciousness, morality, determinism to name a few).
@lion575 An extra dimensional object could most certainly be represented through mathematics. It may not be intuitive to the subject, but the language can be formulated to describe it and make falsifiable predictions. As for Hawking (or any 'authority'), I would be hesitant at concluding what we can or can't accomplish. Especially when you consider the fact that many of history's greatest scientists have incorrectly made similar proclamations, and abandoning further research because of it.
@lion575 Sad atheists, They believe the universe created itself from NOTHING! and the INFORMATION inside DNA wrote itself!! Atheists need to learn Homochirality! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
Relions' facination with sex and death. They cannot accept death so they being in faith. Sad but true that they cannot accpect the reality of the world we live in.
it's funny that a bunch of fools are leaving dumb comments and telling Dr Collins what to do "stick to the lab" or "do this" or "do that" like they are someone. The guy has the right to think and believe whatever he wants for crying out loud. and for goodness's sake he was an atheist as well. what's wrong with a little experimentation? hitchens was homo atheist.. no one seems to mind.. let this guy be a God believing atheist for crying out loud if this is what he wants..
I think its is just utterly dumb to talk about the "natural" world, since it is the world. there is nothing to prove och provide grounds for the existance of any other world, so, discussing the supernatural is ridicoulus. Science provides evidence for everything that is relevent in our universe, and to even have the notion that you will go somewhere after death is poposterous, only fools talk about things that is unrelevant.
No matter what credential someone may have: When this person starts a sentence with "I believe ...", you can be absolutely sure you're about to hear the most outrageous and mind insulting crap you could ever wish for.
If he had studied or just read up on the big bang he should know that it doesn't make any sense to talk about what happened before the big bang. When you study the physics of the early universe, seconds after the big bang, the mathematics of time and space break down such that the term "time" has no meaning as we know it. Also, virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time in the vacuum of space. Study the Casmir Effect. This was a fail.
Just because you cant explain how the big bang happened, doesnt mean there is a god. If I'm in my basement and its not raining outside it would be stupid of me to assume there is sunshine and not snow. Extremely dumb statement by Mr Collins who is a great scientist. Stick to the labs Mr Collins.
The problem with his "small circle on the larger table" analogy is that, paradoxically, it causes people to think "ah, now I've found a shortcut to knowing everything else on that table".
Having said that, as an atheist, I'd rather people think about their faith in the way he does than not thinking at all.
The issue is not whether there are any, but to what proportion.
The evidence is that they clearly don't. More than half of Americans do not accept the evidence for evolution, and most Muslims in Islamic countries don't, despite having a good history philosophical argument. And despite John Paul II's statement that evolution is not at all contradicting the Bible, witness how the Church quickly jumped in support of ID. We don't know the pedo pope's views on this either.
I am confused of this guy. he has proven the God exist in the human Genome and DNA but seems to be this God that he discovered is a God who is unaccountable of his creation
@pplus0440 well he actually didn't map anything cause real scientists did. He was the coordinator of many scientists who actually did the job. Anyone could have done this, even you I guess. Instead of appealing to authority you shoud think more about the absurdity of your heroe's claims in this crazy interview. Try to judge arguments instead of people and probably your comments will stop being silly, idiot and uninformed
@aloh86 can you kindly direct me to the god of this religion you've called scientism? Can you kindly direct me to its commandments, rites, doctrines, preachers, and supernatural elements?
@martyaus2905 Atheists believe something came from NOTHING!! LOL! The Universe created it self with enough Time matter and energy! This Universe is finely tuned! Then molecules assembled them selves! Homochirality is a disaster for atheism! This is what led Frances collins to leave atheism!
Dr. Collins, as an intelligent as he is, I'd ask him if he believes in the resurrection of Jebus, then I'd ask him, what is the natural process of a body once dead, I mean, after an animal dies, its body starts to decompose, does he believe that natural laws stopped for this event?
Hmmmm. You get the greatest of scientists and when they turn religious, their arguments are just as bad as the least intelligent of believers. Who on earth, in the modern world says "I know there's no God". That's really not the way the word "atheist" is being used nowadays. I like how he makes a general argument for the existence of ANY god, so it's a reasonable argument BUT himself is a christian. He should ammend his argument to the likelihood of the christian god is in a tiny tiny circle
@GodTheHypothesis I'm 24 years old...and I understand the Universe better than this man! His arguments are necessarily weak...
But compared to my understanding...his reason is inferior.
I can't believe he can use the word Faith....except in the example he used pertaining to knowledge...
But Faith is such a stupid argument. I can define in almost certain terms, that the Universe is an Organism...and that Universal Consciousness is a real thing...it's about understanding the Universe thoroughly
@WayneLynch69 Atheists believe something came from NOTHING! The universe created its self! LOL!! Its ABSURD! and it takes FAITH to believe that! Atheists believe the universe always was here. Thats impossible! Matter and energy is not eternal! It must have a beginning and a source! The universe is finely tuned, because it was CREATED!!
@WayneLynch69 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
Id like to ask a question of Collins or someone that thinks like him if available.
Listen to that section about evolution and the "god" around 7:50.
Would a loving caring creature create a system where the weak are preyed upon and consumed for nourishment by predators? Would a caring loving all powerful creature come up with a better system?
If you are asserting a "god" i would say this is evidence for that "god" to be sadistic or uncaring at best.
When you say that the "god" is supernatural and therefore outside of science you are making a false claim.
This would only be true only if the "god" or spirit you are asserting does not interact with the natural in any way. The moment it interacts with reality we can measure it . Therefore the only supernatural that is outside science is that which does not interact with reality.
If there where such a "god" or gods that do not interact with reality we would have no notion of them.
It's amazing that most of the bone-heads here do follow Science almost as blindly as the Fundamentalists they claim are ignorant and arrogant. That you fail to understand Faith and the Amazing things that we can accomplish when we allow both sides to speak w/o Demonization, is what boggles my Mind. Morons. It's funny that most Atheists are more shrill and doggedly persistent than many religious folk?! How they love to stomp their feet and pretend to be in an elite society which knows better
"That you fail to understand Faith and the Amazing things that we can accomplish when we allow both sides to speak w/o Demonization, is what boggles my Mind. Morons."
LOL.
Talk about being hypocritical.
Ps, Provide evidence for your beliefs, not just demonizing of those that dont believe it.
2) Since I have no scientific evidence of God, God can't exist.
What in your infinite scientific realm of knowledge would make you think the "natural" laws of science would have the ability to provide scientific evidence for God, give that God is "supernatural"?
Collins point is simple. If you possess all of the knowledge that there is to possess and have not discovered evidence of God, then go ahead and profess it. If not, don't dismiss the possibility,
@tetoncustomgolf according to your logic, a Unicorn is just as likely to exist as your god. Well of course you will argue that no bible was written by a Unicorn. It is precisely because you claim god to be the author of your bible that your religion is falsifiable. For example, there's not even an iota of proof for any of the miracles alluded to in the bible. Your religion is therefore firmly grounded on make-believe. You are of course welcome to it, but quit making it out to be true.
@boecxyec According to my logic a unicorn is just as likely to exist? So what? Nobody's talking about God writing a bible. We're talking about the plausibility of the existence of a God. You're logic is pathetically childish: I have no evidence for a God (or Unicorn for that matter), there fore God must not exist (since I possess all knowledge ever to be obtained). Really??? That's astonishingly closed minded and quite convenient for those who don't want to believe in a deity.
@tetoncustomgolf childish is your incessant clinging to a "god" blanket. I'm not interested in what imaginary friends you could conjure up in your mind. If there's no proof, that thing might as well not exist.
@boecxyec I'd be curious as to understand how you concluded that the simple acknowledgment that a god exists is somehow "clinging to a god blanket."
My guess is we will agree on the following: Science will never prove the existence of God. As Collins indicates, Science is governed by laws of nature and God is a supernatural being.
As long as atheists have a desire to be incredulous, they will remain that way.
@tetoncustomgolf I shell simply conclude by stating that that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Your god falls squarely in such category.
@boecxyec I won't argue with that, although the United States Court System sees otherwise. They often convict people of murder without ever finding a body. Circumstantial evidence, I guess ;)
My only point is it seems a bit short sighted in a situation similar to yours, to assume the position of atheism as opposed to that of agnosticism....unless of course you don't want to believe. Then it makes perfect sense. That's all.
@tetoncustomgolf well it's actually not the case that i refuse to believe. There's just no evidence to go on. Given evidence i'll be first one to jump on the religious bandwagon.
@boecxyec Believing in God isn't easy. One has to WANT to believe in Him. As long as you are looking for scientific evidence of something that cannot be scientifically proven, you need to ask yourself if you even want to believe.
The whole belief in God thing doesn't work like anything else. Convictions and belief come after a leap of faith, not before. Like I said, it's certainly not a straightforward scientific deal, but the reward is pretty unlike any other.
@tetoncustomgolf well, at least you are the rare honest faith believer to admit that. I completely understand your position as I too spent formative and adult years of my life in Christian faith. It was only when I first began to think for myself that I realized that faith alone couldn't cut it. On a whole, it was plainly evident that indeed men had created God and not vice versa. Peace my friend.
@boecxyec I completely respect and understand that. I too, find it somewhat silly when "believers" point to science to justify their beliefs when the reality of the matter is their belief system is based entirely on faith. Do I believe that the order of the cosmos was organized and put into place by Diety? Absolutely. Is it the foundation for my belief system? Nope. That would be faith. Thanks for the nice chat. All the best for you and yours.
As brilliant as this man is he's doing the same thing that all religious people do... "We don't know the exact cause of existence, so I'm going to fill in the gaps with hearsay. I will than devote my life to this unprovable nonsense in the hopes that I may have won the cosmic lottery by being right"
And the fact that he's a scientist who thinks this way is mind boggling. The whole point of science is to look for the cause by seeking facts and evidence, not fill in the gaps with "magic"
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.
"the idea of god" is plausible because there are no evidences or they need no evidences at all, then you can replace that " the idea of god" into anything else you like, simply claim that it's spiritual and it will get away with it.
Ultimately, a person who wants to believe will believe. He cannot reconcile his faith (which requires that one put down physical evidence) with his physical and material scientific inquiry. Ultimately, he makes a lot of leaps in here, including the whole "nothing from nothing" (which Lawrence Krauss has discussed quite brilliantly in his book). He is also still relying on a god of the gaps on various issues, especially where he is not specialized in. He believes, that is enough for his senses.
Collins' argument is simply that he does not understand stuff about the universe and substitutes god did it for his own ignorance, which is not only ignorance, it is arrogance and stupidity.
Maybe Dr. Collins was a 'STRONG ATHEIST' as he describes, certain that no God exists, but the vast majority of atheists today are what he would call, 'WEAK ATHEISTS.'
@sulljoh1 I would argue the very opposite. Today, it is the religious that are growing more and more confused and "weak". This is part of the reason for the rise of fundamentalism. People end up going radical when faced with the issues of modernity, which question their old beliefs. If anything, the radical religious nature of modern America show that Americans are beginning to doubt. A person who truly believes does not care... I know, my grandmother was a devout Christian.
@Ermal8711 interesting idea, but I was referring to strong and weak atheist as Dr Collins and others describe: where a strong atheist is defined as being sure that there is no god, and a weak atheist just sees no positive evidence for a god.
@TheTufty22 You have a fair point. Really. This idea kept me from calling myself an atheist for years. But I discovered that almost nobody who calls themselves an atheist today is certain that God doesn't exist. (13 year old atheists aside)
@TheTufty22 Technically that's true. I am technically agnostic about the thousands of gods people have believed in since the Egyptians. I'm technically agnostic about invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and tea pots in orbit around mars also. Being a "Strong A-teapostis" like a "Strong Atheist" is probably not a logically defensible position, as Dr. Collins explains.
The Big Bang does not prove the existence of God, but makes a belief in God very reasonable. It seems to me that a belief in an intelligent being that designed the universe is defensible and really as good an explanation as any.
@jamaicanification Many a time the word stupid just means faithead-which no wonder he is. He has mischaracterised atheist in his interview with DJ Grothe at CFI. This guy asserts that the question of God is not a scientific question!! No wonder he can harbour belief in god and evolution without complaining mental-indigestion.
As far as heading the human genome project, i am sure there were many more scientist, some more able than him, to lead this project....he happen to be there by chance.
@raniisc14 and im sure if dawkins had american citizenship and he were heading the human genome project, you atheists would be screaming your pants of for joy, and not be so dismissive. Sigh......again the double standard......
@TheisticThinker Science is all you have. "In what freakin way can you analyze God by Science?": by analysing the freakiness of his (Gods's) preachings (Bible/Koran etc) and by studying those who claim to be in constant touch with the monster called god.
How is is position more justified? We could have a debate about the existance of a supernatural, but only the most arrogant blowhard would say that he had "proof" for the existance of his god.
Denying the existing of GOD is arrogant. The more you truly research the mysteries in the world, the 'exceptions' to all the rules, the inexplicability of so much of our universe ... I would rather believe in GOD and be wrong than to NOT believe in GOD and be wrong. Think about that and read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.
nope it doesn't, and its perfectly fine because that's your point of view and i respect that.......and thus you shouldn't really say that the statement "there is a God" is stupid either because that's being very disrespectful.
Unexplained curiosity explains Dawkins Stupidity!....Yup, Richard Dawkins is a stupid biologist, too sad he's in to Biology, are biologists less.....intellectual?
This man alone should be a subject to the neurobiological research. How is it humanly possible to have such mind diversity, contain within one human being?
He simultaneously believes in two opposite ideas! Him, being a good scientists, he doesn't see the discrepancy in his opinions.
Prof. Dawkins mentions this man from time to time, as an unexplained curiosity of the human beliefs.
@ClamCrunchy - D-evolution requires far more 'faith' than believe in GOD. Natural selection is not evolution. There is not one occurance of 'new' information happening in any form of life - mutation is not a form of evolution because mutation usually results in disease or hampers the life that is mutated or turns it into a danger to life around it therefore it usually means death. Ask yourself why DNA is 'breaking' down generation to generation. One would assume expanding DNA would result.
@InnkeeperCody C'mon bro, you really think evolution is a hoax or is false? Scientists would have found this out by now and abandoned or modified the theory. Mutations can duplicate, shuffle and rearrange genes in all kids of ways, and sometimes even entire genomes can be duplicated naturally, as occurs in plant life. Also, sometimes organisms can integrate the genomes of over organisms into their own genome: Lynn Margulis has written about this in her book Aquring Genomes.
@InnkeeperCody Read up before telling experts in a field you know nothing about that they're all wrong. I'm going to be honest with you, and I'm not trying to be offensive. But it's clear that you don't know very much about biology, and that you don't understand even the basics of the theory you're attacking. There's a reason why biologists decided 150 years ago, most of them against their personal religious beliefs, that evolution is true. You might be interested to find out why.
I don't see any cognitive dissonance with his viewpoint, he is making an epistemological distinction between scientific naturalism and the wider metaphysical possibilities of creation. He considers ontology incapable of explaining itself so to speak, which I think is perfectly rational.
@MrJurekGG The point he's making is that reason and faith are NOT opposite ideas, just different perspectives of the same universe, different tool sets. How can we claim no God when we understand only a minuscule portion of the universe? The puzzlement arrives when we deduce that our inherently limited sensual experience of existence is conclusively complete.
@MrJurekGG Exactly! He has contradicting views. Even the host is puzzled and questioning how he could possibly assume he knows something that he does nto know...like every other clueless, ignorant theist....but this guy is a scientist. He wants to believe so bad that he creates reasons to validate his "faith" but is cannot be done...No one knows whether there is a god or not a god....and the fact that every religion has absolutely no evidence makes it highly unlikely
Scientific world view and Spiritual world view as compatible? Its already been done for over 2000 years in Buddhism.
DJmixmastermicro 3 hours ago
Craig Venter is the greater of the two... he mapped the human genome of his own bat... without government funding.
hawkinscraig05 2 weeks ago
Proud to be a christian and future medical doctor :)
sammyjs1983 3 weeks ago
@sammyjs1983 Fail.
MakeGyoza 2 weeks ago
It is not possible to have the firmist and fairest of perspectives on matters such as these, until you can understand that faith is believing without knowing.
wearyourseatbelt 3 weeks ago
People who do not know who this man is should really look at his CV. On the surface, it is easy to see him as a typical apologist here but the Big Bang question IS an interesting one. Stephen Hawking said that it was like asking what was south of the south pole,but all the answers are just as frustratingly circular as answers from apologists to other Qs. At least until some ongoing speculation and investigation into it. There's no point in saying that there's no point in asking this question.
StrummingSparrow 3 weeks ago
The big bang did happen by itself. but that still does not answer every question. Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING? therefore, a God. most likely the Holy God revealed through Jesus.
kubrox91 4 weeks ago
DNA=LANGUAGE CODE FROM GOD!!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
Science cannot explain the Big Bang - it has INVENTED Dark Matter and Dark Energy (unobserved hypothetical concepts) which make up a HUGH 96% of the universe, created simply to make the Big Bang equations work in understanding the OBSERVED gravitational effects in space and increased movement of galaxies respectively.
MrAliyak 1 month ago
@MrAliyak How many atheists have conducted experiments to show DNA assembling it self.. Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins! and how would the big bang be produced from NOTHING!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
Francis - your Bible tells you what happens when you die - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:16-18
MrAliyak 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAliyak How many atheists have conducted experiments to show DNA assembling it self.. Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins! and how would the big bang be produced from NOTHING!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@BlongBarble - Is there more to the physical world than what we know? Of course there is - because we haven't learned EVERYthing, and likely never will. Saying that there is more TO the physical world is not the same as saying that there is more THAN the physical world.
There is no reason (other than ignorance to all that we don't know) to believe that there is more THAN just the natural, physical world. Your mind & your spirit are products of your physical brain.
MrKeenoRossi 1 month ago
@BlongBlarble It's hardly worth having an argument with you about this on youtube.
DraconionDevil 1 month ago
Thats the problem with Dawkins, he doesn't understand simple logical concepts like Faith. Faith does not have to be blind. I Have faith that my paycheck will be wired to me Friday, it has not happened yet so its possible it wont, but the evidence leads me to believe it will.
lion575 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lion575 How many atheists have conducted experiments to show DNA assembling it self.. Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins! and how would the big bang be produced from NOTHING!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@lion575 Presumptions based on evidence and past experience is what science is. Using your past experience with receiving your paycheck, you effectively have performed repeated experiments to conclude that it's reasonable you will receive your next one. If you want to call that "faith", that's fine - but when Dawkins talks about faith, he's specifically talking about faith without evidence and that within religion it's actually *more* virtuous to have this kind of faith.
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
@hughJ25 It would take more faith to conclude A Physical System, with 4 fundamental forces (electromagnetic fields, weak interaction, strong interaction, and gravitation) and fixed constants, spontaneously created itself, than it would to conclude the universe has intelligence behind its design. Hence the reason you don't find very many Atheist Scientists out there.
lion575 3 weeks ago
@lion575 If you're trying to argue that the reason most scientists are not atheists is due to coming to a rational conclusion, then those scientists should be deists rather than theists. There are no logical steps that have you arrive at one of the books being holy or significant. Collins is a theist because he had an religious experience seeing a waterfall split in three and drew a parallel to christian theology - not because of the proposed rationality of a creator rather than none.
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
@hughJ25 "If you're trying to argue that the reason most scientists are not atheists is due to coming to a rational conclusion, then those scientists should be deists rather than theists."
Agreed - whats your point? Based solely on scientific evidence no rational mind would come to the conclusion of Atheism. Thats why it is absolutely ridiculous when someone argues that science disproves religion. As an actual scientist who has taught at the university level, I find it insulting.
lion575 3 weeks ago
@lion575 My point is that your example of there being few atheist scientists is meaningless, because much of those theist scientists (including Collins) did not reach their theistic world view through deductive reasoning, but either through childhood "education" and indoctrination, or by spiritual experiences, neither of which are in anyway propped up by rational or logical deduction. Those deductions come *after* they've already committed themselves to the proposition.
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
@hughJ25 Sad atheists, They believe the universe created itself from NOTHING! and the INFORMATION inside DNA wrote itself!! Atheists need to learn Homochirality! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 3 weeks ago
@5tonyvvvv Atheists don't "believe" the universe created itself from nothing. The problem that an atheist would have with the divine creator explanation, is that it ends up dragging a whole lot of superstitious, nonsensical baggage along with it to the discussion. It also brings forward a whole host of questions that most theists would reject without consideration due to their dogmatic beliefs. Maybe it's more than one creator? Maybe it/they are indifferent to human existence?
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
@hughJ25 What produced the energy for the big bang? and how was it set in motion? How did the first atom form? If atheists dont believe something from nothing like what Collins says, then Atheists believe Matter, Energy, and time always existed! and I would not dismiss Jesus christ as just mythology!
5tonyvvvv 3 weeks ago
@5tonyvvvv I could actually discuss or even expand on those questions, but as I said before, it's really not worth while trying to have a sensible conversation with someone who has already made up their mind based on superstition and dogma. That's the sad part in asking those questions; they are very interesting questions within the domain of cosmology and are well worth discussing, but here they are representative of an "ah ha, gotcha!", rather than a genuine inquisitive desire to understand.
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
@hughJ25 You would explain them as ASSUMPTIONS like what most atheists do!
5tonyvvvv 3 weeks ago
@5tonyvvvv Observations and hypotheses. Now I think you're just trolling. Have a nice day.
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hughJ25 There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is often a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God. Antony flew and Collins followed logic, viewed all the evidence with no prejudice! The finely tuned universe and The INFORMATION inside proteins, Homochirality and DNA is what changed them!! But let me guess you know more then them right!
5tonyvvvv 3 weeks ago
@5tonyvvvv The problem with arguing with theists is that they're generally tethered to their assertion of the existence of a personal God that they've come to be familiar with through their religion. That sort of tether does not exist for an atheist. I'm more than open to talking sensibly about evidence suggesting the need for a creator. But I can only do that with people who are able to be equally sensible and discard their grip on mythology that is clearly the product of man.
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
@lion575 I would also say that the general thrust of your argument is really nothing more than the common religious practice of inserting God where there are gaps in scientific understanding. If we were having this discussion a thousand years ago, your argument would also include how the Earth and Sun came to exist without a creator, you would point to the apparent 'design' of living things, and the natural order in which they live. Science has explained these things in great detail now...
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
@lion575 ...so it's only reasonable to assume that the present gaps in our understanding regarding the initial state of the Universe (present Big Bang Theory does not go back to the very beginning) will gradually erode, and the spookiness and apparent design that you see in the Universe will continue to erode as it has ever since humans started to educate themselves about the world around them.
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
@hughJ25 "so it's only reasonable to assume that the present gaps in our understanding regarding the initial state of the Universe "
If you want to be taken seriously I would avoid quoting Richard Dawkins. He has a degree in Evolutionary Biology (which is categorization, a lot like archeology). He has no understanding of Math or Physics and really isn't a reputable source.
lion575 3 weeks ago
@lion575 I wasn't quoting anyone, it's a deduction that anyone can make. We're talking about the fringe of scientific understanding, and you can take any point in the history of science and draw the parallels where what seemed not knowable, testable, or understandable ended up being the domain of God, only to be later explained, or at the very least better understood for which further questions could then be asked.
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
@hughJ25 If you asked Stephen Hawking he would tell you those mysteries will never be solvable since your operating from within the physical system (you cant measure the outside of a fish tank from within it and you cant measure 3dimensions if your a 2d object). His quote was we've reached a wall with this search. Additionally origins of the Universe are hardly the only gaps. Their are still huge evolutionary gaps that exist (consciousness, morality, determinism to name a few).
lion575 3 weeks ago
@lion575 An extra dimensional object could most certainly be represented through mathematics. It may not be intuitive to the subject, but the language can be formulated to describe it and make falsifiable predictions. As for Hawking (or any 'authority'), I would be hesitant at concluding what we can or can't accomplish. Especially when you consider the fact that many of history's greatest scientists have incorrectly made similar proclamations, and abandoning further research because of it.
hughJ25 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lion575 Sad atheists, They believe the universe created itself from NOTHING! and the INFORMATION inside DNA wrote itself!! Atheists need to learn Homochirality! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 3 weeks ago
Relions' facination with sex and death. They cannot accept death so they being in faith. Sad but true that they cannot accpect the reality of the world we live in.
Futureplanet 1 month ago
I just ate a sandwich
CatFacedKillers 1 month ago
it's funny that a bunch of fools are leaving dumb comments and telling Dr Collins what to do "stick to the lab" or "do this" or "do that" like they are someone. The guy has the right to think and believe whatever he wants for crying out loud. and for goodness's sake he was an atheist as well. what's wrong with a little experimentation? hitchens was homo atheist.. no one seems to mind.. let this guy be a God believing atheist for crying out loud if this is what he wants..
livisda 2 months ago
I think its is just utterly dumb to talk about the "natural" world, since it is the world. there is nothing to prove och provide grounds for the existance of any other world, so, discussing the supernatural is ridicoulus. Science provides evidence for everything that is relevent in our universe, and to even have the notion that you will go somewhere after death is poposterous, only fools talk about things that is unrelevant.
RawSwedishMeatball 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video should teach you an important lesson:
No matter what credential someone may have: When this person starts a sentence with "I believe ...", you can be absolutely sure you're about to hear the most outrageous and mind insulting crap you could ever wish for.
sooperfukker 2 months ago
I wish Francis Collins would just leave his science hat on.
RealThinkTank 2 months ago
I can't believe he's using the fine-tuned argument.
DraconionDevil 2 months ago
If he had studied or just read up on the big bang he should know that it doesn't make any sense to talk about what happened before the big bang. When you study the physics of the early universe, seconds after the big bang, the mathematics of time and space break down such that the term "time" has no meaning as we know it. Also, virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time in the vacuum of space. Study the Casmir Effect. This was a fail.
bthegoodwin 2 months ago
this guy is a dipshit. he commits the classic william lane craig fallacy:
1) claim that god is outside of evidence
2) claim that he has examined the evidence and that there is a god.
although a great scientist, collins displays classic cognitive dissonance whenever his pet issue is under attack.
theeyeisblind 2 months ago
Spirituality is grounded in the natural world, just as any other mental phenomenon.
ArcadianGenesis 2 months ago
a big fat god of the gaps argumemnt Im afraid, nice guy tho..
mikhem1962 2 months ago
Just because you cant explain how the big bang happened, doesnt mean there is a god. If I'm in my basement and its not raining outside it would be stupid of me to assume there is sunshine and not snow. Extremely dumb statement by Mr Collins who is a great scientist. Stick to the labs Mr Collins.
GRehillMusic 2 months ago
The problem with his "small circle on the larger table" analogy is that, paradoxically, it causes people to think "ah, now I've found a shortcut to knowing everything else on that table".
Having said that, as an atheist, I'd rather people think about their faith in the way he does than not thinking at all.
kwanarchive 2 months ago
@kwanarchive Well sir many religious people do.
996vtwin2 2 months ago
@996vtwin2
The issue is not whether there are any, but to what proportion.
The evidence is that they clearly don't. More than half of Americans do not accept the evidence for evolution, and most Muslims in Islamic countries don't, despite having a good history philosophical argument. And despite John Paul II's statement that evolution is not at all contradicting the Bible, witness how the Church quickly jumped in support of ID. We don't know the pedo pope's views on this either.
kwanarchive 2 months ago
The religious hook is so damaging.
smartcat001 2 months ago
I am confused of this guy. he has proven the God exist in the human Genome and DNA but seems to be this God that he discovered is a God who is unaccountable of his creation
positivedignity 2 months ago
He knows better. Why does he keep using the word 'evidence' in the wrong context?
manoric82 2 months ago
God made me wise. He asks. Do you wish to exist in pure love forever?
996vtwin2 2 months ago
This guy is really lunatic
71Plastico 2 months ago
@71Plastico ha he mapped the human genome and you smoked a joint after high school. you tell me who's a lunatic
pplus0440 2 months ago
@pplus0440 well he actually didn't map anything cause real scientists did. He was the coordinator of many scientists who actually did the job. Anyone could have done this, even you I guess. Instead of appealing to authority you shoud think more about the absurdity of your heroe's claims in this crazy interview. Try to judge arguments instead of people and probably your comments will stop being silly, idiot and uninformed
71Plastico 2 months ago
Teleological arguments mean NOTHING! The why questions don't imply answers.
GiveCourage 2 months ago
How dare this turd call himself a scientist.
martyaus2905 3 months ago
@martyaus2905 grow up and wake up
MADdwarfWorkshop 3 months ago
@MADdwarfWorkshop no you suck my cock you dumb god believer
martyaus2905 3 months ago
@martyaus2905 What maturity and humility! Thanks for proving my point..
MADdwarfWorkshop 3 months ago
@martyaus2905
Sure, mapping out the human genome and doing it under budget...right, someone like that is a turd.
aloh86 3 months ago
@aloh86 Yes he is because he believes in absolute crap.
martyaus2905 3 months ago
@aloh86 By the way he did not map out the human genome, 2000 scientists did it and he was an administrator.
martyaus2905 3 months ago
@martyaus2905
Right, he was a part of it to...not just administrator. He's a geneticist, not a graduate of a business program.
His beliefs are not crap. You, assuming you're an atheist, believe in a religion to. It's called scientism.
aloh86 2 months ago
@aloh86 can you kindly direct me to the god of this religion you've called scientism? Can you kindly direct me to its commandments, rites, doctrines, preachers, and supernatural elements?
integralmath 2 months ago
@martyaus2905 The leader of the Human Genome Project......... And he isn't a scientist!? lololololololol!!!! You fucking idiot.
chris7777777777777 2 months ago
@chris7777777777777 You think he needs to be a scientist to mean something....lolololol! Who is the idiot?
996vtwin2 2 months ago
@martyaus2905 Atheists believe something came from NOTHING!! LOL! The Universe created it self with enough Time matter and energy! This Universe is finely tuned! Then molecules assembled them selves! Homochirality is a disaster for atheism! This is what led Frances collins to leave atheism!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
this guy demonstrates the difference between book smarts and wisdom to a rediculous degree. lol.
eTernaLBOWLING 3 months ago
Dr. Collins, as an intelligent as he is, I'd ask him if he believes in the resurrection of Jebus, then I'd ask him, what is the natural process of a body once dead, I mean, after an animal dies, its body starts to decompose, does he believe that natural laws stopped for this event?
menriquex 3 months ago in playlist More videos from nicolaupapa11
Fuck me!!!!
bennywright1 3 months ago
Not very convincing arguments from Mr. Collins, but he's definitely my favorite theist out of the entire bunch. He's so respectful and open minded.
AraoftheFunk 3 months ago
Hmmmm. You get the greatest of scientists and when they turn religious, their arguments are just as bad as the least intelligent of believers. Who on earth, in the modern world says "I know there's no God". That's really not the way the word "atheist" is being used nowadays. I like how he makes a general argument for the existence of ANY god, so it's a reasonable argument BUT himself is a christian. He should ammend his argument to the likelihood of the christian god is in a tiny tiny circle
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis I'm 24 years old...and I understand the Universe better than this man! His arguments are necessarily weak...
But compared to my understanding...his reason is inferior.
I can't believe he can use the word Faith....except in the example he used pertaining to knowledge...
But Faith is such a stupid argument. I can define in almost certain terms, that the Universe is an Organism...and that Universal Consciousness is a real thing...it's about understanding the Universe thoroughly
JahElJah 3 months ago
@JahElJah
The universe is an organism? Universal consciousness is real....what on earth are you talking about?
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics: NO heat from cold--heat MUST become cold
NO spontaneous universe--NO eternal universe. What's left?! The universe is accelerating. Is it the same phenomenon? You fucking know NEITHER.
Venter-Miller-Mary Shelly made not a quanta advance in origin of life. Dawkins says "outer-space"..AND HE'S A BIOLOGIST?!
You have NO science--NOTHING. Then claim "science argues atheism"
You're so fucking ignorant, you might believe it.
Fucking BELIEVER!!!!
WayneLynch69 3 months ago
@WayneLynch69 Atheists believe something came from NOTHING! The universe created its self! LOL!! Its ABSURD! and it takes FAITH to believe that! Atheists believe the universe always was here. Thats impossible! Matter and energy is not eternal! It must have a beginning and a source! The universe is finely tuned, because it was CREATED!!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WayneLynch69 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
7:50
Id like to ask a question of Collins or someone that thinks like him if available.
Listen to that section about evolution and the "god" around 7:50.
Would a loving caring creature create a system where the weak are preyed upon and consumed for nourishment by predators? Would a caring loving all powerful creature come up with a better system?
If you are asserting a "god" i would say this is evidence for that "god" to be sadistic or uncaring at best.
qarohc 3 months ago
@qarohc
When you say that the "god" is supernatural and therefore outside of science you are making a false claim.
This would only be true only if the "god" or spirit you are asserting does not interact with the natural in any way. The moment it interacts with reality we can measure it . Therefore the only supernatural that is outside science is that which does not interact with reality.
If there where such a "god" or gods that do not interact with reality we would have no notion of them.
qarohc 3 months ago
It's amazing that most of the bone-heads here do follow Science almost as blindly as the Fundamentalists they claim are ignorant and arrogant. That you fail to understand Faith and the Amazing things that we can accomplish when we allow both sides to speak w/o Demonization, is what boggles my Mind. Morons. It's funny that most Atheists are more shrill and doggedly persistent than many religious folk?! How they love to stomp their feet and pretend to be in an elite society which knows better
katcar6998 3 months ago
@katcar6998
"That you fail to understand Faith and the Amazing things that we can accomplish when we allow both sides to speak w/o Demonization, is what boggles my Mind. Morons."
LOL.
Talk about being hypocritical.
Ps, Provide evidence for your beliefs, not just demonizing of those that dont believe it.
qarohc 3 months ago
lol
cartergj 4 months ago
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
boecxyec 4 months ago
@boecxyec
1) I can't see God
2) Since I have no scientific evidence of God, God can't exist.
What in your infinite scientific realm of knowledge would make you think the "natural" laws of science would have the ability to provide scientific evidence for God, give that God is "supernatural"?
Collins point is simple. If you possess all of the knowledge that there is to possess and have not discovered evidence of God, then go ahead and profess it. If not, don't dismiss the possibility,
tetoncustomgolf 3 months ago
Comment removed
boecxyec 3 months ago
@tetoncustomgolf according to your logic, a Unicorn is just as likely to exist as your god. Well of course you will argue that no bible was written by a Unicorn. It is precisely because you claim god to be the author of your bible that your religion is falsifiable. For example, there's not even an iota of proof for any of the miracles alluded to in the bible. Your religion is therefore firmly grounded on make-believe. You are of course welcome to it, but quit making it out to be true.
boecxyec 3 months ago
@boecxyec According to my logic a unicorn is just as likely to exist? So what? Nobody's talking about God writing a bible. We're talking about the plausibility of the existence of a God. You're logic is pathetically childish: I have no evidence for a God (or Unicorn for that matter), there fore God must not exist (since I possess all knowledge ever to be obtained). Really??? That's astonishingly closed minded and quite convenient for those who don't want to believe in a deity.
tetoncustomgolf 3 months ago
@tetoncustomgolf childish is your incessant clinging to a "god" blanket. I'm not interested in what imaginary friends you could conjure up in your mind. If there's no proof, that thing might as well not exist.
boecxyec 3 months ago
@boecxyec I'd be curious as to understand how you concluded that the simple acknowledgment that a god exists is somehow "clinging to a god blanket."
My guess is we will agree on the following: Science will never prove the existence of God. As Collins indicates, Science is governed by laws of nature and God is a supernatural being.
As long as atheists have a desire to be incredulous, they will remain that way.
tetoncustomgolf 3 months ago
@tetoncustomgolf I shell simply conclude by stating that that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Your god falls squarely in such category.
boecxyec 3 months ago
@boecxyec I won't argue with that, although the United States Court System sees otherwise. They often convict people of murder without ever finding a body. Circumstantial evidence, I guess ;)
My only point is it seems a bit short sighted in a situation similar to yours, to assume the position of atheism as opposed to that of agnosticism....unless of course you don't want to believe. Then it makes perfect sense. That's all.
tetoncustomgolf 3 months ago
@tetoncustomgolf well it's actually not the case that i refuse to believe. There's just no evidence to go on. Given evidence i'll be first one to jump on the religious bandwagon.
boecxyec 3 months ago
@boecxyec Believing in God isn't easy. One has to WANT to believe in Him. As long as you are looking for scientific evidence of something that cannot be scientifically proven, you need to ask yourself if you even want to believe.
The whole belief in God thing doesn't work like anything else. Convictions and belief come after a leap of faith, not before. Like I said, it's certainly not a straightforward scientific deal, but the reward is pretty unlike any other.
tetoncustomgolf 3 months ago
@tetoncustomgolf well, at least you are the rare honest faith believer to admit that. I completely understand your position as I too spent formative and adult years of my life in Christian faith. It was only when I first began to think for myself that I realized that faith alone couldn't cut it. On a whole, it was plainly evident that indeed men had created God and not vice versa. Peace my friend.
boecxyec 3 months ago
@boecxyec I completely respect and understand that. I too, find it somewhat silly when "believers" point to science to justify their beliefs when the reality of the matter is their belief system is based entirely on faith. Do I believe that the order of the cosmos was organized and put into place by Diety? Absolutely. Is it the foundation for my belief system? Nope. That would be faith. Thanks for the nice chat. All the best for you and yours.
tetoncustomgolf 3 months ago
Collin's incredulous logic:
(1) 2+2=4
(2) Think about how improbable that is.
(3) If the universe were left to random chance, 2+2 would probably not equal 4.
(4) Instead, it might be equal to -43, or 7,894,321,695,844, or something else.
(5) Only God could make 2+2=4.
(6) Therefore, God exists.
boecxyec 4 months ago
@boecxyec
If 2=2 where to equal -43
Then only "god" could be responsible for that also.
As a scientist he must realize that a theory that predicts everything and is unfalsifiable is worthless.
qarohc 3 months ago
As brilliant as this man is he's doing the same thing that all religious people do... "We don't know the exact cause of existence, so I'm going to fill in the gaps with hearsay. I will than devote my life to this unprovable nonsense in the hopes that I may have won the cosmic lottery by being right"
And the fact that he's a scientist who thinks this way is mind boggling. The whole point of science is to look for the cause by seeking facts and evidence, not fill in the gaps with "magic"
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 4 months ago
you guys should be a bit more respectfull in your comments!! This guy is almst certainly smarter and more sophisticated then any of us.
oleh2007 4 months ago
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 5 months ago
god speaking in the DNA - there has to be an easier way surely?
aardjazz 5 months ago
"the idea of god" is plausible because there are no evidences or they need no evidences at all, then you can replace that " the idea of god" into anything else you like, simply claim that it's spiritual and it will get away with it.
lazzielazzie 5 months ago
You put Dawkins face on the thumbnail for this vid... effective. I regret the time I wasted watching this.
ZachRose88 5 months ago
Ultimately, a person who wants to believe will believe. He cannot reconcile his faith (which requires that one put down physical evidence) with his physical and material scientific inquiry. Ultimately, he makes a lot of leaps in here, including the whole "nothing from nothing" (which Lawrence Krauss has discussed quite brilliantly in his book). He is also still relying on a god of the gaps on various issues, especially where he is not specialized in. He believes, that is enough for his senses.
Ermal8711 5 months ago
Collins' argument is simply that he does not understand stuff about the universe and substitutes god did it for his own ignorance, which is not only ignorance, it is arrogance and stupidity.
stevehayes13 6 months ago
@stevehayes13 LOL! So the universe created its self from NOTHING!! But let me guess you are smarter than Francis collins! Ok MORON!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
Maybe Dr. Collins was a 'STRONG ATHEIST' as he describes, certain that no God exists, but the vast majority of atheists today are what he would call, 'WEAK ATHEISTS.'
sulljoh1 6 months ago
@sulljoh1 I would argue the very opposite. Today, it is the religious that are growing more and more confused and "weak". This is part of the reason for the rise of fundamentalism. People end up going radical when faced with the issues of modernity, which question their old beliefs. If anything, the radical religious nature of modern America show that Americans are beginning to doubt. A person who truly believes does not care... I know, my grandmother was a devout Christian.
Ermal8711 5 months ago
@Ermal8711 interesting idea, but I was referring to strong and weak atheist as Dr Collins and others describe: where a strong atheist is defined as being sure that there is no god, and a weak atheist just sees no positive evidence for a god.
sulljoh1 5 months ago
@sulljoh1 A "weak" atheist would be an agnostic. If you have no conclusion, then you are undecided, and an agnostic.
TheTufty22 5 months ago
@TheTufty22 You have a fair point. Really. This idea kept me from calling myself an atheist for years. But I discovered that almost nobody who calls themselves an atheist today is certain that God doesn't exist. (13 year old atheists aside)
sulljoh1 5 months ago
@TheTufty22 Technically that's true. I am technically agnostic about the thousands of gods people have believed in since the Egyptians. I'm technically agnostic about invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and tea pots in orbit around mars also. Being a "Strong A-teapostis" like a "Strong Atheist" is probably not a logically defensible position, as Dr. Collins explains.
sulljoh1 5 months ago
The Big Bang does not prove the existence of God, but makes a belief in God very reasonable. It seems to me that a belief in an intelligent being that designed the universe is defensible and really as good an explanation as any.
ClamCrunchy 6 months ago
"This has religious significance", a Hawking quote indeed, but who said religion has to have anything to do with god?
Cannot one believe that 'something' created the universe an omit the carp about god as an identifiable entity?
mnaicck 6 months ago
cool interview, but i still can't agree that there's a god
MoonPisces029 7 months ago
Francis S.(stupid) Collins!
raniisc14 7 months ago
@raniisc14 ohhhh hes so stupid that he was the head of the human genome project. Typical atheistic arrogance.......
jamaicanification 6 months ago
@jamaicanification Many a time the word stupid just means faithead-which no wonder he is. He has mischaracterised atheist in his interview with DJ Grothe at CFI. This guy asserts that the question of God is not a scientific question!! No wonder he can harbour belief in god and evolution without complaining mental-indigestion.
As far as heading the human genome project, i am sure there were many more scientist, some more able than him, to lead this project....he happen to be there by chance.
raniisc14 6 months ago
@raniisc14 and im sure if dawkins had american citizenship and he were heading the human genome project, you atheists would be screaming your pants of for joy, and not be so dismissive. Sigh......again the double standard......
jamaicanification 6 months ago
@raniisc14 Are you nuts? In what freakin way can you analyze God by Science?? Do you even know the definition of what Science is?!
TheisticThinker 6 months ago
@TheisticThinker Science is all you have. "In what freakin way can you analyze God by Science?": by analysing the freakiness of his (Gods's) preachings (Bible/Koran etc) and by studying those who claim to be in constant touch with the monster called god.
raniisc14 6 months ago
Francis Collins must be the most intelligent believing christian in the world
unfad1ng 7 months ago
doublethink
00range 7 months ago
I have never seen a smart man say such stupid things.
justinsgil185 8 months ago
@justinsgil185 'Stupid' by whos definition? Yours? His position is much more justified in reason than atheism.
assasincomedy 6 months ago
How is is position more justified? We could have a debate about the existance of a supernatural, but only the most arrogant blowhard would say that he had "proof" for the existance of his god.
justinsgil185 6 months ago
@justinsgil185 Who said anything about proof? You cannot 'prove' philosophy. It's a way of thinking.
assasincomedy 6 months ago
I have never seen a smart man say such stupid things?
justinsgil185 8 months ago
Denying the existing of GOD is arrogant. The more you truly research the mysteries in the world, the 'exceptions' to all the rules, the inexplicability of so much of our universe ... I would rather believe in GOD and be wrong than to NOT believe in GOD and be wrong. Think about that and read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.
InnkeeperCody 8 months ago
@InnkeeperCody There are no gods. Does that sound arrogant?
wowamonn 8 months ago
@wowamonn
nope it doesn't, and its perfectly fine because that's your point of view and i respect that.......and thus you shouldn't really say that the statement "there is a God" is stupid either because that's being very disrespectful.
lovelikefire93 8 months ago
I would like to ask him a question. When did humans evolve a spirit?
auroradamien 9 months ago
Unexplained curiosity explains Dawkins Stupidity!....Yup, Richard Dawkins is a stupid biologist, too sad he's in to Biology, are biologists less.....intellectual?
engezbentmh86 11 months ago 3
@engezbentmh86
Dawkins seems to be drive by something other than science.
ivlfounder 11 months ago
One of the most mind boggling interviews ever...
This man alone should be a subject to the neurobiological research. How is it humanly possible to have such mind diversity, contain within one human being?
He simultaneously believes in two opposite ideas! Him, being a good scientists, he doesn't see the discrepancy in his opinions.
Prof. Dawkins mentions this man from time to time, as an unexplained curiosity of the human beliefs.
Puzzling...
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
@MrJurekGG
well, if it's possible to believe in God being a good scientist ,then all scientist can believe in God .QED.
don't forget Hugh Ross.
nicolaupapa11 1 year ago
@nicolaupapa11
And one's to believe in God the Scientist (how's God supposed to be a scientist when he already knows everything?) on what basis and evidence?
twooffour 10 months ago
@nicolaupapa11
Sure, they can.
Why 97.3% of them don't?
MrJurekGG 10 months ago
@nicolaupapa11 Hugh Ross is a good astronomer, but has to deny evolution to make his faith work. That's not good.
ClamCrunchy 9 months ago
@ClamCrunchy - D-evolution requires far more 'faith' than believe in GOD. Natural selection is not evolution. There is not one occurance of 'new' information happening in any form of life - mutation is not a form of evolution because mutation usually results in disease or hampers the life that is mutated or turns it into a danger to life around it therefore it usually means death. Ask yourself why DNA is 'breaking' down generation to generation. One would assume expanding DNA would result.
InnkeeperCody 8 months ago
@InnkeeperCody C'mon bro, you really think evolution is a hoax or is false? Scientists would have found this out by now and abandoned or modified the theory. Mutations can duplicate, shuffle and rearrange genes in all kids of ways, and sometimes even entire genomes can be duplicated naturally, as occurs in plant life. Also, sometimes organisms can integrate the genomes of over organisms into their own genome: Lynn Margulis has written about this in her book Aquring Genomes.
ClamCrunchy 8 months ago
@InnkeeperCody Read up before telling experts in a field you know nothing about that they're all wrong. I'm going to be honest with you, and I'm not trying to be offensive. But it's clear that you don't know very much about biology, and that you don't understand even the basics of the theory you're attacking. There's a reason why biologists decided 150 years ago, most of them against their personal religious beliefs, that evolution is true. You might be interested to find out why.
Thucydides411 7 months ago
@MrJurekGG He must be also bisexual
fidenful 7 months ago
@MrJurekGG
I don't see any cognitive dissonance with his viewpoint, he is making an epistemological distinction between scientific naturalism and the wider metaphysical possibilities of creation. He considers ontology incapable of explaining itself so to speak, which I think is perfectly rational.
323157 6 months ago
@MrJurekGG The point he's making is that reason and faith are NOT opposite ideas, just different perspectives of the same universe, different tool sets. How can we claim no God when we understand only a minuscule portion of the universe? The puzzlement arrives when we deduce that our inherently limited sensual experience of existence is conclusively complete.
TheTufty22 5 months ago
@MrJurekGG Exactly! He has contradicting views. Even the host is puzzled and questioning how he could possibly assume he knows something that he does nto know...like every other clueless, ignorant theist....but this guy is a scientist. He wants to believe so bad that he creates reasons to validate his "faith" but is cannot be done...No one knows whether there is a god or not a god....and the fact that every religion has absolutely no evidence makes it highly unlikely
whole27 5 months ago
@MrJurekGG
A famous scientist who believes in god
Proof that miracles exist...
Piedone21 5 months ago
@Piedone21
:-)))
How true!
Thanks, Piedone. Great line. Worthy of remembering!
MrJurekGG 5 months ago