"Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question" has already been debunked and it only persists on creatard channels like @JJjayco 's where ratting are disable and comments are cherry pick. Its very common on creatards, the most famous beign @shockofgod and @venumfangx but ironicly this kind of dishonest attitude only promotes to atheism. ppl are fed up with religious bias/dishonesty.
As people have been pointing out since Dawkins commented this extract from the film (a long time ago) he didn't mean that panspermia would be plausible. This has been taken out of the context on purpose.
(And actually the film producers lied about the nature of the film and basically cheated Dawkins to appear on it.)
Maybe you then should stop watching videos that are deceitfully edited by creationists in order to misrepresent what the person interviewed actually said.
The other deceitfully edited video which has been spreading all over Youtube is the one where (allegedly) "Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question".
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT yap, lying for jesus, mohamed or any monotheistic god/prophet. Creationism is a clear example that the ends justify the means. Creationists know their are lying, they never prove any of their claims, and they even join forces to promote this pseudo-science putting aside their religious differences.
Stein blindsided Dawkins by having someone else represent the project as a serious film on science. That is the context here. It wasn't until the end of this interview that he realized he had been dealing all along with an idiot creationist.
He was seriously trying to give Stein a possibility for a case for intelligent design.
Then Stein revealed himself by asking questions about god. Then Dawkins owned him with the Bertrand Russell quote.
Ben Stein Came off to me as close minded as any other creationist in his argument, Richard Dawkins Was simply engaging his conversation and putting up with him for arguments sake...Simply because we cant Disprove this horribly outdated idea of a Man-mad FABRICATION of what some call "god" DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! (/Facepalm)
all the amazing intelligence in definitely the unconscious atoms-cells-organs-systems point to the source of this intelligence,I'd really like to prove it to you right now and also the divinity of Quran too and see you embracing "submission" (islam in arabic) but things just dont work that way,you as a soul,as a unique being outside of everything you see,need to wonder and look for the truth on ur own and only for urself
start from feeling respect to the reason of your existence whatever it is
Yes! Keep an open mind to what is possible.. ID in some form IS possible! Good idea to filter the known falsehoods so that one can clearly look at the possibilities.
The idea that the bible accurately describes 'creation' is a known falsehood - Gen 1 saya that man was created within 24 hours of the sun, moon + stars.. Some stars are billions of years old! .. God was worried about the tower of babel - the creator would know there was no oxegen and there was no need to bash the tower down! LOL
@HighFlyingDutchman I read it in a book, i believe it because it was written 40 years after the fact from oral tradition, and its backed up by 500 unverifiable unnamed eye witnesses
but sadly i dont believe anything because of eyewitnesses
in fact i dont believe anything at all,i dont need to believe,i -k-n-o--w- by the will of your Creator,there are enough signs for any brain without arrogance and illusory pride to realize the unchallengeable truth...
@HighFlyingDutchman The idea of there being "a" creator, and the idea of it being "your" creator have two separate odds. For each case, the arguments going either way are going to be either more vague, or more specific. Just a little something for consideration...
if it weren't for the damn bible you wouldn't believe any of this. of course you don't believe based on eyewitness accounts because that's not what the biblical accounts are.
@code641 Definately not. You see, Atheists believe in no gods. Theists believe in a god. When you put the prefix a- before the root, it means the opposite of the root.
Intelligent design COULD have happened, but there is no evidence for it. Let's say that it actually happened; evolution still followed it, so creationists are still completely wrong.
You know, I used to think that Stein was a smart guy....and by proxy an honest decent one...until he came out with this film. It was nothing short of a complete and total screwjob of a film. Lies all throughout, edits and quotes out of context, case in point the one in this vid. It's official, Ben Stein is a douche.
FACT: Many people who believe that evolution is fact or science do so because they refuse to believe in God. The feeling of the light exposing their wickedness, along with their closed-mindedness and dishonesty, keep them stuck with their faith in their evolution religion.
hahaha, this is the most stupid thing i have ever watched. any person whit a brain can understand the diference between a god, and what richard dawkins was trying to say.
what he said is that life may have been planted here on this earth by a more advanced civilasation. you dont have to pray to that civiasation. they cant send you to heaven or hell.
This video has been edited beyond recognition. I think Richard Dawkins himself shows it in one of his lectures here on youtube. Ben Stein is nothing but a uneducated liar that spreads nothing but misinformation and hate.
There is no proof, richard never said that... The only thing that would be possible (however unlikely) is that life evolved somewhere else and then got transported here. This is the only thing how ID might be true. There is no evidence for this and Richard does not support this view.
Go and read some some of Richards blogs at richarddawkinsdotnet, maybe you will learn a little bit about the people you are talking about.
@BlindfoldedPoet So Dawkins is also a atheist towards other scientific theories like we are, Being a evolutionist is like a religion too as you have your priest like Dawkins, Hitchens and Maher preaching their views of other faiths and why their faith is superior.
and science classes have become your churchs to convert the young.
If Dawkins was as smart as you say then he would be working on science projects and not travelling the world pimping and selling his bible to foolish atheist.
You can't be atheist towards something and especcially not a toward a scientific theory. Atheism just means one is not a theist. Theism has nothing to do with science or scientific theory. Scientific theories are evidence based so there is no faith required therefor it is not anything like religion.
Richard Dawkins did lots of research. He is now retired and he decided to spent his past time educating people.
@BlindfoldedPoet You can't be atheist towards something and especcially not a toward a scientific theory. Atheism just means one is not a theist. Theism has nothing to do with science or scientific theory.
But atheist like Dawkins preach that people with beiliefs in gods should be no where near science as he has labled such beliefs as foolish and child abuse.
Watch the BBC interview and you will be suprised about his answers.
I think that was the last time is was given hard questions
Not only do you compare evolution to religions based on no facts, but you even compare science classes to churches.
Only a moron would compare science and religion on equal terms. Science itself has nothing to do with religion. Science is the act of discovery and it's appliance, and extends far beyond that, it has nothing to do with faith or belief. If we listened to religious people attacking science as a whole it would be equivalent to mankind shooting itself in the head.
@hellofraaance Atheist seem to be using science to try to destroy others beliefs like Dawkins is doing, maybe you tell science not to get involved in religion if it does not want to be grouped with them. Atheism is more a cult then a religion as their is a huge group of you who all have the same beliefs just like religion promotes and atheists mocks any beliefs that is different to theirs, its a early form of religion.
Many ordinary men have been worshiped in the past and Darwin is no different
Here's the issue I was talking about you've exactly pointed at with your comment, atheism and science have become something they're not in your eyes. You've connected them with certain beliefs. Atheism is the act of not believing in a supernatural power, that's it.
Science not getting involved with religion - The opposite is the problem, religious people are trying to overrule scientific theories based on their religious text.
Darwin is not worshipped, but he is a great speaker.
Darwin is not worshipped, but he was a great scientist, and his theories were the basis for modern genetics. His appliance of the scientific method when researching evolution are textbook examples. That makes him a rather high held figure in many circles, but you wouldn't find any group that directly worships him.
@hellofraaance Dawkins has become like a cleric or imam preaching his beliefs off under atheism. Attacking others faiths is not what atheism was, it was once just a non belief but now its been hijacked by radicals and turned into a promoter of hate towards others beliefs and traditions. Dawkins does not seem content at all like so many unhappy atheist.
Thats why they try to put a stop to anyone praying who not muslm as I see islam stops traffic to pray in manhattan streets with no complaints
This is really just a result of the debate, antagonists of "non-believers" or atheists have started to connect them to certain beliefs which have nothing to do with the matter. It's not that radical atheists have hijacked it, but antagonists have created the big bad atheist as a target.
You also mention unhappy atheists, who the hell are those? Is there like a specific club of "Grumpy atheists that hate other religions and praise Darwin"? I´d like to join, sounds like a fun bunch.
@hellofraaance Hitchens is one example of a unhappy atheist who takes it out on people of faith because they are contented with their faith and Hitchens is not otherwise he would allow other beliefs. Loook at Dawkins as he must be unhappy to promote that you treat people with no respect if they have a faith, that is not atheism but something more like marxism. Maybe Dawkins is bitter for being given a elderly womens voice as god works in mysterious ways like with Hitchens hate caused him cancer
@hellofraaance Yes and the police allow it while traffic is blocked but if they see christians praying on the side walk are told to stop.
I still cant understand why so many atheist supported the victory mosque at ground zero, after all these years of removing god from society they welcome the most radical war cult in the world ? This will be their seat of sharia to spread it thru fear of violence if you prevent them as already the UK has sharia courts now and allow muslims to rule themselves
@hellofraaance Yes it is the muslims way of imposing laws just for themselves as if you or me layed down to pray or read we would be dragged off the road.
Over time they impose fear and people become dhimi's thru political correctness
like Obama has become. Indians have been battleling Jihad since the 7th century and look to Obama for his view on jihad but instead of leadership Obama was too afraid to criticise it as violence against infidels but Obama just praise islam as a fine religion.
@beginization That is because Obama is a smart man , if he were to stand up and say "all religion is bollocks" then he would cause offense to muslims and fuck up the possibility of peace in the middle east , Israel would get even more paranoid than they already are and stock up on more nukes and the american people would drop him like a sack of shit then vote in a christian evangelist nut job hell bent on war .
Though religion may well be bollocks he has to treat it with a great deal of tact.
@MonsterMunchAreAce Thats not the question the young indian girl was asking Obama to address but the serious issue of world wide jihad muslims have waged on non muslims
Obama gave the weak political correct answer that Islam means peace
The World is being affected by Islamic terror and trying to discover which ones will go radical is costing alot of money and leaving us all having someone fondle our private parts before flying.
Obama had a chance to be a leader like he did for the mosque
@beginization The world is not being affected by Islamic terror , it is just Zionists desperately trying to stir up as much shit as possible everywhere , not just in the middle east , do you really think it a coincidence that Pat Condel and Geert Wilders have had extended stays in Israel ? Also look to the millionaire pastor Pat Robertson .
@MonsterMunchAreAce Could be but the cameras dont lie when showing angry riotiong crowds in islamic lands over little things like cartoons. How will you deal with real problems
Intelligent design is above Dawkins head but he nearly had it for awhile there but evolution again limited his thoughts. What if life came from outside our universe in the beginning then life would not have started here from dust like science claims without proof
evolution maybe true in some species but lacking for man
Why is it ok for atheist scientist to search for the god particle by splitting atoms but religous scentist are not allowed to search for a hidden marker in DNA of intelligent design. Dawkins is afraid to share other views whichs limits knowledge, in another life Dawkins may have been a book burner and would have been a defender of scientific belief of the day that the world was flat.
@hellofraaance If I bang the rocks together for long enough will I evolve a little brother from the dust, I can throw in a 12 volt battery and a little water.
Dont you think Dawkins is stupid to make a statement that humans are the only life in the universe as life only evolve here long before man came. So why did it stop where are all the mutations and cross over species as I am sure the animal kingdon evolves at different rates and not all at once millions of years ago so we should see many
Actually, your first comment can be used as an example of random occurance. Bang an infinite amount of rocks together and you'll eventually make all of those things.
Now your second paragraph is confusing grammar wise, but I´ll try to answer it. Dawkins never said that humans are the only life in the universe.
These mutations and "cross over species" are all around us. They're the result of evolution.
Older species are all around us, but most of them have died off as a result of evolution. This is a core detail of evolution, older species die off due to new circumstances and species that evolved traits to deal with said circumstances survive. There are still older species around, a very large amount of microscopic lifeforms for instance. Bet you could find species of bactera that have been around for over 1.000.000 years. They survive because their model of life still works.
No, you stupid, ignorant, worthless social parasite. You are completely bereft of any ability to think. You can't say it's more likely that a god spontaneously formed by some force we don't understand than it is likely that the universe which we can observe and of which there is actual evidence formed by some unknown force. You say that power jumps into existence spontaneously to an extremely higher degree than any atheist does. Are you this stupid? Or do you delude yourself into ignoring this?
theist got everything wrong, even if an atheist suggest inteligent design might be true, what?, according to you that is not being sure?, of being...an atheist?, what the hell? being an atheist is not a doctrine, i don't believe in gods but is not a rule i follow, it is what i think, also i think if there was a god would not be any of the ones you all people follow, and mean all the gods humanity had come up with, and i am still sure i have no specific believes about any particular god
@beginization under Dawkins?, if there is people following dawkins it is becuase they agree with him, if you think his ideas are dangerous that's one thing, but there is no particular kind of atheism, atheism is plain what it is, what is different are the atheists themselves, it comes as no surprise that some of us often agree with some stuff,
but i can be the most vicious murderer and an atheist, or i can be the most generous and kind person and an atheist, i can be comunist or capitalist and an atheist, i can be racist or not, and still be atheist, i can be a male chauvinist or a feminist and yet be atheist, gay or homophobic but atheist, i can believe in aliens or think that aliens are something stupid, and that would not change the fact that i would also be an atheist, the idea doesn't change, people are different atheism is not
I've heard accounts that the only way Stein could convince respectable scientists to be interviewed (and misleadingly edited) into his movie was to lie about the name and goals of the film. Startlingly unethical and academically dishonest. It's a shame. When he was just the funny conservative from that game show, I kinda liked him.
Atheism is a disease. It is a typo cancer. It kills the soul rapidly and makes you hate everything—everybody, especially religious people. Your soul becomes bitter full of hatred and your mouth full of poison/venom. It contaminates the world; it rejects reasoning it causes harm in the heart of little ones. Most of the time in the heart of ignorant/ irrational people. Atheists become irrational by it. LETS SAY NO to that cancer—toxic monkeys/apes.
@Macaug He doesn't believe in aliens - he is merely making the point that it would be much more likely a scenario than a creator god (while still wildly improbable), based on empirical evidence and the robustness of the theory of natural selection. I think you'll find his stance very clear if you read any of his books.
Also I don't believe everything Kent says just for the record in case you think I automatically accept every word he says just because he believes the same thing as me I don't, but that's 1 of the places I've heard about some of the scientists beliefs.
Mr Dawkins clearly said what he said about some being existing through Darwinian means somewhere else in the universe and planted their seeds on our earth OK.
If life he thinks was may have been designed then I can't understand why he doesn't consider that the whole universe may have been designed by a higher being too. What's the problem with accepting that as a possibility?
I don't see the issue with bearing it in mind as *a* possibility either, but the issue is when people have it in mind as the *only* possibility.
I personally do not think too much of postulating the origins of the universe on a spiritual level, it detracts from ficos on what I can doto make this a better place here and now.
Ok give an answer to what I've said about the everything/nothing issue I've mentioned, would you not say it's either 1 or the other?
The books and mags I'll be honest it was Kent Hovind's vids and he shows the pages with the quotes in it being said by so and so. So it might not be completely reliable but I've seen it with my own eyes on tv. Even my Dad told me that, he reads on all these "science" books all the time he believes in evolution the lot and the nothing thing too.
Re the other comment about all coming from nothing - the essence of everything that exists on a physical or metaphysical level is essentially nothing. Of course it is a question we have to ask - and to this ends, science cannot yet offer any substantiated reply.
However, there was a time when science could not offer substantiated evidence on how a bird might fly, or how to move water from level to the other, or how species evolve/devolve.
I agree with you, but it's not to say that they are automatically incorrect, either.
I personally do not believe anything fully. Of course, I am science minded, but I am fully aware of the problem of empiricism in terms of theories of things it cannot yet test.
Spiritually, I do not concern myself with these issue as they are somewhat irrelevant in Buddhism. But to (in part) answer parts of the bigger question, I believe in no creator god, nor an omnipotent deity.
But it's not to say they are automatically correct either? Same with faith in God I suppose. But I agree with you all the same.
You don't believe in anything fully? That's fair enough there are no easy answers to all of this and being science minded is correct way to be accept everything that can be observed and tested.
You don't believe in an omnipotent being? right because you don't believe in anything fully so your mind's open to whatever possibilities.
Jumping into religion to justify means where science is yet fledgling is an incorrect course of action to my mind, and may do more to hamper understanding than to further it.
But what you believe is a religion as well because there's no proof behind it so you can only place your "faith" in it.
I admit what I believe is a religion but I believe there's more likely to be a God than just all of this happening without any intelligent guide or authority to permit this to be.
To say we've developed how we have without any intelligent being behind it I honestly don't find it logical at all.
Yes, the problem with faith at times, however, is that even in the face of evidence, people will not revert a view. Faith is lovely, blind faith is catastrophic =)
But how bout that question do you believe this came from everything or nothing? I know you said you don't believe in anything fully but where do you lean more towards or are you just 50 50?
Everything knowing no beginning nor end and nothing that's just nothing because as it's nothing there's nothing to say about nothing.
Evidence? but how can there be evidence behind nothing making everything? Or us coming from the first living cell. How can any of that not be blind faith?
To believe in God requires faith too but I think there's evidence too. Like can we have really formed without intelligent help? Don't matter if it started of simple and became complex gradually over millions of years it still had no intelligent help, so can it really of happened that way successfully? Look how complex we are.
There is no evidence for God that is not entirely anecdotal.
The complexity argument is not really an argument at all, it's more a statement of ignorance/awe.
Also, your lack of knowledge in other religious stances is evident, so to be blunt, I fear you are blinkered into accepting only the one possibility whereby many more may exist.
You maybe right it might not be evidence for God but I'm just saying I don't think non-intelligence making everything qualifies as logic to me. But that's just me thinking that though. I know other creationists think the same thing but I really do think it's very illogical that it all just assembled without any intelligent help at all that's all I'm saying.
Just like our dna I mean that's hugely complex and I can't accept "at the moment " if required no intelligence at all.
You are completely misinterpreting and misrepresenting what he says to meet your own ends.
He has always maintained that an omnipotent God cannot exist, because if the theory from design is used, then the creator must too have a creator. This dismisses the idea of omnipotence by definition.
People often say this but God wouldn't be the creator if he was created himself. If he was a part of design then he wouldn't be the designer, if he was invented he wouldn't be the inventor. If he was limited to time ie. Having a beginning then he wouldn't be eternal meaning he never always was and never always will be see.
Maybe it took omnipotence in order to create something less significant, our universe matter, time and space.
Dawkins does have faith after all but insults christians, if we say their is a designer he insults our concept but he comes out with it and its OK. what a hypercrite.
I like the part when he said a life form cant just appear, isnt that what he is saying with evolution that it just happens?
Atleast he is starting to see he is wrong and is starting to accept a designer
in time he may realise how wrong he has been to insult everyone who has a belief in a God because he just looks like a bigot.
The atheist, is the worst kind of Dis- intellect. The atheist traps themselves into having to answer who crested the creator, until it it an infinite unimaginable number of explanations. Sad!
I'm sorry I've asked alot of questions, what question are you referring to there?
Also God's not just a higher power but the highest so he wouldn't be the highest then if he needed yet a higher power to make him, just like I said about God wouldn't be the creator if we he was created, or the inventor if he was invented.
If we are so complex we require a creator, why is God, who I would assume would be infinitely more complex, just "there"? Surely the complexity logic shoud be asserted there as well, otherwise its validity in the earlier sense is nulled.
Because if he wasn't always there he would of started somewhere and if that happened he would of been created and wouldn't be the creator would he? That process then goes on forever 1 God creating another.
I'm just making the point that because "were" extremely complexed that it's hard to accept that this all came about without any intelligence at all that's all I'm saying there.
All the ins and outs of eternity is not something I know everything about. I can't say HOW it's possible that God was always there BUT if the possibility turns out to be true that there is a God that created literally everything then he would have to be the only creator or he wouldn't be the creator of everything. Also he can't be subjected to time or anything really so that would include no beginning or end otherwise he wouldn't be God.
What I believe is irrelevant to meaningful academic debate.
There is surely a logical failure when you contest that we can't have come along by any other means aside from a creator deity, yet you simultaneously assert that the creator deity is exempt from this very methodology.
Essentially, you cannot give any clear reasoning or evidence other than anecdotal "we're too complex" theories that really do not hold much water when scrutinised.
Yea it's true these are just my opinions to be fair and I feel that we couldn't of just happened without any intelligent planning that's all. Isn't it true anyway that us as living organisms and our DNA for example are vastly complex?
Maybe what you believe is irrelevant but if you don't mind answering what you believe more God or no God? Are you ok to answer that?
I did not suggest that there was a lack of complexity anywhere, I am just pointing out that you cannot logically pick and choose when to apply a certain framework to a theory, and then just take it away when it doesn't suit the needs of the argument.
As previously stated, I am Buddhist. As such, I acknowledge no creator deity and see any assertion of one as an irrelevance.
I'm just saying complex things normally require an intelligent mind to plan them that's all so that's why I find it hard to accept these things can just self-assemble without any intelligent help or authorisation at all.
we have our minds set it seems, I do believe there's a possibility of God not existing but I lean more towards God being real.
Ok 1 last question before ending the debate, do you believe God is not real as a belief or just open minded on both possibilities?
The doctrine/concept of Dependent Origination is cyclic, not linear (which the idea of creation is).
Belief in a creator god does nothing for the personal path to enlightenment, and as such is irrelevant on most levels.
Ultimate truth is devoid of any god,, and clinging to the Abrahamaic or even Hindu concepts of gods was said by the Buddha to be delusional and indicative of the false view of eternity.
I agree, stupid video, whoever posted it. Obvious that it was edited to suit the asshole Ben Stein. These stupid assholes have no recourse but to lie, and lie, and lie...
He was answering the question on how intelligent design MIGHT be true, so he bent over backwards and jumped through hoops to come up with some sort of possible way an intelligence could have designed us. He doesn't believe we came from aliens.
Because Stein can't come up with real arguments, he clips and edits and leaves most of the justification on the cutting room floor--whatever underhanded tactics it takes to make Dawkins look bad.
@HelplessVictim no ben stein edited it but the reason dawkins said he says these things is cause he felt he pityed ben for being so stupid. was in richard darwakins blog
@HelplessVictim ur right. Stein simply coaxed dawkins into presenting argument on how intelligent design COULD be true, then spun it so that people like helplessvictim buy into it, --as if this is RD unqualified opinion. --NOT.
@HelplessVictim No the question on ID being true showed how much trouble it is for people like atheist Dawkins to think outside the box.
Instead of trying to investigate if intelligent design is true they will refuse to even allow others to try without threats to employment.
Radical Atheism as practised by deciples of Dawkins and Hitchens will produce the demon hords spoke about in bible that will wage war on people of faith.
the comments by atheists prove the hate they have for God or faith
@HelplessVictim Then why did you or was it a need as a atheist to let me know how inferior you think I am or to let me know how I wont have your superior advice to set me right to your limited beliefs
Thinking man is the most superior life in the universe is silly and narrow minded but keep banging those rocks together as much as you want but you wont create life or life would have evolve from behind the back of the loung.
your one of those atheist who believe mouse traps evolve by themselves
@HelplessVictim Did not science of the day believe the world was flat and america did not exist let alone flying. Science claimed while I was growing up there is no water in space ot life but we see in ancient meteorites from other worlds old bacteria that was the same that seeded our own planet and started life, it did not magicly start from dust decided to replicate with out thinking to make itself into DNA without intelligence becoming involved to start the process off first.
@HelplessVictim Just letting you know what we were told by science teachers in school, maybe scientific views are different to other parts of the world like religions have different views about god, think about that if your able
All I am saying is that what science teaches today as fact maybe proved wrong in another 30 yrs as we learn new things un imagined and yet you atheist are afraid of allowing others to study intelligent design as a subject seperate to science so intrude on atheist turf
The difference is that science in fact does change based upon new evidence. It will admit if it makes mistakes, and has whole institutions set up specifically to make sure there are no mistakes.
Scientific theories require mountains of proof before they can be taught to children (who are young and impressionable). Intelligent design has no such proof, and is just a laughable concept.
@Encryptsan Science use to be like that until Dawkins atheist types got involved
How many Scientist were asking to see the data used to claim gobal warming and were refused for years telling them they have no right to test their figures or theories and after many years the truth came out they destroyed the data so no one could examine it
You call that science as the UN has, that is whay so many now doubt so called science as it has now become political with atheist involved with their agenda.
I dunno where you got that story from, but it certainly sounds untrue. If it is true then cite a reliable source and I'll take a look.
In the scientific community if you publish a paper without evidence to back you up then you won't even have time to get your coat as you are laughed out of the room. Even the most eminent scientists can't just proclaim things, the scientific method must be followed.
@Encryptsan Thats not true as how many scientist were asking to see the evidence and facts that led the UN to claim Global warming.
The UN scientist avoided freedom of infomation requests and destroyed the original data and only kept the value added data so no oe could check their figures.
Thank god for a insider to leak the emails and how we were all being scammed by these enviromentalist at the UN. This all happened at east anglia university in england run by the types like Dawkins.
Which exact report are you quoting? You have still not given me even the name of a single paper or study which has been faked. Nor have you told me which UN announcement they claimed this at.
A date, an author, the title of a paper or study, just one tiny piece of information would prove you correct, but you haven't cited even one.
There are no "UN Scientists" either, I have no idea where you are getting your obviously fake information from.
So atheist dont believe what they see with their eyes after all, Your ears dont work either as it sounds like Dawkins talking to me or do you think they impersonated his voice and made Dawkins say what he said about a designer.? Atheist have closed minds and no truth is good enough.
God (Allah) said: And indeed We have created man, and We know what his ownself whispers to him. And We are nearer to him than his jugular vein (by Our Knowledge).
To say that because science cannot answer something, therefore religion can, is a terrible abuse of logic. The amount gained in knowledge through science each century is enormous. Science is working on explaining the rest of the questions we don't know. That is all I can say. I shall add, as a caveat, that Dawkins was fundamentally misrepresented in that preposterous "documentary". You can find his reply to Stein by typing into the search box "Richard Dawkins replies to Ben Stein".
atheists base what they think on matters of the world on evidence. if solid evidence appeared that god existed, then all atheists, without fail, would convert to the religion of that god. If atheists had faith, they would still be tied to their beliefs, like christians, jews, muslims, etc are today
@distanceaxe You're correct, but there is a point you left out and I think it's an important one, and that is that science simply cannot answer every question. That isn't an insult to science, it's simply pointing to the physcial contraints of it. To quote a much-quoted line, science can tell us how, not why.
evolution like all other natural processes follows strict rules if it were pure chance we would never have evolved because evolution needs theses rules to make the most of these benificial adaptions
Dawkins "The designer couldn't of just jumped into existence spontaneously"
Nope he was always there to give all this information we have the universe.
People will say how is that possible? if this universe came from somewhere and that somewhere came from somewhere else then that can just go on and on for "eternity"
If we believed that everything came from nothing then we would have to put logic aside for it.
Otherwise we can believe this all came from something that's always been there.
god explains fuckall its the first and worst attempt at describing the world and a bad 1 at that it creates more questions than it solves it has no relevence today it did back then hen we knew fuckall but there is no need for that hypothesis anymore
god did it
its a cope out its just a way of saying i dont know so the all enccompassing god did it gets thrown in
So you'd rather believe nothingness created the phenomenon we see before us which surpasses the complexities of anything we've ever "created" and what we've made took "intelligence" So you'd rather believe the universe was a no brainer?
Believing nothing made all of this is a much bigger cop out lol. Because you're saying I don't know so let's just say nothingness made everything.
its not a matter of choice science today trys to explain the world around us god did is just meaningless words
nobody knows how it started we know the process by which life replicates but to postulate a designer is just lazy u have to base knowledge on hard facts
Thank you so why do you call people ignorant for wanting to believe we were created by God? Why can't you accept that people have a good reason to believe?
"god did it is just meaningless words" again nothing made everything isn't meaningless words?? this is what scientists say and you'll happily accept that ?? What hard facts are there behind that?
what does that acctually mean have u ever really thought about it because it says nothing
and ur assuming again who says nothing made everything we know the process that evolution shapes life through natural selection but but we know nothing of the origin of life no scientist ever said that dont know were u got that from
and because u cant base facts on assumptions and god is the biggest assumption of all
I remember Stephen Hawkings saying it on tv before and in general I hear that scientists believe that.
So if you accept science then you have to accept that too.
Singularity people on here say is matter and energy in one tiny place and one day it expanded. That's the universe. Where did the energy come from that caused the expansion because energy was already there but it wasn't doing anything and then out of the blue it moved and expanded replicated and here we all are??? that sounds silly
We were created by God, that's what it means we were deliberately made for a purpose what else can it mean?
Well you can't base facts on the theory of everything happening from blind chance. So what's the other alternative that all of this was created deliberately ok? So if people choose to believe this was all created deliberately then you can't call people ignorant for believing that because millions of people believe in it because it's a possibility ok.
millions of people believe in all sorts of shit doesnt make it real their are millions of people who believe in ganesh the weird elephant with all the arms which im sure u dont believe in so ur an atheist too,ur an atheist for ganesh for thor for zeus for appollo ur just a theist for the judai christian god because u were brought up in middle america somewhere the human mind is highly susecptable to halucination and suggestion hence the multitude of gods
To conceive of evolution as nothing more than blind chance and randomness is the most serious conceptual mistake one can make. Evolution does contain a component of chance, but there is far more to the process than that, and it is precisely the existence of the non-chance components that allows evolution to work. The process of evolution is driven by the engine of natural selection, a filter that extracts order out of chaos according to a fixed and non-random set of rules.
Like all natural processes, evolution is guided by laws that do not change. If you throw a rock up in the air, its path is not governed by pure chance, but by the law of gravity. It cannot fly off randomly in any direction, but will travel in a parabolic arc and land at a predictable point. If you put a hot object next to a cold one, the transfer of heat is not governed by pure chance, but by the laws of thermodynamics.
There is no scientific evidence that humans' existence was inevitable or that evolution in general has any predetermined goals.
But these things are true only as far as science can determine. If one's personal convictions are such that God intended for humanity to develop all along and guided the course of evolution appropriately, that is not a belief that science can speak of because there is just no evidence for it
The origin of something is either from something or nothing.
So you can say "I'm not saying this universe came from nothing" if that's the case then you have to believe this came from something that's always existed with no beginning. You know why?
If you believe this universe came from somewhere then that somewhere came from something else and that continues for infinity. The only way to stop that would be to believe that the 2nd or 3rd universe from this came from nothing.
why does it have to be from something we live and we die and we expect everthing else to be of this order what if its not what if its just always been all we have is what we can verify everything else is just make believe hence the multitude of religions and gods which by their very nature cant be verified
Ok. We can "verify" the universe had a beginning that's one view that creation and non-creation science has in common. So we have to ask did it come from something or nothing.
If you say nothing then I'm sorry but you're throwing logic out the window. So wherever this all came from was from something that's always been there with no beginning or you have to then say this all came from nothingness which is an insult to intelligence itself if people happily accept that.
The universe is made of matter, time and space so if you take them 3 things away then what we have is something our little minds can't possibly grasp but one thing we can say about it is that what ever made this universe has extreme power behind it and if you take time away then there's no beginning to whatever was there to provide the energy we have.
The next question is where did the "information" within our dnas come from? That's the big question isn't it?
You're repeating yourself and not really replying to my points.
I'm not assuming there's a creator but just pointing out that it IS possible. This universe HAD to of come from something that's "always" been there otherwise this all just sprung from "nothingness"
Is there any empirical evidence for that, everything from nothing??
You accepting that everything from nothing is a PROPER cop out, I'm sorry I couldn't say it in a nicer way really.
I read a quote... Might even have been Stephen Hawking, that said they would never categorically state that a god does not exist, only state that the probability of it existing is minute.
How does Mr Hawking possibly determine that statement. I'm not misinterpreting anything too those were his exact words he said it plainly. Yea I could be lying I'm just a stranger but I'm telling you that's what he said and this is something that you'll find in science books and magazines.
The Probability of God existing is minute? Where did he get that idea from and I'm not sure what that means too sorry, what does he mean by that?
I have a picture of Dick Dawkins face on my urinal.
LDS4Life71 6 months ago
"Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question" has already been debunked and it only persists on creatard channels like @JJjayco 's where ratting are disable and comments are cherry pick. Its very common on creatards, the most famous beign @shockofgod and @venumfangx but ironicly this kind of dishonest attitude only promotes to atheism. ppl are fed up with religious bias/dishonesty.
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago 2
Dawkins and PZ Myers discussing the "Expelled" movie:
watch?v=p86NEpo_Nj8
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 2
This interview sounds like Dawkins is talking about ancient astronaut theory. Maybe he's the one who's hallucinating after all.
Fido1488 9 months ago
@Fido1488
As people have been pointing out since Dawkins commented this extract from the film (a long time ago) he didn't mean that panspermia would be plausible. This has been taken out of the context on purpose.
(And actually the film producers lied about the nature of the film and basically cheated Dawkins to appear on it.)
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago
Dawkins you dumbass. The more vids of this guy i watch, the more stronger a creationist i become lmao
ac0ustic69 9 months ago
@ac0ustic69
Maybe you then should stop watching videos that are deceitfully edited by creationists in order to misrepresent what the person interviewed actually said.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 3
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT
The other deceitfully edited video which has been spreading all over Youtube is the one where (allegedly) "Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question".
I guess lying for Jesus is okay then(?)
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 2
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT yap, lying for jesus, mohamed or any monotheistic god/prophet. Creationism is a clear example that the ends justify the means. Creationists know their are lying, they never prove any of their claims, and they even join forces to promote this pseudo-science putting aside their religious differences.
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago 2
Stein blindsided Dawkins by having someone else represent the project as a serious film on science. That is the context here. It wasn't until the end of this interview that he realized he had been dealing all along with an idiot creationist.
He was seriously trying to give Stein a possibility for a case for intelligent design.
Then Stein revealed himself by asking questions about god. Then Dawkins owned him with the Bertrand Russell quote.
Stein makes me sick, pretending to be persecuted
MrTruthAddict 9 months ago
Ben Stein Came off to me as close minded as any other creationist in his argument, Richard Dawkins Was simply engaging his conversation and putting up with him for arguments sake...Simply because we cant Disprove this horribly outdated idea of a Man-mad FABRICATION of what some call "god" DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! (/Facepalm)
jpl91 10 months ago
ben stein has zero credibility.
furthermore, this "power" you claim, prove it exists.
doaftheloaf 11 months ago 4
all the amazing intelligence in definitely the unconscious atoms-cells-organs-systems point to the source of this intelligence,I'd really like to prove it to you right now and also the divinity of Quran too and see you embracing "submission" (islam in arabic) but things just dont work that way,you as a soul,as a unique being outside of everything you see,need to wonder and look for the truth on ur own and only for urself
start from feeling respect to the reason of your existence whatever it is
HighFlyingDutchman 10 months ago
Yes! Keep an open mind to what is possible.. ID in some form IS possible! Good idea to filter the known falsehoods so that one can clearly look at the possibilities.
The idea that the bible accurately describes 'creation' is a known falsehood - Gen 1 saya that man was created within 24 hours of the sun, moon + stars.. Some stars are billions of years old! .. God was worried about the tower of babel - the creator would know there was no oxegen and there was no need to bash the tower down! LOL
TherAsynth 1 year ago
Wasn't this guy in the movie the Mask lol
1tacoman17 1 year ago
Dawkins isn't an Atheist. You just don't understand what he's saying.
RSVJosephV 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if there a god.. he won't care if you belive him or not he will not send you to hell or heaven
JuventusAAR 1 year ago
Wait Atheists are Muslims correct?
code641 1 year ago
@code641
##***??? why?
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman I read it in a book, i believe it because it was written 40 years after the fact from oral tradition, and its backed up by 500 unverifiable unnamed eye witnesses
code641 1 year ago
@code641
nice joke
but sadly i dont believe anything because of eyewitnesses
in fact i dont believe anything at all,i dont need to believe,i -k-n-o--w- by the will of your Creator,there are enough signs for any brain without arrogance and illusory pride to realize the unchallengeable truth...
pray for guidance,if you can...
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman And I k-n-o-w you should kill yourself.
See, I can use the word "know" incorrectly too.
zofspade 1 year ago
@zofspade
no you know that wrong,i should not kill myself X-P
but you should kill your illusory pride,it will be tough though,since it seems to be bulletproof
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman Hey, you did it again! Stop doing my job for me.
zofspade 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman The idea of there being "a" creator, and the idea of it being "your" creator have two separate odds. For each case, the arguments going either way are going to be either more vague, or more specific. Just a little something for consideration...
themediocrenontheist 11 months ago
@HighFlyingDutchman if you know it, then presumably you can show it?
if it weren't for the damn bible you wouldn't believe any of this. of course you don't believe based on eyewitness accounts because that's not what the biblical accounts are.
doaftheloaf 7 months ago
@code641 and, of course, it's passed through many imperfect translations.
doaftheloaf 7 months ago
@code641 Definately not. You see, Atheists believe in no gods. Theists believe in a god. When you put the prefix a- before the root, it means the opposite of the root.
Tindale7 11 months ago
Intelligent design COULD have happened, but there is no evidence for it. Let's say that it actually happened; evolution still followed it, so creationists are still completely wrong.
wownov83 1 year ago
You know, I used to think that Stein was a smart guy....and by proxy an honest decent one...until he came out with this film. It was nothing short of a complete and total screwjob of a film. Lies all throughout, edits and quotes out of context, case in point the one in this vid. It's official, Ben Stein is a douche.
dallased25 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FACT: Many people who believe that evolution is fact or science do so because they refuse to believe in God. The feeling of the light exposing their wickedness, along with their closed-mindedness and dishonesty, keep them stuck with their faith in their evolution religion.
ednja 1 year ago
Dawkin is an atheist. To doubt it is purely ridiculous.
griefer 1 year ago
He should have ask Dawkins if he believes in Molech
beginization 1 year ago
hahaha, this is the most stupid thing i have ever watched. any person whit a brain can understand the diference between a god, and what richard dawkins was trying to say.
what he said is that life may have been planted here on this earth by a more advanced civilasation. you dont have to pray to that civiasation. they cant send you to heaven or hell.
gulbirk 1 year ago
This vid has got what it deserves.. more dislikes than likes!
Zipzap220 1 year ago
Dawkins said is another video the being atheist means God could exist and be discovered and proven ,, but has not been scientifically proven yet,,
openairpreacher 1 year ago
Did Dawkins really say this or is this edited or screwed with?
hopkins4545 1 year ago
@hopkins4545
This video has been edited beyond recognition. I think Richard Dawkins himself shows it in one of his lectures here on youtube. Ben Stein is nothing but a uneducated liar that spreads nothing but misinformation and hate.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet Looked like and sounded like Dawkins talking to me so what was edited
or does Dawkins just regret what he said is proof their could be a creator
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
There is no proof, richard never said that... The only thing that would be possible (however unlikely) is that life evolved somewhere else and then got transported here. This is the only thing how ID might be true. There is no evidence for this and Richard does not support this view.
Go and read some some of Richards blogs at richarddawkinsdotnet, maybe you will learn a little bit about the people you are talking about.
You can read Richards
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
@BlindfoldedPoet So Dawkins is also a atheist towards other scientific theories like we are, Being a evolutionist is like a religion too as you have your priest like Dawkins, Hitchens and Maher preaching their views of other faiths and why their faith is superior.
and science classes have become your churchs to convert the young.
If Dawkins was as smart as you say then he would be working on science projects and not travelling the world pimping and selling his bible to foolish atheist.
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
You can't be atheist towards something and especcially not a toward a scientific theory. Atheism just means one is not a theist. Theism has nothing to do with science or scientific theory. Scientific theories are evidence based so there is no faith required therefor it is not anything like religion.
Richard Dawkins did lots of research. He is now retired and he decided to spent his past time educating people.
BlindfoldedPoet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlindfoldedPoet You can't be atheist towards something and especcially not a toward a scientific theory. Atheism just means one is not a theist. Theism has nothing to do with science or scientific theory.
But atheist like Dawkins preach that people with beiliefs in gods should be no where near science as he has labled such beliefs as foolish and child abuse.
Watch the BBC interview and you will be suprised about his answers.
I think that was the last time is was given hard questions
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
Not only do you compare evolution to religions based on no facts, but you even compare science classes to churches.
Only a moron would compare science and religion on equal terms. Science itself has nothing to do with religion. Science is the act of discovery and it's appliance, and extends far beyond that, it has nothing to do with faith or belief. If we listened to religious people attacking science as a whole it would be equivalent to mankind shooting itself in the head.
hellofraaance 1 year ago
@hellofraaance Atheist seem to be using science to try to destroy others beliefs like Dawkins is doing, maybe you tell science not to get involved in religion if it does not want to be grouped with them. Atheism is more a cult then a religion as their is a huge group of you who all have the same beliefs just like religion promotes and atheists mocks any beliefs that is different to theirs, its a early form of religion.
Many ordinary men have been worshiped in the past and Darwin is no different
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
Here's the issue I was talking about you've exactly pointed at with your comment, atheism and science have become something they're not in your eyes. You've connected them with certain beliefs. Atheism is the act of not believing in a supernatural power, that's it.
Science not getting involved with religion - The opposite is the problem, religious people are trying to overrule scientific theories based on their religious text.
Darwin is not worshipped, but he is a great speaker.
hellofraaance 1 year ago
@beginization
Sorry thought you said Dawkins.
Darwin is not worshipped, but he was a great scientist, and his theories were the basis for modern genetics. His appliance of the scientific method when researching evolution are textbook examples. That makes him a rather high held figure in many circles, but you wouldn't find any group that directly worships him.
hellofraaance 1 year ago
@hellofraaance Dawkins has become like a cleric or imam preaching his beliefs off under atheism. Attacking others faiths is not what atheism was, it was once just a non belief but now its been hijacked by radicals and turned into a promoter of hate towards others beliefs and traditions. Dawkins does not seem content at all like so many unhappy atheist.
Thats why they try to put a stop to anyone praying who not muslm as I see islam stops traffic to pray in manhattan streets with no complaints
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
This is really just a result of the debate, antagonists of "non-believers" or atheists have started to connect them to certain beliefs which have nothing to do with the matter. It's not that radical atheists have hijacked it, but antagonists have created the big bad atheist as a target.
You also mention unhappy atheists, who the hell are those? Is there like a specific club of "Grumpy atheists that hate other religions and praise Darwin"? I´d like to join, sounds like a fun bunch.
hellofraaance 1 year ago
@hellofraaance Hitchens is one example of a unhappy atheist who takes it out on people of faith because they are contented with their faith and Hitchens is not otherwise he would allow other beliefs. Loook at Dawkins as he must be unhappy to promote that you treat people with no respect if they have a faith, that is not atheism but something more like marxism. Maybe Dawkins is bitter for being given a elderly womens voice as god works in mysterious ways like with Hitchens hate caused him cancer
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
That about the muslims stopping traffic to pray, they really do that? And they're not escorted off by the police?
If not, my god, religious tolerence/respect has gone beyond simple respect and has become a card to be an asshole.
hellofraaance 1 year ago
@hellofraaance Yes and the police allow it while traffic is blocked but if they see christians praying on the side walk are told to stop.
I still cant understand why so many atheist supported the victory mosque at ground zero, after all these years of removing god from society they welcome the most radical war cult in the world ? This will be their seat of sharia to spread it thru fear of violence if you prevent them as already the UK has sharia courts now and allow muslims to rule themselves
beginization 1 year ago
@hellofraaance Yes it is the muslims way of imposing laws just for themselves as if you or me layed down to pray or read we would be dragged off the road.
Over time they impose fear and people become dhimi's thru political correctness
like Obama has become. Indians have been battleling Jihad since the 7th century and look to Obama for his view on jihad but instead of leadership Obama was too afraid to criticise it as violence against infidels but Obama just praise islam as a fine religion.
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization That is because Obama is a smart man , if he were to stand up and say "all religion is bollocks" then he would cause offense to muslims and fuck up the possibility of peace in the middle east , Israel would get even more paranoid than they already are and stock up on more nukes and the american people would drop him like a sack of shit then vote in a christian evangelist nut job hell bent on war .
Though religion may well be bollocks he has to treat it with a great deal of tact.
MonsterMunchAreAce 1 year ago
@MonsterMunchAreAce Thats not the question the young indian girl was asking Obama to address but the serious issue of world wide jihad muslims have waged on non muslims
Obama gave the weak political correct answer that Islam means peace
The World is being affected by Islamic terror and trying to discover which ones will go radical is costing alot of money and leaving us all having someone fondle our private parts before flying.
Obama had a chance to be a leader like he did for the mosque
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization The world is not being affected by Islamic terror , it is just Zionists desperately trying to stir up as much shit as possible everywhere , not just in the middle east , do you really think it a coincidence that Pat Condel and Geert Wilders have had extended stays in Israel ? Also look to the millionaire pastor Pat Robertson .
MonsterMunchAreAce 1 year ago
@MonsterMunchAreAce Could be but the cameras dont lie when showing angry riotiong crowds in islamic lands over little things like cartoons. How will you deal with real problems
Intelligent design is above Dawkins head but he nearly had it for awhile there but evolution again limited his thoughts. What if life came from outside our universe in the beginning then life would not have started here from dust like science claims without proof
evolution maybe true in some species but lacking for man
beginization 1 year ago
@MonsterMunchAreAce But answer this if your a atheist
Why is it ok for atheist scientist to search for the god particle by splitting atoms but religous scentist are not allowed to search for a hidden marker in DNA of intelligent design. Dawkins is afraid to share other views whichs limits knowledge, in another life Dawkins may have been a book burner and would have been a defender of scientific belief of the day that the world was flat.
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
Wait scratch that, that gun was created with scientific methods.
Perhaps smashing your head into a rock.
hellofraaance 1 year ago
@hellofraaance If I bang the rocks together for long enough will I evolve a little brother from the dust, I can throw in a 12 volt battery and a little water.
Dont you think Dawkins is stupid to make a statement that humans are the only life in the universe as life only evolve here long before man came. So why did it stop where are all the mutations and cross over species as I am sure the animal kingdon evolves at different rates and not all at once millions of years ago so we should see many
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
Actually, your first comment can be used as an example of random occurance. Bang an infinite amount of rocks together and you'll eventually make all of those things.
Now your second paragraph is confusing grammar wise, but I´ll try to answer it. Dawkins never said that humans are the only life in the universe.
These mutations and "cross over species" are all around us. They're the result of evolution.
hellofraaance 1 year ago
@beginization
Older species are all around us, but most of them have died off as a result of evolution. This is a core detail of evolution, older species die off due to new circumstances and species that evolved traits to deal with said circumstances survive. There are still older species around, a very large amount of microscopic lifeforms for instance. Bet you could find species of bactera that have been around for over 1.000.000 years. They survive because their model of life still works.
hellofraaance 1 year ago
No, you stupid, ignorant, worthless social parasite. You are completely bereft of any ability to think. You can't say it's more likely that a god spontaneously formed by some force we don't understand than it is likely that the universe which we can observe and of which there is actual evidence formed by some unknown force. You say that power jumps into existence spontaneously to an extremely higher degree than any atheist does. Are you this stupid? Or do you delude yourself into ignoring this?
itarethetroll 1 year ago
Who´s the drunk voice tha comes up now and then?
dintubmongo 1 year ago
theist got everything wrong, even if an atheist suggest inteligent design might be true, what?, according to you that is not being sure?, of being...an atheist?, what the hell? being an atheist is not a doctrine, i don't believe in gods but is not a rule i follow, it is what i think, also i think if there was a god would not be any of the ones you all people follow, and mean all the gods humanity had come up with, and i am still sure i have no specific believes about any particular god
TenkuNoWind 1 year ago
@TenkuNoWind Atheism under Dawkins teachings has become a doctrine and a new form of religion worshiping evolution and Darwian ideas.
It has become a agressive force now of how to live ones life intead just a inner belief of no creator that is what all these new atheist dont realise.
Atheism has been hijacked like the way Islam is with the fanatics or like when catholics got involved with the spanish and domicans in the dark ages.
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization under Dawkins?, if there is people following dawkins it is becuase they agree with him, if you think his ideas are dangerous that's one thing, but there is no particular kind of atheism, atheism is plain what it is, what is different are the atheists themselves, it comes as no surprise that some of us often agree with some stuff,
TenkuNoWind 1 year ago
but i can be the most vicious murderer and an atheist, or i can be the most generous and kind person and an atheist, i can be comunist or capitalist and an atheist, i can be racist or not, and still be atheist, i can be a male chauvinist or a feminist and yet be atheist, gay or homophobic but atheist, i can believe in aliens or think that aliens are something stupid, and that would not change the fact that i would also be an atheist, the idea doesn't change, people are different atheism is not
TenkuNoWind 1 year ago
Dawkins: Why do you even need to ask? (such a stupid question)
Answer: because Stein is a simpleton
zoskiaist 1 year ago
I've heard accounts that the only way Stein could convince respectable scientists to be interviewed (and misleadingly edited) into his movie was to lie about the name and goals of the film. Startlingly unethical and academically dishonest. It's a shame. When he was just the funny conservative from that game show, I kinda liked him.
BailiffQuimby 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your Creator.
Atheism is a disease. It is a typo cancer. It kills the soul rapidly and makes you hate everything—everybody, especially religious people. Your soul becomes bitter full of hatred and your mouth full of poison/venom. It contaminates the world; it rejects reasoning it causes harm in the heart of little ones. Most of the time in the heart of ignorant/ irrational people. Atheists become irrational by it. LETS SAY NO to that cancer—toxic monkeys/apes.
Airlightf 1 year ago
Nice misinterpretation Ben Stein you Dork
Rubystars1000 1 year ago 8
Xenu created the universe?
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
He's a Dawkinist, he thinks he's God.
mdeonx16 1 year ago
It's funny to see how Dawkins can believe in aliens that he has never seen but just refuses to believe in God for the same reason.
Macaug 1 year ago
@Macaug He doesn't believe in aliens - he is merely making the point that it would be much more likely a scenario than a creator god (while still wildly improbable), based on empirical evidence and the robustness of the theory of natural selection. I think you'll find his stance very clear if you read any of his books.
SupineMonkey 1 year ago
Also, please direct me to these books and magazines if at all possible, as I have yet to see these quotes in those precise words.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
Also I don't believe everything Kent says just for the record in case you think I automatically accept every word he says just because he believes the same thing as me I don't, but that's 1 of the places I've heard about some of the scientists beliefs.
100pjp001 1 year ago
I would not assert that you do, my friend, I am not trying to condescend or anything here, just postulating some ideas =)
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
That's good I was just saying just in case you thought I was just another creationist who thinks in a stereo type way.
100pjp001 1 year ago
Mr Dawkins clearly said what he said about some being existing through Darwinian means somewhere else in the universe and planted their seeds on our earth OK.
If life he thinks was may have been designed then I can't understand why he doesn't consider that the whole universe may have been designed by a higher being too. What's the problem with accepting that as a possibility?
100pjp001 1 year ago
I don't see the issue with bearing it in mind as *a* possibility either, but the issue is when people have it in mind as the *only* possibility.
I personally do not think too much of postulating the origins of the universe on a spiritual level, it detracts from ficos on what I can doto make this a better place here and now.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
Ok give an answer to what I've said about the everything/nothing issue I've mentioned, would you not say it's either 1 or the other?
The books and mags I'll be honest it was Kent Hovind's vids and he shows the pages with the quotes in it being said by so and so. So it might not be completely reliable but I've seen it with my own eyes on tv. Even my Dad told me that, he reads on all these "science" books all the time he believes in evolution the lot and the nothing thing too.
100pjp001 1 year ago
Re the other comment about all coming from nothing - the essence of everything that exists on a physical or metaphysical level is essentially nothing. Of course it is a question we have to ask - and to this ends, science cannot yet offer any substantiated reply.
However, there was a time when science could not offer substantiated evidence on how a bird might fly, or how to move water from level to the other, or how species evolve/devolve.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
What do you meaning everything physical or metaphysical is nothing ?? If it was nothing it wouldn't be physical or metaphysical would it.
Saying that scientists couldn't offer any evidence of how a bird flies doesn't mean they're right about everything coming from nothing.
Ok clear this up with me do you believe everything came from nothing yes or no?
100pjp001 1 year ago
I agree with you, but it's not to say that they are automatically incorrect, either.
I personally do not believe anything fully. Of course, I am science minded, but I am fully aware of the problem of empiricism in terms of theories of things it cannot yet test.
Spiritually, I do not concern myself with these issue as they are somewhat irrelevant in Buddhism. But to (in part) answer parts of the bigger question, I believe in no creator god, nor an omnipotent deity.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
But it's not to say they are automatically correct either? Same with faith in God I suppose. But I agree with you all the same.
You don't believe in anything fully? That's fair enough there are no easy answers to all of this and being science minded is correct way to be accept everything that can be observed and tested.
You don't believe in an omnipotent being? right because you don't believe in anything fully so your mind's open to whatever possibilities.
100pjp001 1 year ago
Jumping into religion to justify means where science is yet fledgling is an incorrect course of action to my mind, and may do more to hamper understanding than to further it.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
But what you believe is a religion as well because there's no proof behind it so you can only place your "faith" in it.
I admit what I believe is a religion but I believe there's more likely to be a God than just all of this happening without any intelligent guide or authority to permit this to be.
To say we've developed how we have without any intelligent being behind it I honestly don't find it logical at all.
100pjp001 1 year ago
Yes, the problem with faith at times, however, is that even in the face of evidence, people will not revert a view. Faith is lovely, blind faith is catastrophic =)
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
But how bout that question do you believe this came from everything or nothing? I know you said you don't believe in anything fully but where do you lean more towards or are you just 50 50?
Everything knowing no beginning nor end and nothing that's just nothing because as it's nothing there's nothing to say about nothing.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@Zabzag
Evidence? but how can there be evidence behind nothing making everything? Or us coming from the first living cell. How can any of that not be blind faith?
To believe in God requires faith too but I think there's evidence too. Like can we have really formed without intelligent help? Don't matter if it started of simple and became complex gradually over millions of years it still had no intelligent help, so can it really of happened that way successfully? Look how complex we are.
100pjp001 1 year ago
There is no evidence for God that is not entirely anecdotal.
The complexity argument is not really an argument at all, it's more a statement of ignorance/awe.
Also, your lack of knowledge in other religious stances is evident, so to be blunt, I fear you are blinkered into accepting only the one possibility whereby many more may exist.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
You maybe right it might not be evidence for God but I'm just saying I don't think non-intelligence making everything qualifies as logic to me. But that's just me thinking that though. I know other creationists think the same thing but I really do think it's very illogical that it all just assembled without any intelligent help at all that's all I'm saying.
Just like our dna I mean that's hugely complex and I can't accept "at the moment " if required no intelligence at all.
100pjp001 1 year ago
Why?
Zabzag 1 year ago
You are completely misinterpreting and misrepresenting what he says to meet your own ends.
He has always maintained that an omnipotent God cannot exist, because if the theory from design is used, then the creator must too have a creator. This dismisses the idea of omnipotence by definition.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
(PART 1)
People often say this but God wouldn't be the creator if he was created himself. If he was a part of design then he wouldn't be the designer, if he was invented he wouldn't be the inventor. If he was limited to time ie. Having a beginning then he wouldn't be eternal meaning he never always was and never always will be see.
Maybe it took omnipotence in order to create something less significant, our universe matter, time and space.
Read next comment about nothing and everything
100pjp001 1 year ago
Dawkins does have faith after all but insults christians, if we say their is a designer he insults our concept but he comes out with it and its OK. what a hypercrite.
I like the part when he said a life form cant just appear, isnt that what he is saying with evolution that it just happens?
Atleast he is starting to see he is wrong and is starting to accept a designer
in time he may realise how wrong he has been to insult everyone who has a belief in a God because he just looks like a bigot.
beginization 1 year ago
The atheist, is the worst kind of Dis- intellect. The atheist traps themselves into having to answer who crested the creator, until it it an infinite unimaginable number of explanations. Sad!
joe018687645 1 year ago
An atheist surely would not have to answer any such question seeing as they do not believe in any creator deity to begin with.
But as it's a valid question, if a creator is logical, then is it not illogical to assert that the *higher power* required no creation?
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
I'm sorry I've asked alot of questions, what question are you referring to there?
Also God's not just a higher power but the highest so he wouldn't be the highest then if he needed yet a higher power to make him, just like I said about God wouldn't be the creator if we he was created, or the inventor if he was invented.
100pjp001 1 year ago
So to me, this is a flawed logic.
If we are so complex we require a creator, why is God, who I would assume would be infinitely more complex, just "there"? Surely the complexity logic shoud be asserted there as well, otherwise its validity in the earlier sense is nulled.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
Because if he wasn't always there he would of started somewhere and if that happened he would of been created and wouldn't be the creator would he? That process then goes on forever 1 God creating another.
I'm just making the point that because "were" extremely complexed that it's hard to accept that this all came about without any intelligence at all that's all I'm saying there.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@Zabzag
All the ins and outs of eternity is not something I know everything about. I can't say HOW it's possible that God was always there BUT if the possibility turns out to be true that there is a God that created literally everything then he would have to be the only creator or he wouldn't be the creator of everything. Also he can't be subjected to time or anything really so that would include no beginning or end otherwise he wouldn't be God.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@Zabzag
On the other hand if there is no God then we came from literally nothing and I'm not about to consider that as a highly likely possibility.
So there's 2 possibilities there either there is a God or there isn't. Are you 50 50 on that or do you lean more towards 1 side than the other?
100pjp001 1 year ago
What I believe is irrelevant to meaningful academic debate.
There is surely a logical failure when you contest that we can't have come along by any other means aside from a creator deity, yet you simultaneously assert that the creator deity is exempt from this very methodology.
Essentially, you cannot give any clear reasoning or evidence other than anecdotal "we're too complex" theories that really do not hold much water when scrutinised.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
Yea it's true these are just my opinions to be fair and I feel that we couldn't of just happened without any intelligent planning that's all. Isn't it true anyway that us as living organisms and our DNA for example are vastly complex?
Maybe what you believe is irrelevant but if you don't mind answering what you believe more God or no God? Are you ok to answer that?
100pjp001 1 year ago
I did not suggest that there was a lack of complexity anywhere, I am just pointing out that you cannot logically pick and choose when to apply a certain framework to a theory, and then just take it away when it doesn't suit the needs of the argument.
As previously stated, I am Buddhist. As such, I acknowledge no creator deity and see any assertion of one as an irrelevance.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
I'm just saying complex things normally require an intelligent mind to plan them that's all so that's why I find it hard to accept these things can just self-assemble without any intelligent help or authorisation at all.
we have our minds set it seems, I do believe there's a possibility of God not existing but I lean more towards God being real.
Ok 1 last question before ending the debate, do you believe God is not real as a belief or just open minded on both possibilities?
100pjp001 1 year ago
I believe that the concept is irrelevant.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
Irrelevant to what exactly?
100pjp001 1 year ago
Anything at all.
The doctrine/concept of Dependent Origination is cyclic, not linear (which the idea of creation is).
Belief in a creator god does nothing for the personal path to enlightenment, and as such is irrelevant on most levels.
Ultimate truth is devoid of any god,, and clinging to the Abrahamaic or even Hindu concepts of gods was said by the Buddha to be delusional and indicative of the false view of eternity.
Zabzag 1 year ago
I agree, stupid video, whoever posted it. Obvious that it was edited to suit the asshole Ben Stein. These stupid assholes have no recourse but to lie, and lie, and lie...
bisbeekid 1 year ago
yea
i posted it and it was not edited
it is your dawkins
it is what he says
if you dont believe him,what can i do
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman
Stein was the one who did the editing.
He was answering the question on how intelligent design MIGHT be true, so he bent over backwards and jumped through hoops to come up with some sort of possible way an intelligence could have designed us. He doesn't believe we came from aliens.
Because Stein can't come up with real arguments, he clips and edits and leaves most of the justification on the cutting room floor--whatever underhanded tactics it takes to make Dawkins look bad.
HelplessVictim 1 year ago 24
@HelplessVictim
THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENT
but you know what?
i dont care at all
even if Dawkins became a real theist i wouldnt give a ****
but if Stein really did such thing,that makes him an ********
by the way,who cares,who thinks what!
the truth is as close as to anybody whoever wants it more than anything
best regards
cheers
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman
"the truth is as close as to anybody whoever wants it more than anything"
...What?
HelplessVictim 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim
:D hehe
i tried to mean that whoever wants the truth more than anything else in the world will easily find it and get sure about it :)
peace
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman Yes, that's precisely what we did. Here's hoping you follow suit and join the rest of us in reality. Cheers.
BailiffQuimby 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman So you dont care if your listning to a liar or not?
Zipzap220 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim no ben stein edited it but the reason dawkins said he says these things is cause he felt he pityed ben for being so stupid. was in richard darwakins blog
Squweesh 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim ur right. Stein simply coaxed dawkins into presenting argument on how intelligent design COULD be true, then spun it so that people like helplessvictim buy into it, --as if this is RD unqualified opinion. --NOT.
dwilmer7 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim No the question on ID being true showed how much trouble it is for people like atheist Dawkins to think outside the box.
Instead of trying to investigate if intelligent design is true they will refuse to even allow others to try without threats to employment.
Radical Atheism as practised by deciples of Dawkins and Hitchens will produce the demon hords spoke about in bible that will wage war on people of faith.
the comments by atheists prove the hate they have for God or faith
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
You're hopeless. It's not even worth trying to argue with someone at your level of lunacy.
HelplessVictim 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim Then why did you or was it a need as a atheist to let me know how inferior you think I am or to let me know how I wont have your superior advice to set me right to your limited beliefs
Thinking man is the most superior life in the universe is silly and narrow minded but keep banging those rocks together as much as you want but you wont create life or life would have evolve from behind the back of the loung.
your one of those atheist who believe mouse traps evolve by themselves
beginization 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim Did not science of the day believe the world was flat and america did not exist let alone flying. Science claimed while I was growing up there is no water in space ot life but we see in ancient meteorites from other worlds old bacteria that was the same that seeded our own planet and started life, it did not magicly start from dust decided to replicate with out thinking to make itself into DNA without intelligence becoming involved to start the process off first.
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
What the hell are you trying to say? I can't even make sense of that jumbled mess. I feel dumber for having read it.
Next time you try to form an argument, at least attempt to learn English grammar beforehand.
HelplessVictim 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim
Oh, so you can't make sense of his jumbled mess huh?
That's funny coming from someone who believes life began as a jumbled mess, and was created by a jumbled mess.
Maybe you should put more faith in his words, maybe you'll create life.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim Just letting you know what we were told by science teachers in school, maybe scientific views are different to other parts of the world like religions have different views about god, think about that if your able
All I am saying is that what science teaches today as fact maybe proved wrong in another 30 yrs as we learn new things un imagined and yet you atheist are afraid of allowing others to study intelligent design as a subject seperate to science so intrude on atheist turf
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
The difference is that science in fact does change based upon new evidence. It will admit if it makes mistakes, and has whole institutions set up specifically to make sure there are no mistakes.
Scientific theories require mountains of proof before they can be taught to children (who are young and impressionable). Intelligent design has no such proof, and is just a laughable concept.
Encryptsan 1 year ago
@Encryptsan Science use to be like that until Dawkins atheist types got involved
How many Scientist were asking to see the data used to claim gobal warming and were refused for years telling them they have no right to test their figures or theories and after many years the truth came out they destroyed the data so no one could examine it
You call that science as the UN has, that is whay so many now doubt so called science as it has now become political with atheist involved with their agenda.
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
I dunno where you got that story from, but it certainly sounds untrue. If it is true then cite a reliable source and I'll take a look.
In the scientific community if you publish a paper without evidence to back you up then you won't even have time to get your coat as you are laughed out of the room. Even the most eminent scientists can't just proclaim things, the scientific method must be followed.
Encryptsan 1 year ago
@Encryptsan Thats not true as how many scientist were asking to see the evidence and facts that led the UN to claim Global warming.
The UN scientist avoided freedom of infomation requests and destroyed the original data and only kept the value added data so no oe could check their figures.
Thank god for a insider to leak the emails and how we were all being scammed by these enviromentalist at the UN. This all happened at east anglia university in england run by the types like Dawkins.
beginization 1 year ago
@beginization
Which exact report are you quoting? You have still not given me even the name of a single paper or study which has been faked. Nor have you told me which UN announcement they claimed this at.
A date, an author, the title of a paper or study, just one tiny piece of information would prove you correct, but you haven't cited even one.
There are no "UN Scientists" either, I have no idea where you are getting your obviously fake information from.
Encryptsan 1 year ago
So atheist dont believe what they see with their eyes after all, Your ears dont work either as it sounds like Dawkins talking to me or do you think they impersonated his voice and made Dawkins say what he said about a designer.? Atheist have closed minds and no truth is good enough.
beginization 1 year ago
God (Allah) said: And indeed We have created man, and We know what his ownself whispers to him. And We are nearer to him than his jugular vein (by Our Knowledge).
Quran 50
Tofy710 2 years ago
to question if Richard Dawkins is an atheist, is like question if water is wet! this is a stupid video by a retarded person
siggdigg 2 years ago
the info goes on,sure he is
but the fact is he is not sure about anything
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
have you ever seen enything of what dawkins have said? i rather doubt it, because if you had, you wouldn't have made this video
siggdigg 1 year ago
his delusion still stands in my library :D
but you just dont want to understand
even a 5 year old british boy knows he IS an atheist
but we see in this video he is far away from being sure and relaxed with his atheism
peace
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman In what part of this video does he say anything to suggest that he is unsure about his disbelief in god?
BailiffQuimby 1 year ago
To answer the title question. Yes. Another lame attempt to make a good man look bad by showing him even giving the fool Stein the time of day.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
To say that because science cannot answer something, therefore religion can, is a terrible abuse of logic. The amount gained in knowledge through science each century is enormous. Science is working on explaining the rest of the questions we don't know. That is all I can say. I shall add, as a caveat, that Dawkins was fundamentally misrepresented in that preposterous "documentary". You can find his reply to Stein by typing into the search box "Richard Dawkins replies to Ben Stein".
distanceaxe 2 years ago 16
This comment has received too many negative votes show
actually religion is a great use of logic. atheists have more faith than anyone I know
mufafa777 2 years ago
atheists don't have faith.
atheists base what they think on matters of the world on evidence. if solid evidence appeared that god existed, then all atheists, without fail, would convert to the religion of that god. If atheists had faith, they would still be tied to their beliefs, like christians, jews, muslims, etc are today
JRHartleberry 2 years ago
@distanceaxe You're correct, but there is a point you left out and I think it's an important one, and that is that science simply cannot answer every question. That isn't an insult to science, it's simply pointing to the physcial contraints of it. To quote a much-quoted line, science can tell us how, not why.
matrix4022 1 year ago
evolution like all other natural processes follows strict rules if it were pure chance we would never have evolved because evolution needs theses rules to make the most of these benificial adaptions
lyco46 2 years ago
Dawkins "The designer couldn't of just jumped into existence spontaneously"
Nope he was always there to give all this information we have the universe.
People will say how is that possible? if this universe came from somewhere and that somewhere came from somewhere else then that can just go on and on for "eternity"
If we believed that everything came from nothing then we would have to put logic aside for it.
Otherwise we can believe this all came from something that's always been there.
100pjp001 2 years ago
god explains fuckall its the first and worst attempt at describing the world and a bad 1 at that it creates more questions than it solves it has no relevence today it did back then hen we knew fuckall but there is no need for that hypothesis anymore
god did it
its a cope out its just a way of saying i dont know so the all enccompassing god did it gets thrown in
god is a euphemism for ignorance
lyco46 2 years ago
So you'd rather believe nothingness created the phenomenon we see before us which surpasses the complexities of anything we've ever "created" and what we've made took "intelligence" So you'd rather believe the universe was a no brainer?
Believing nothing made all of this is a much bigger cop out lol. Because you're saying I don't know so let's just say nothingness made everything.
"god is an euphemism for ignorance"
I suppose nothingness isn't is it?
100pjp001 2 years ago
its not a matter of choice science today trys to explain the world around us god did is just meaningless words
nobody knows how it started we know the process by which life replicates but to postulate a designer is just lazy u have to base knowledge on hard facts
lyco46 2 years ago
"nobody knows how it started"
Thank you so why do you call people ignorant for wanting to believe we were created by God? Why can't you accept that people have a good reason to believe?
"god did it is just meaningless words" again nothing made everything isn't meaningless words?? this is what scientists say and you'll happily accept that ?? What hard facts are there behind that?
100pjp001 2 years ago
we were created by god
what does that acctually mean have u ever really thought about it because it says nothing
and ur assuming again who says nothing made everything we know the process that evolution shapes life through natural selection but but we know nothing of the origin of life no scientist ever said that dont know were u got that from
and because u cant base facts on assumptions and god is the biggest assumption of all
lyco46 2 years ago
I remember Stephen Hawkings saying it on tv before and in general I hear that scientists believe that.
So if you accept science then you have to accept that too.
Singularity people on here say is matter and energy in one tiny place and one day it expanded. That's the universe. Where did the energy come from that caused the expansion because energy was already there but it wasn't doing anything and then out of the blue it moved and expanded replicated and here we all are??? that sounds silly
100pjp001 2 years ago
We were created by God, that's what it means we were deliberately made for a purpose what else can it mean?
Well you can't base facts on the theory of everything happening from blind chance. So what's the other alternative that all of this was created deliberately ok? So if people choose to believe this was all created deliberately then you can't call people ignorant for believing that because millions of people believe in it because it's a possibility ok.
100pjp001 2 years ago
millions of people believe in all sorts of shit doesnt make it real their are millions of people who believe in ganesh the weird elephant with all the arms which im sure u dont believe in so ur an atheist too,ur an atheist for ganesh for thor for zeus for appollo ur just a theist for the judai christian god because u were brought up in middle america somewhere the human mind is highly susecptable to halucination and suggestion hence the multitude of gods
evolution is not blind chance
lyco46 2 years ago
please dont make ur mind up on evolution when u obviously dont understand it
lyco46 2 years ago 7
To conceive of evolution as nothing more than blind chance and randomness is the most serious conceptual mistake one can make. Evolution does contain a component of chance, but there is far more to the process than that, and it is precisely the existence of the non-chance components that allows evolution to work. The process of evolution is driven by the engine of natural selection, a filter that extracts order out of chaos according to a fixed and non-random set of rules.
lyco46 2 years ago 2
Like all natural processes, evolution is guided by laws that do not change. If you throw a rock up in the air, its path is not governed by pure chance, but by the law of gravity. It cannot fly off randomly in any direction, but will travel in a parabolic arc and land at a predictable point. If you put a hot object next to a cold one, the transfer of heat is not governed by pure chance, but by the laws of thermodynamics.
lyco46 2 years ago
There is no scientific evidence that humans' existence was inevitable or that evolution in general has any predetermined goals.
But these things are true only as far as science can determine. If one's personal convictions are such that God intended for humanity to develop all along and guided the course of evolution appropriately, that is not a belief that science can speak of because there is just no evidence for it
lyco46 2 years ago
The origin of something is either from something or nothing.
So you can say "I'm not saying this universe came from nothing" if that's the case then you have to believe this came from something that's always existed with no beginning. You know why?
If you believe this universe came from somewhere then that somewhere came from something else and that continues for infinity. The only way to stop that would be to believe that the 2nd or 3rd universe from this came from nothing.
So which is it??
100pjp001 2 years ago
why does it have to be from something we live and we die and we expect everthing else to be of this order what if its not what if its just always been all we have is what we can verify everything else is just make believe hence the multitude of religions and gods which by their very nature cant be verified
lyco46 2 years ago
Ok. We can "verify" the universe had a beginning that's one view that creation and non-creation science has in common. So we have to ask did it come from something or nothing.
If you say nothing then I'm sorry but you're throwing logic out the window. So wherever this all came from was from something that's always been there with no beginning or you have to then say this all came from nothingness which is an insult to intelligence itself if people happily accept that.
100pjp001 2 years ago
The universe is made of matter, time and space so if you take them 3 things away then what we have is something our little minds can't possibly grasp but one thing we can say about it is that what ever made this universe has extreme power behind it and if you take time away then there's no beginning to whatever was there to provide the energy we have.
The next question is where did the "information" within our dnas come from? That's the big question isn't it?
100pjp001 2 years ago
but ur presupposing a creator what ever made this universe thats an assumption that u have no emperical evidence for
to say something created the universe is saying nothing at all but i dont know so something created it... its a cop out
lyco46 2 years ago
You're repeating yourself and not really replying to my points.
I'm not assuming there's a creator but just pointing out that it IS possible. This universe HAD to of come from something that's "always" been there otherwise this all just sprung from "nothingness"
Is there any empirical evidence for that, everything from nothing??
You accepting that everything from nothing is a PROPER cop out, I'm sorry I couldn't say it in a nicer way really.
100pjp001 2 years ago
I read a quote... Might even have been Stephen Hawking, that said they would never categorically state that a god does not exist, only state that the probability of it existing is minute.
Zabzag 1 year ago
@Zabzag
How does Mr Hawking possibly determine that statement. I'm not misinterpreting anything too those were his exact words he said it plainly. Yea I could be lying I'm just a stranger but I'm telling you that's what he said and this is something that you'll find in science books and magazines.
The Probability of God existing is minute? Where did he get that idea from and I'm not sure what that means too sorry, what does he mean by that?