Understanding how planates or whatever worked,doesn't mean that no one put it to work like that !,Obviously your attacking design with the old argument of the god of the gaps,but the fact that the arguments of god and there are many,aren't because we don't know,but be cause we KNOW !
@mortalpokemon60 Yeah i need a serious work on it ! My point is that: understanding how a car works dosen't mean that the car wasn't designed ! in fact that will show me the level and the power of the designer.
@YamiYami17 The car's designer is something we can see, it is something that has been proven to exist. Now, the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created; god disobeys that law. Also if a god created the universe, (uni meaning all verse meaning existence) that would mean he would have to exist outside of it, and if universe equates to: all that exists; god is outside of the universe, therefore. . . .
@mortalpokemon60 But you agree that knowing "how" don't mean there weren't someone who put the thing to work,right ? "god disobeys that law" Yeap cause god is the one who created that law.
God is outside the universe that's right,and No,the universe does't equates to: all that exists.when we say universe we don't conclude god.
@YamiYami17 No creating matter just can't be done, it's a physical impossibility. Now, let's set up a scenario here. Let's say that we're in a room and all that exists is within this room; outside of the room is nothing, utter oblivion. You go to sleep, I pull out a gun and shoot myself in the head, and the bullet goes flying into non-existence. You awaken, see the blood splattered on the wall, and the bullet holes in my head and the wall and infer that a bullet once existed. . .
@mortalpokemon60 "just can't be done" yes can't be done by another matter like us,but god is not matter ! And No,the bullet will stop at the limit of the existing universe,which only god knows it,or maybe there will be other things in play when the bullet reaches the limits of the existing universe,maybe it will burn out! but assuming that it will fly into non-existing is absurd! To know if there is a god or not,just look at the living cells./watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg
@YamiYami17 Okay, since cells are so complex, shouldn't the creator of them be even more complex? If so who, created god? Did he always exist? If so, why can't the same be said for the universe? You shouldn't look at something, say this is too complex and blame a god, be it Odin, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter etc. I assume none of those are the ones that you think created the universe either.
@mortalpokemon60 1)Your first question better be,from where did come the information in DNA,the answer is without a doubt :Intellegence .
2) Complexity is a term that only works with created stuff,because they have building blocks !,The all mighty dosen't have building blocks.
3) God is the one who created the concept of creating stuff,you can't apply that concept on him.You can't say the same thing about the universe because the universe has a begening.
@mortalpokemon60 (1) If the circular logic is about god,then i can explain further more! if you say god is created,then the creator of god is also created! ans so on to infinity,and if it went to infinity,we wouldn't have creation.now if you don't understand why we wouldn't have creation if the process went to infinity,i can give an example : Say you want to do something but you need to take permission from you boss,your boss need to take permission from his biss and so on to infinity!
@mortalpokemon60 (2) Obviously if there is an infinit number of bosses you won't get your permission,but if you got your permission,we conclude that there is out there a big boss,that didn't need a prmission from anybody.the conclusion is we are here therefor an uncaused cause exists !
So my brother,you are the one pulling a circular argument about who created god,where from logic god is not created.
@YamiYami17 I'll answer your very simple question,with your very simple mind.It all came from the stars.Allah is Santa Claus,and so are all others. I could completely destroy you on where your Koran,and all other worthless beliefs came from,but you're to simple-minded. I won't waste anymore time on you so don't bother,cause you have nothing,but ignorance to fight back with.
@MrAmericanzombie Well if you can't destroy the argument for islam (qur'an being a miracle) then with all my respect, you are just talking,i can explain the evidence for islam if you which to destroy it.
@YamiYami17 Ok you win! What you call evidence has never been tested,peer reviewed,or accepted by the world of science.With all do respect, that's just talk.Your evidence is called faith,right.FAITH: believing in something with 0 evidence. Please bring that evidence out in the open.I'll destroy it all in one paragraph GUARANTEED!!! I'm a man of science:No faith needed,just FACTS!!!!
@MrAmericanzombie(1) It was tested and reviewed hundreds of times by muslims and non-muslims,and hundreds of books were written on it.Simply Prophets proved thier prophethood by showing miracles to thier nations and the last prophet wasn't any diffirent,in fact because he is the last and he is send to the whole of mankind,logicaly his miracle must be durable so even after his death people will see it.And that's qur'an, The qur'an is not poem,nor prose,and obviously not normal speech.
@MrAmericanzomb(2) It's like saying a cube with 7 faces,arabic has 3 branches and qur'an doesn't fit in any of them.God speaks in a supreme way,which is inimitable,and that's normal,a child dosen't speak english like an adult,an adult dosen't speak english like a teacher of english,a teacher dosen't speak english like PHD doctor in english,a PHD doctor dosen't speak english like a strong author who lived in the golden era of the english language like shakespear.
@MrAmericanzombie (3) So if there is indeed a revelation from god,it must make shakespear look like a dumb,and that is qur'an,If you which to hear some names of those who reviewed qur'an i highly recommend this entertaining lecture : /watch?v=w9vHj4z48q4
..
It's not about wining or losing,it's about going with the evidence where it leads :))
At all. Not a single piece. Go look up the word "evidence" in the dictionary. Then provide 1 piece of evidence. You cant because it doesnt exist. Your belief and in fact, all the Abrahamic religions are utterly false and does not have a single thread of evidence to be true. Again. Not one. Not one single piece of evidence. Do it. Post your "evidence". I havn't had a good laugh in a while.
@ov3rdos311 Well in short sir,the evidence is the style of the qur'anic versus,the structure of the text is outside the productive capacity of the nature of arabic,aka a miracle.And i really don't know why you want to laugh even though you haven't seen the evidence yet! Or maybe you are ready to laugh eather way (evidence or no evidence) in that case i don't know why you should care.
I wish I could eat a chicken a month and be fine. If I wanted to live on chicken alone I would have to pound down a five piece McNugget every 12 hours, not even counting my dependence on this thing called water.
I like Neil Tyson but he focuses too much on Western Civilization and gives Europeans too much credit. Europeans would not have the liberal arts if it was not for Africans such as the Kemites, Kushites and later the Moors. Imhotep was a multi genius and was able to design the structure for the step pyramid which today scientist are still trying to figure out how the Kemites (Egyptians) built pyramids that are en-lined with the stars.
@HeruTutankhamun Well, he did devote a signifiacnt part of his talk to islam. I am guessing the west is more relevant to him, and better known to him?
@Greatkingrat88 My real point is that the study of the stars did not start with Europe not even with Islam. Other civilizations were observing the stars long before human kind even migrated out of Africa.
@HeruTutankhamun Well, who started studying the stars, the history of astronomy, wasn't the point of this speech. If it was, then I am sure a more comprehensive history would have been given. The point was that intelligent design=ignorance, scientific method=enlightenment.
@Greatkingrat88 Well it needs to be taught in schools so all the myths & lies will stop. Its one of the big issues that creates a rift between black & white ppl. Not necessarily a hatred of skin color just the actions of lies and betrayal.
@HeruTutankhamun That I can agree with. Comprehensive education is absolutely essential, but I can't fault. Dr. Tyson for not giving a complete history of astronomy in a rather short presentation.
Laplace wrote a book on the formation of the Solar System, and Napoleon ask why he hadn't mentioned God. 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
i don't understand why does he compare old scientists to today scientists? The boundaries of human beings, physically and intellectually , are set by their parents, if you have a kid that breaks those boundary's (intellectually), there is only so far that kid can go in life, if he is a brilliant mind such as newton was, think how much smarter he could had been if his primary thought put into his head wasn't "god is everything", if he was raised in atheist home, perhaps he could be even greater
@lifemetall The boundaries of humans are NOT set by their parents. You set your own boundaries. It makes no difference whether or not you are religious or atheist, a brilliant mind is a brilliant mind.
@bronsonbaker NO, that's where you are wrong, when you are born, you have a huge learning potential which absorbs what your parents teach you, and parents usually teach religion, social behavior, and morality, some parents even teach hatred and discrimination. IF your boundary's are set to "bible is the ultimate source of knowledge", why do you have a need learn more? your brain just accepts it, and since nobody questions parents, children go dumb in bible
I agree with him about science classrooms. I am a Christian. I think that anything you can make the argument for with science can or should be taught in classrooms. I always think of science as the way of understanding what God created. That's why I don't think he should bunch religious people like me with those who he fears may harm future research opportunities. I also should note that I really like his Meme.
every generation has to have a person, who can make the jump from personal language to general language. Neil is one of them. Science is not the general language. The person who figures this out...will be not less powerful as Neil is...
I think you'll find that the 15% of the academy who accept a higher power actually accept Spinoza's god, which makes them rather more naturalist than the naturalists.
and yet there are dolphins... lol. No way would I say that "God is the reason I don't understand this." I learn something in college and think, holy shit... WHY DOES THIS WORK? But this guy is awesome regardless of this short sighted view.
I really enjoy Neil Tyson's work, but his presentations tend to be both informative and entertaining. Thus as a result are funny and tend to wander a bit.
At the end there.. was he trying to make the point that those 15% of scientists should abandon belief in a higher power? (which i wouldnt have a problem with personally)
@snowboredsnj No I think he was simply posing the question of what do they know that others don't or perhaps, whats psychologically different that even some brilliant minds may believe in a personal god.
@adhdaleksis: Aside, I don't know if being an Atheist would make people that matter more progressive in their respected fields, but I think Neil has a point here that should seriously be looked into.
@adhdaleksis: Yeah. Saying 'I don't know, therefore it's un knowable except to a currently unprovable god' is a bs way to see things. I'm an Atheist, and I don't mind when people are overtly theistic, I'm also considered African American, and I don't mind someone hating minorities based on false knowledge. However, personally, I feel that apart of being in a society is about making efforts. You spread truth to the racist, the anti-evolutionist, etc.
A question: Neil says, "I want to know why 15% of the most elite scientists don't reject god." Is his point that these scientists must have reached the end of their periods of research and discovery, and have given up on trying to figure out the world's mysteries, as the aforementioned Newton et. al. had done? That religion is what they fall upon once they give up on solving problems?
You know, I love this man and his intellectual spirit. One thing I think it would be fair to assert is that if MOST scientists lack faith, and most religions would assert that faith is required to receive divinity, then most scientists lack the instrument (faith) for detecting divinity, and so they make the ironic error to claim a fallacy is perpetrated by the religious world when they themselves are perpetrating the same fallacy: I don't understand it, so it cannot be.
@bobbodaskank But this is fallacious thinking. Anyone who claims to be religious doesn't get to "make up" rules for understanding religion or faith that escapes fundamental logic. If you want to convince someone that an extraordinary claim is true, the claim needs to be based on critical thinking and have either direct or indirect evidence for it in this reality. You can't consider anecdotal evidence alone in important questions.
@Madsy9 [Continued post to bobbodaskank] So why is it that we can't consider anecdotal evidence or non-logical arguments for important and/or extraordinary claims? If we had to take people's word on extraordinary (and important) claims that weren't anchored in reality and there were no logical evidence for and no way to measure, we would have no useful system to separate useful knowledge from useless knowledge. We would be unable to make a reasonable judgement in important decisions.
@Madsy9 [Continued] To figure out whether something is true or not, you obviously need an effective system to figure out things about this world/universe/whatever. And the scientific method is not some arbitrary rules made up on someone's say-so, or a doctrine. They make sense because they are consistent and because they time and time again are shown to *work*. Religion as a system for scientific inquiry about this world does not work the same way, and certainly not with the same success rate.
@Madsy9 [Continued] And you propose that faith could be an 'instrument'. Religious people who have faith do not differ any way from non-religious people physically. It's then tempting to ask "but what if this can't be ascertained yet?", but then you're back at wanting to take the existence of an of some divine connection with a god on faith again. The scientific method and scientific fields do not solely depend on instruments, knowledge or insight only available to a few. But religion does.
@Madsy9 So you say, but there are experiments detailed in some religious texts (something I take as a sign of a potentially valid religious system) about how one can put a doctrine to the test. Most of those explain that some degree of faith must be practiced. And SOME go the distance to describe the results one can have in which he can reject a doctrine. And yet people will either not bother, or they will attempt to cut out faith, and thereby flaw the equation, like saying E = mc or Force = m.
[Kind of continued] And I don't see faith as some nebulous thing. The way I see it, if you don't have it, it can be gained rationally; if you have it and don't use it, it can be lost. The only kind of people that are "immune" to it are those who don't want it to exist; people who can't muster the desire for it to be there, and for those people it will remain absent. But even then, all that is likely required is the willingness to try.
@Madsy9 [And finally] I'm not arguing that religion should be a valid reference point for science. Religion is not the solution in the lab. But just because it is not the solution for unlocking the physical and quantifiable mysteries of the universe, doesn't mean it isn't a solution for something else altogether. And yet most scientists (not all, as explained in the video) would say that because their work is not solved by a god, there is not one that solves ANY problems. That's the error I see.
@bobbodaskank Did you read a *single* word of my reply? In fact when we're at it, did you even watch this video?
Yes you can test many aspect of religion. By using science. Extensive trials have even been done on mundane things like prayer. Not surprisingly, prayer was not any more effective than not doing nothing at all. But you can't test soundness of religion with religion. Please re-read my posts slowly, and make sure you fully grasp the concepts I raised by reading other sources.
@Madsy9 Ah. We've moved on to asking people if they've even read what we wrote. These conversations are like talking to moss, so I hope you don't mind if I abort the discussion.
@bobbodaskank It was a honest question, not a ploy to sabotage the discussion. I honestly fail to see how you addressed anything I said. But I know how you feel, and I feel the same sometimes. I don't mind if you abort the discussion. Have a nice day :-)
It used to be common knowledge that black people were "animals" and incapable of the same level of intelligence as white people. I guess there is some truth to that, he might not be as smart as Steven Hawking.
i always get a kick out of the flame wars on science posts at youtube. regardless of what side of the fence you are on (spirituality and science, a false dichotomy); hubris does not serve your cause... i just reached a point where i no longer discuss my own personal viewpoints on such matters, since nuance and concession go out the window, egotism instead rearing its ugly face.
Ghazali pioneered “methodic doubt” and “skepticism”, both of which plays a foundational roll in all the secular movements to come. He was also opposed by one of the greatest minds the Muslim world would produce, Ibn Rashid (Averroes). Both men were renowned polymaths in their day (accomplished in multiple fields of science, as apposed to the vast majority of present-day scholarship).
1. Religion and the belief in God are rooted in scientific ignorance. As science progresses, religion retreats. Religion still holds on to scientific gaps.
2. Religion will eventually see science as a threat, and will work politically to undermine science. This is what happened to the Islamic golden age, and it is beginning to happen in the US today, and it is extremely dangerous. (22:45 in the video - "Naming Rights")
@ylevin1 Yes, and one other ploy used by religion has been to claim that the benefits of scientific discovery are really miracles provided to us by a deity. As in discovery of a vaccine to prevent smallpox being called a blessing from God.
@ylevin1 Religion and the belief in God are rooted in scientific ignorance.
___
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@jeaubeau How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh How can you believe that there is an invisible man up in the sky who does all that instead of accepting the fact that these are natural events? Your answer to scientific discovery is to believe in an invisible man who created everything?
@JackKangaroo1 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@JackKangaroo1 How can you believe that there is an invisible man up in the sky ..
____
He is present everywhere but His is not a bodily presence. He is far away from everything created but this distance is not on account of space or dimensions. His Omnipresence is unmistakably and intelligibly evident but He cannot be seen, discerned or viewed. He is hidden from human sight not because of His fineness and smallness.
He is remote from His creation because of His complete Control, Might and Power over them, and creatures are far away and separated from Him because they were brought into existence by Him, because they cannot exist without His Will and Mercy and because they are force by nature (free will is also part of nature) to obey and to submit to His Commands, thus there is nothing common between Him and His creatures to bring them bodily close to Him.
@1tabligh Okay, it is obvious to me that you have been totally brainwashed with the mind rot of religion and I doubt there is any hope that you will ever be free of this mental disorder, so debating you is pointless. All I will say at this point is that had you been born in the Middle East you would undoubtedly be just as a devout a Muslim as you now are a Christian. Ditto for you being a Hindu in India or a Buddhist in Asia. You have a mind susceptible to ludicrous belief systems, that's all.
@JackKangaroo1 Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
@1tabligh and yet there is nothing in the world more short-sighted and petty than islam, with its nuggets of universal inspiration such as its obsession with covering girls' hair.
god forbid we see a girl's hair. the fucking world will end.
@000EatMan000 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh particles "appearing" in space is measurable. oxygen formation is actually a simple process in old stars, again measurable. protein synthesis? measurable process. the laws u address r human constructs that attempt 2 recreate n predict so by definition they HAVE 2 b measurable. "why" the universe works these ways cannot b satisfactorily described n 500 words or less instead go get a phd in astrophysics and ull start to skim the surface. or do u think u already know everything?
@1tabligh everything you mocked as nonsense is actually completely measurable and provable. if you actually sat down at length and learned the math to be able to analyze the science, you'd see how rock solid the proof is. you're free to cover your ears, close your eyes, and hide from the truth, but just know, you're wrong.
@000EatMan000 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@1tabligh no he should keep probing, investigating, and testing until he discovers the hidden truths he has yet not discovered, like he has been since the birth of science
@000EatMan000 We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
@1tabligh no, you can measure all the stuff you say is BS. just cause a human eye can't see it or a human ear hear it (two horribly flawed systems) doesn't mean it's not there.
@000EatMan000 When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their
@000EatMan000 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...
@000EatMan000 Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@000EatMan000 How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
@1tabligh Ah, but it can be seen like two coconuts banging together like horse's hooves in the kingdom of Mercia. Coconuts? In Mercia? Coconuts are tropical, Mercia is a temperate zone! Ah, but they could be found, of course! Found how? They could be CARRIED! Impossible! says the man of Science. The man of Faith just smiles:
"The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?"
@000EatMan000 Ahh, but it's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
@1tabligh Look, let's just end this God-No-God question right here.If something has an effect, then said effect is measurable and should be provable. If this proposed "God" has no measurable effect, then it has no intersecting sphere of influence inside our universe, and so it doesn't matter! Ever heard of the theory of parallel universes? I entertained the notion for long, until I decided that it is a moot point just like God. If something occurs outside our universe, it is unprovable
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@1tabligh Interesting, you first advocate doing away with logic, and trumpet yourself for doing so and "going beyond" it so to speak. And then you try to make a logical argument, so which is it, do we keep logic or no? Or is only okay to do away with logic when justifying belief in god?
backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Now explain to me how you go from that baseless assumption, to "Jesus was god, born to a virgin, died for our sins and was resurrected and will return to end the world on judgement day."
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh I notice you didn't answer the question. Take a look at Neil's "In Defense of the Big Bang" if you really want to know. Although I doubt you'll understand it.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@1tabligh I didn't know I had such delusions.... but it's interesting you say "even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists." for isn't that an argument against, or at least a point against, god?
Anyway, I don't think you really read what I said, because you definitely didn't respond to it. Please address what I say next time rather than putting words and beliefs in my mouth.
@tweaker1bms Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@1tabligh Actually science is derived from epistemology, a branch of philosophy, which deals with the question of how we can know things. Philosophy today has taken the reigns of dealing with what can be known by pure thought: logic and reason and the like. Science deals with investigation of the world. Given the world is material and only the material seems to interact with our instruments, this is simply how we are limited. It's not to say it's all there is, it's all we can work with
@tweaker1bms Are you seriously suggesting a world of Cartesian dualism? "What can be known by pure thought", are you kidding me? What is this pure thought that you speak of? Seriously, just look up the mind-body problem. Wow.
@RibakTB No reason to act like a jerk... this has nothing to do with the mind-body problem, something I'm very familiar with as a philosophy grad btw. What I'm referring to is the divisions made by skeptics in the like of Kant and Hume, wherein what's examined is what we can learn from examining the world vs from pure reason. This pure thought I speak of I further defined as logic and reason, it deals with the form of arguments rather than the content which also impacts their validity.
@tweaker1bms Validity is not truth value. You're not the only one who wasted their college years on a Philosophy degree. (Philo/Anthropology undergrad, MPA).The validity of an argument is not the same as its truth value, and I shouldn't have to tell you that. The truth value of the content has nothing to do with the validity. Whether it is true is another issue. So far all the we have learned from "pure reason" is that it is inadequate for understanding the world. Evidence or nothing.
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh We don't know the preconditions of the universe, if there even are any. For all we know, time is just a result of the universe existing, and without the universe there is no time.
It doesn't matter what my answer is. Your answer is "magic" no matter what religion you are.
But again, let's say you're right. Let's say the universe was created by a god that somehow exists despite your assertion that everything needs a creator. How do you go from that to proving holy book? Magic?
@frankvonfrauner Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
@frankvonfrauner What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
@1tabligh Well because they don't believe that. It's far more complicated, and frankly you should listen to video you're commenting on, because he has a very good reply to you. I wont give out spoilers though, because then you might not watch it ;)
@1tabligh And it is a complete lie to say "a considerable number of scientists have religious outlooks". In the damn video you're commenting on he explains 85% of the top scientists DON'T have personal religious views. But what point is there in responding to a religious zealot (a muslim one at that!)?
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
@1tabligh Your argument is false because you offer no proof in a god, only that because you don't know what created the big bang that god did it. This is the exact problem that Neil talked about in the video, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that a god did it - that in fact is probably the dumbest way to approach the pursuit of knowledge.
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
@1tabligh The answer to the question where did the very beginning of the universe is and can always be, wait for it, We don't know. The point is that if you are a theist you are solving a problem by faking a solution. If I say that the universe was created by a giant turtle sneezing it into existence, how would you prove that I am wrong?
The point is that if you say that a god did it, then you better bring some evidence of that god. Also, please disprove my giant turtle theory.
@IamSandman Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter,
Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
If someone claims that you are an giant turtle , he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
The one who claims that you are an giant turtle is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
This has been flagged as spam show
Very nice..
panicattacksymptoms1 3 days ago
Nice work Tyson
orion1two 3 days ago
HOLY SHIT that was Dawkins at a Neil Tyson seminar
kohula1 1 week ago
@kohula1 And Lawrence Krauss too,he is on the table right besides Neil.
denispkpk 6 days ago
@kohula1 Dawkins spoke, too. This wasn't just a NDT seminar.
dumbo800 6 days ago
is that richard dawkins in the audience?
hammotox83 1 week ago
@hammotox83 yes.
im10pplok 1 week ago
@hammotox83 yep @ 36:45
chriscox52282 1 week ago
ui, eu estou em um monte de videos sobre gente inteligente.
carpetim 1 week ago
he is one of very few people of science who is full of heart and soul in every word he speaks.
nannynicky4life 1 week ago
Understanding how planates or whatever worked,doesn't mean that no one put it to work like that !,Obviously your attacking design with the old argument of the god of the gaps,but the fact that the arguments of god and there are many,aren't because we don't know,but be cause we KNOW !
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
@YamiYami17 Dude, your grammar is atrocious. Could you please restate your point so I could refute it properly?
mortalpokemon60 2 weeks ago
@mortalpokemon60 Yeah i need a serious work on it ! My point is that: understanding how a car works dosen't mean that the car wasn't designed ! in fact that will show me the level and the power of the designer.
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
@YamiYami17 The car's designer is something we can see, it is something that has been proven to exist. Now, the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created; god disobeys that law. Also if a god created the universe, (uni meaning all verse meaning existence) that would mean he would have to exist outside of it, and if universe equates to: all that exists; god is outside of the universe, therefore. . . .
mortalpokemon60 2 weeks ago
@mortalpokemon60 But you agree that knowing "how" don't mean there weren't someone who put the thing to work,right ? "god disobeys that law" Yeap cause god is the one who created that law.
God is outside the universe that's right,and No,the universe does't equates to: all that exists.when we say universe we don't conclude god.
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
@YamiYami17 No creating matter just can't be done, it's a physical impossibility. Now, let's set up a scenario here. Let's say that we're in a room and all that exists is within this room; outside of the room is nothing, utter oblivion. You go to sleep, I pull out a gun and shoot myself in the head, and the bullet goes flying into non-existence. You awaken, see the blood splattered on the wall, and the bullet holes in my head and the wall and infer that a bullet once existed. . .
mortalpokemon60 1 week ago
@mortalpokemon60 . . .that now doesn't exist, the bullet had measurable effects. The same cannot be said for god.
mortalpokemon60 1 week ago
@mortalpokemon60 "just can't be done" yes can't be done by another matter like us,but god is not matter ! And No,the bullet will stop at the limit of the existing universe,which only god knows it,or maybe there will be other things in play when the bullet reaches the limits of the existing universe,maybe it will burn out! but assuming that it will fly into non-existing is absurd! To know if there is a god or not,just look at the living cells./watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 Okay, since cells are so complex, shouldn't the creator of them be even more complex? If so who, created god? Did he always exist? If so, why can't the same be said for the universe? You shouldn't look at something, say this is too complex and blame a god, be it Odin, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter etc. I assume none of those are the ones that you think created the universe either.
mortalpokemon60 1 week ago
@mortalpokemon60 1)Your first question better be,from where did come the information in DNA,the answer is without a doubt :Intellegence .
2) Complexity is a term that only works with created stuff,because they have building blocks !,The all mighty dosen't have building blocks.
3) God is the one who created the concept of creating stuff,you can't apply that concept on him.You can't say the same thing about the universe because the universe has a begening.
4) Allah (swt) is the only god.
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 *sigh* Now you're just using circular logic. I'm done with you.
mortalpokemon60 1 week ago
@mortalpokemon60 (1) If the circular logic is about god,then i can explain further more! if you say god is created,then the creator of god is also created! ans so on to infinity,and if it went to infinity,we wouldn't have creation.now if you don't understand why we wouldn't have creation if the process went to infinity,i can give an example : Say you want to do something but you need to take permission from you boss,your boss need to take permission from his biss and so on to infinity!
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@mortalpokemon60 (2) Obviously if there is an infinit number of bosses you won't get your permission,but if you got your permission,we conclude that there is out there a big boss,that didn't need a prmission from anybody.the conclusion is we are here therefor an uncaused cause exists !
So my brother,you are the one pulling a circular argument about who created god,where from logic god is not created.
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 I'll answer your very simple question,with your very simple mind.It all came from the stars.Allah is Santa Claus,and so are all others. I could completely destroy you on where your Koran,and all other worthless beliefs came from,but you're to simple-minded. I won't waste anymore time on you so don't bother,cause you have nothing,but ignorance to fight back with.
MrAmericanzombie 1 week ago
@MrAmericanzombie Well if you can't destroy the argument for islam (qur'an being a miracle) then with all my respect, you are just talking,i can explain the evidence for islam if you which to destroy it.
YamiYami17 1 week ago
@YamiYami17 Ok you win! What you call evidence has never been tested,peer reviewed,or accepted by the world of science.With all do respect, that's just talk.Your evidence is called faith,right.FAITH: believing in something with 0 evidence. Please bring that evidence out in the open.I'll destroy it all in one paragraph GUARANTEED!!! I'm a man of science:No faith needed,just FACTS!!!!
MrAmericanzombie 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAmericanzombie(1) It was tested and reviewed hundreds of times by muslims and non-muslims,and hundreds of books were written on it.Simply Prophets proved thier prophethood by showing miracles to thier nations and the last prophet wasn't any diffirent,in fact because he is the last and he is send to the whole of mankind,logicaly his miracle must be durable so even after his death people will see it.And that's qur'an, The qur'an is not poem,nor prose,and obviously not normal speech.
YamiYami17 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAmericanzomb(2) It's like saying a cube with 7 faces,arabic has 3 branches and qur'an doesn't fit in any of them.God speaks in a supreme way,which is inimitable,and that's normal,a child dosen't speak english like an adult,an adult dosen't speak english like a teacher of english,a teacher dosen't speak english like PHD doctor in english,a PHD doctor dosen't speak english like a strong author who lived in the golden era of the english language like shakespear.
YamiYami17 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAmericanzombie (3) So if there is indeed a revelation from god,it must make shakespear look like a dumb,and that is qur'an,If you which to hear some names of those who reviewed qur'an i highly recommend this entertaining lecture : /watch?v=w9vHj4z48q4
..
It's not about wining or losing,it's about going with the evidence where it leads :))
YamiYami17 5 days ago
@YamiYami17
You. Have. NO. Evidence.
At all. Not a single piece. Go look up the word "evidence" in the dictionary. Then provide 1 piece of evidence. You cant because it doesnt exist. Your belief and in fact, all the Abrahamic religions are utterly false and does not have a single thread of evidence to be true. Again. Not one. Not one single piece of evidence. Do it. Post your "evidence". I havn't had a good laugh in a while.
ov3rdos311 3 days ago
@ov3rdos311 Well in short sir,the evidence is the style of the qur'anic versus,the structure of the text is outside the productive capacity of the nature of arabic,aka a miracle.And i really don't know why you want to laugh even though you haven't seen the evidence yet! Or maybe you are ready to laugh eather way (evidence or no evidence) in that case i don't know why you should care.
YamiYami17 3 days ago
34:22 He spelled crocodile wrong >.>
Homestar20845 2 weeks ago
@Homestar20845 I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that. Oh, well, he's not a zoologist.
damonlazer 2 weeks ago
According to the dislike bar....there are at least ten people who have the ability to completely disregard logic and reason in favor of delusion.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 weeks ago
I wish I could eat a chicken a month and be fine. If I wanted to live on chicken alone I would have to pound down a five piece McNugget every 12 hours, not even counting my dependence on this thing called water.
GeekyGerald 2 weeks ago
36:41 Richard Dawkins?
NazgulMoonblade 3 weeks ago
@NazgulMoonblade
Yes.
TheSaltyAdmiral 2 weeks ago
I like Neil Tyson but he focuses too much on Western Civilization and gives Europeans too much credit. Europeans would not have the liberal arts if it was not for Africans such as the Kemites, Kushites and later the Moors. Imhotep was a multi genius and was able to design the structure for the step pyramid which today scientist are still trying to figure out how the Kemites (Egyptians) built pyramids that are en-lined with the stars.
HeruTutankhamun 3 weeks ago
@HeruTutankhamun Well, he did devote a signifiacnt part of his talk to islam. I am guessing the west is more relevant to him, and better known to him?
Greatkingrat88 2 weeks ago
@Greatkingrat88 My real point is that the study of the stars did not start with Europe not even with Islam. Other civilizations were observing the stars long before human kind even migrated out of Africa.
HeruTutankhamun 2 weeks ago
@HeruTutankhamun Well, who started studying the stars, the history of astronomy, wasn't the point of this speech. If it was, then I am sure a more comprehensive history would have been given. The point was that intelligent design=ignorance, scientific method=enlightenment.
Greatkingrat88 2 weeks ago
@Greatkingrat88 Well it needs to be taught in schools so all the myths & lies will stop. Its one of the big issues that creates a rift between black & white ppl. Not necessarily a hatred of skin color just the actions of lies and betrayal.
HeruTutankhamun 2 weeks ago
@HeruTutankhamun That I can agree with. Comprehensive education is absolutely essential, but I can't fault. Dr. Tyson for not giving a complete history of astronomy in a rather short presentation.
Greatkingrat88 2 weeks ago
hmm... Looks like Neil de Grass Tyson is so sexy, there are videos recommended to the left with sexy footage, lol.
Th3Sh1n1gam1 3 weeks ago
Laplace wrote a book on the formation of the Solar System, and Napoleon ask why he hadn't mentioned God. 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
gamesbok 1 month ago
Comment removed
lifemetall 1 month ago
i don't understand why does he compare old scientists to today scientists? The boundaries of human beings, physically and intellectually , are set by their parents, if you have a kid that breaks those boundary's (intellectually), there is only so far that kid can go in life, if he is a brilliant mind such as newton was, think how much smarter he could had been if his primary thought put into his head wasn't "god is everything", if he was raised in atheist home, perhaps he could be even greater
lifemetall 1 month ago
@lifemetall The boundaries of humans are NOT set by their parents. You set your own boundaries. It makes no difference whether or not you are religious or atheist, a brilliant mind is a brilliant mind.
bronsonbaker 1 month ago
@bronsonbaker NO, that's where you are wrong, when you are born, you have a huge learning potential which absorbs what your parents teach you, and parents usually teach religion, social behavior, and morality, some parents even teach hatred and discrimination. IF your boundary's are set to "bible is the ultimate source of knowledge", why do you have a need learn more? your brain just accepts it, and since nobody questions parents, children go dumb in bible
lifemetall 1 month ago 6
I agree with him about science classrooms. I am a Christian. I think that anything you can make the argument for with science can or should be taught in classrooms. I always think of science as the way of understanding what God created. That's why I don't think he should bunch religious people like me with those who he fears may harm future research opportunities. I also should note that I really like his Meme.
vtc193 1 month ago
every generation has to have a person, who can make the jump from personal language to general language. Neil is one of them. Science is not the general language. The person who figures this out...will be not less powerful as Neil is...
tartupets 1 month ago
Neil: You're the enlightened one. Thanks for the education.
Trodua 1 month ago
Thank you, VIBrunazo, for uploading this video
wlbarbo 1 month ago 3
I think you'll find that the 15% of the academy who accept a higher power actually accept Spinoza's god, which makes them rather more naturalist than the naturalists.
gamesbok 1 month ago
i hate it when assholes rush neil... hearing him is so valuable...
MediumNothinFull 1 month ago
Neil, I think YOU'RE Unimpeachably Brilliant...
MediumNothinFull 1 month ago
We need to clone Neil ASAP and put one of him in every single classroom. It's the only hope for mankind.
caligraphictsuba 1 month ago 92
I like this man. Humor + science, why wasn't it like that when I was still at school?
plix3r 1 month ago 38
@plix3r Bill Nye?
Th3Sh1n1gam1 3 weeks ago
@plix3r One may suggest that, you're always in school. Not until your physical body has taken it's last breath do you graduate!
Have a great day all.
4micaman 1 week ago
and yet there are dolphins... lol. No way would I say that "God is the reason I don't understand this." I learn something in college and think, holy shit... WHY DOES THIS WORK? But this guy is awesome regardless of this short sighted view.
jasonroxorz 1 month ago
@jasonroxorz You call Neil DeGrasse Tyson short-sighted because you're too ignorant too research how dolphins came to be? Woah.
lamerizzle 1 month ago
@jasonroxorz Go read The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins. There is a section on dolphins.
lamerizzle 1 month ago
I really enjoy Neil Tyson's work, but his presentations tend to be both informative and entertaining. Thus as a result are funny and tend to wander a bit.
At the end there.. was he trying to make the point that those 15% of scientists should abandon belief in a higher power? (which i wouldnt have a problem with personally)
snowboredsnj 1 month ago
@snowboredsnj No I think he was simply posing the question of what do they know that others don't or perhaps, whats psychologically different that even some brilliant minds may believe in a personal god.
Digg175 1 month ago
@adhdaleksis: Aside, I don't know if being an Atheist would make people that matter more progressive in their respected fields, but I think Neil has a point here that should seriously be looked into.
VictorAlxYork 1 month ago
@adhdaleksis: Yeah. Saying 'I don't know, therefore it's un knowable except to a currently unprovable god' is a bs way to see things. I'm an Atheist, and I don't mind when people are overtly theistic, I'm also considered African American, and I don't mind someone hating minorities based on false knowledge. However, personally, I feel that apart of being in a society is about making efforts. You spread truth to the racist, the anti-evolutionist, etc.
VictorAlxYork 1 month ago
A question: Neil says, "I want to know why 15% of the most elite scientists don't reject god." Is his point that these scientists must have reached the end of their periods of research and discovery, and have given up on trying to figure out the world's mysteries, as the aforementioned Newton et. al. had done? That religion is what they fall upon once they give up on solving problems?
adhdaleksis 1 month ago
Comment removed
adhdaleksis 1 month ago
You know, I love this man and his intellectual spirit. One thing I think it would be fair to assert is that if MOST scientists lack faith, and most religions would assert that faith is required to receive divinity, then most scientists lack the instrument (faith) for detecting divinity, and so they make the ironic error to claim a fallacy is perpetrated by the religious world when they themselves are perpetrating the same fallacy: I don't understand it, so it cannot be.
bobbodaskank 1 month ago
@bobbodaskank But this is fallacious thinking. Anyone who claims to be religious doesn't get to "make up" rules for understanding religion or faith that escapes fundamental logic. If you want to convince someone that an extraordinary claim is true, the claim needs to be based on critical thinking and have either direct or indirect evidence for it in this reality. You can't consider anecdotal evidence alone in important questions.
Madsy9 1 month ago
@Madsy9 [Continued post to bobbodaskank] So why is it that we can't consider anecdotal evidence or non-logical arguments for important and/or extraordinary claims? If we had to take people's word on extraordinary (and important) claims that weren't anchored in reality and there were no logical evidence for and no way to measure, we would have no useful system to separate useful knowledge from useless knowledge. We would be unable to make a reasonable judgement in important decisions.
Madsy9 1 month ago
@Madsy9 [Continued] To figure out whether something is true or not, you obviously need an effective system to figure out things about this world/universe/whatever. And the scientific method is not some arbitrary rules made up on someone's say-so, or a doctrine. They make sense because they are consistent and because they time and time again are shown to *work*. Religion as a system for scientific inquiry about this world does not work the same way, and certainly not with the same success rate.
Madsy9 1 month ago
@Madsy9 [Continued] And you propose that faith could be an 'instrument'. Religious people who have faith do not differ any way from non-religious people physically. It's then tempting to ask "but what if this can't be ascertained yet?", but then you're back at wanting to take the existence of an of some divine connection with a god on faith again. The scientific method and scientific fields do not solely depend on instruments, knowledge or insight only available to a few. But religion does.
Madsy9 1 month ago
@Madsy9 So you say, but there are experiments detailed in some religious texts (something I take as a sign of a potentially valid religious system) about how one can put a doctrine to the test. Most of those explain that some degree of faith must be practiced. And SOME go the distance to describe the results one can have in which he can reject a doctrine. And yet people will either not bother, or they will attempt to cut out faith, and thereby flaw the equation, like saying E = mc or Force = m.
bobbodaskank 1 month ago
[Kind of continued] And I don't see faith as some nebulous thing. The way I see it, if you don't have it, it can be gained rationally; if you have it and don't use it, it can be lost. The only kind of people that are "immune" to it are those who don't want it to exist; people who can't muster the desire for it to be there, and for those people it will remain absent. But even then, all that is likely required is the willingness to try.
bobbodaskank 1 month ago
@Madsy9 [And finally] I'm not arguing that religion should be a valid reference point for science. Religion is not the solution in the lab. But just because it is not the solution for unlocking the physical and quantifiable mysteries of the universe, doesn't mean it isn't a solution for something else altogether. And yet most scientists (not all, as explained in the video) would say that because their work is not solved by a god, there is not one that solves ANY problems. That's the error I see.
bobbodaskank 1 month ago
@bobbodaskank Did you read a *single* word of my reply? In fact when we're at it, did you even watch this video?
Yes you can test many aspect of religion. By using science. Extensive trials have even been done on mundane things like prayer. Not surprisingly, prayer was not any more effective than not doing nothing at all. But you can't test soundness of religion with religion. Please re-read my posts slowly, and make sure you fully grasp the concepts I raised by reading other sources.
Madsy9 1 month ago
@Madsy9 Ah. We've moved on to asking people if they've even read what we wrote. These conversations are like talking to moss, so I hope you don't mind if I abort the discussion.
bobbodaskank 1 month ago
@bobbodaskank It was a honest question, not a ploy to sabotage the discussion. I honestly fail to see how you addressed anything I said. But I know how you feel, and I feel the same sometimes. I don't mind if you abort the discussion. Have a nice day :-)
Madsy9 1 month ago
Fuck religious disputes on YouTube grow the fuck up
darknightza 1 month ago
Was that Richard Dawkins in the audience at around 15:00?
normalkuriboh 1 month ago
@normalkuriboh It is.
supahsekzy 1 month ago
Neil is not only a master observer of natural phenomena. He is also a master obsverver of the history of human culture.
WxMan18 1 month ago
Aborted feces.
dashduhad 1 month ago
I think there are people in the academy that don't do hard sciences.
Like sociology, literature etc, that's the 15%
leftie98 1 month ago
I nearly choked to death from laughter at 36:15
The irony is not lost on me...
archangelgabe 1 month ago
14:58... is that, no... yea it is, that is Richard Dawkins
cigaretteburn01 1 month ago 3
But how do you explain the shape of a banana! lol
It fits perfectly into you breathing hole!
frankvonfrauner 1 month ago 7
lol man compared to neil everyone is so dry
mrAlokyy 2 months ago
It used to be common knowledge that black people were "animals" and incapable of the same level of intelligence as white people. I guess there is some truth to that, he might not be as smart as Steven Hawking.
Zurround100 2 months ago
heh, i hadn't even noticed that google video had gone 'defunct' until i read the description here!
jamesedwardtheobald 2 months ago
i always get a kick out of the flame wars on science posts at youtube. regardless of what side of the fence you are on (spirituality and science, a false dichotomy); hubris does not serve your cause... i just reached a point where i no longer discuss my own personal viewpoints on such matters, since nuance and concession go out the window, egotism instead rearing its ugly face.
jamesedwardtheobald 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ghazali isnt the reason
Muslims would never ever agree and follow one Imam
the real reason is wars
11th and 12th centuries Crusades no need to talk about this now
13th century Tatars war who destreyed all east half of islamic states
50% of islamic sicence books and researchs were destreyed in Bagdad by Tatar
Muslims stopped Tatar march in Jerusalem otherwise they would destrey the 2nd half in eygpt
even with these war muslims sciences didnt stop for sure.
Xzibillionaire 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ghazali pioneered “methodic doubt” and “skepticism”, both of which plays a foundational roll in all the secular movements to come. He was also opposed by one of the greatest minds the Muslim world would produce, Ibn Rashid (Averroes). Both men were renowned polymaths in their day (accomplished in multiple fields of science, as apposed to the vast majority of present-day scholarship).
Xzibillionaire 2 months ago
He make two HUGELY important points
1. Religion and the belief in God are rooted in scientific ignorance. As science progresses, religion retreats. Religion still holds on to scientific gaps.
2. Religion will eventually see science as a threat, and will work politically to undermine science. This is what happened to the Islamic golden age, and it is beginning to happen in the US today, and it is extremely dangerous. (22:45 in the video - "Naming Rights")
ylevin1 2 months ago 6
@ylevin1 Yes, and one other ploy used by religion has been to claim that the benefits of scientific discovery are really miracles provided to us by a deity. As in discovery of a vaccine to prevent smallpox being called a blessing from God.
JackKangaroo1 2 months ago 2
@ylevin1 Religion and the belief in God are rooted in scientific ignorance.
___
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
jeaubeau 2 months ago
@jeaubeau How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh How can you believe that there is an invisible man up in the sky who does all that instead of accepting the fact that these are natural events? Your answer to scientific discovery is to believe in an invisible man who created everything?
JackKangaroo1 2 months ago
@JackKangaroo1 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@JackKangaroo1 How can you believe that there is an invisible man up in the sky ..
____
He is present everywhere but His is not a bodily presence. He is far away from everything created but this distance is not on account of space or dimensions. His Omnipresence is unmistakably and intelligibly evident but He cannot be seen, discerned or viewed. He is hidden from human sight not because of His fineness and smallness.
1tabligh 2 months ago
He is remote from His creation because of His complete Control, Might and Power over them, and creatures are far away and separated from Him because they were brought into existence by Him, because they cannot exist without His Will and Mercy and because they are force by nature (free will is also part of nature) to obey and to submit to His Commands, thus there is nothing common between Him and His creatures to bring them bodily close to Him.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Okay, it is obvious to me that you have been totally brainwashed with the mind rot of religion and I doubt there is any hope that you will ever be free of this mental disorder, so debating you is pointless. All I will say at this point is that had you been born in the Middle East you would undoubtedly be just as a devout a Muslim as you now are a Christian. Ditto for you being a Hindu in India or a Buddhist in Asia. You have a mind susceptible to ludicrous belief systems, that's all.
JackKangaroo1 2 months ago
@JackKangaroo1 Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 months ago
Comment removed
Thelondonbadger 2 months ago
@1tabligh Watch the video again, he proves ID is bullshit,
Thelondonbadger 2 months ago
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh and yet there is nothing in the world more short-sighted and petty than islam, with its nuggets of universal inspiration such as its obsession with covering girls' hair.
god forbid we see a girl's hair. the fucking world will end.
THE FUCKING WORLD.
WILL END.
000EatMan000 2 months ago
@000EatMan000 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh particles "appearing" in space is measurable. oxygen formation is actually a simple process in old stars, again measurable. protein synthesis? measurable process. the laws u address r human constructs that attempt 2 recreate n predict so by definition they HAVE 2 b measurable. "why" the universe works these ways cannot b satisfactorily described n 500 words or less instead go get a phd in astrophysics and ull start to skim the surface. or do u think u already know everything?
000EatMan000 2 months ago
@000EatMan000 Let us see YOUR scientific understanding.
Go to the laboratory, and do an experiment with little of NOTHING, and then mix it with a LOT of NOTHING, and GUESS WHAT!
YOU WILL GET THIS SPECTACULAR UNIVERSE!
From NOTHING comes NOTHING!
What science is this?
What man of science are you?
Come back when you get something out of nothing!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh everything you mocked as nonsense is actually completely measurable and provable. if you actually sat down at length and learned the math to be able to analyze the science, you'd see how rock solid the proof is. you're free to cover your ears, close your eyes, and hide from the truth, but just know, you're wrong.
000EatMan000 2 months ago
@000EatMan000 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh no he should keep probing, investigating, and testing until he discovers the hidden truths he has yet not discovered, like he has been since the birth of science
000EatMan000 2 months ago
@000EatMan000 We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh no, you can measure all the stuff you say is BS. just cause a human eye can't see it or a human ear hear it (two horribly flawed systems) doesn't mean it's not there.
000EatMan000 1 month ago
@000EatMan000 When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh you should take a university level class in quantum mechanics. you might really enjoy it on a spiritual level
000EatMan000 1 month ago
@000EatMan000 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh does this mean you're not taking the class?
000EatMan000 1 month ago
@000EatMan000 Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh you're the one dodging questions bro. why won't you take a class on QM and see for yourself?
bad at math?
000EatMan000 1 month ago
@000EatMan000 How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Ah, but it can be seen like two coconuts banging together like horse's hooves in the kingdom of Mercia. Coconuts? In Mercia? Coconuts are tropical, Mercia is a temperate zone! Ah, but they could be found, of course! Found how? They could be CARRIED! Impossible! says the man of Science. The man of Faith just smiles:
"The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?"
000EatMan000 1 month ago
@000EatMan000 Ahh, but it's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
flameofretribution1 1 month ago
@1tabligh Look, let's just end this God-No-God question right here.If something has an effect, then said effect is measurable and should be provable. If this proposed "God" has no measurable effect, then it has no intersecting sphere of influence inside our universe, and so it doesn't matter! Ever heard of the theory of parallel universes? I entertained the notion for long, until I decided that it is a moot point just like God. If something occurs outside our universe, it is unprovable
flameofretribution1 1 month ago
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Interesting, you first advocate doing away with logic, and trumpet yourself for doing so and "going beyond" it so to speak. And then you try to make a logical argument, so which is it, do we keep logic or no? Or is only okay to do away with logic when justifying belief in god?
tweaker1bms 1 month ago
backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Ok.
Now explain to me how you go from that baseless assumption, to "Jesus was god, born to a virgin, died for our sins and was resurrected and will return to end the world on judgement day."
Go.
frankvonfrauner 1 month ago
@frankvonfrauner And where did you pull that from?
I am not a Christian!
I am a Shiite Muslim!
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I notice you didn't answer the question. Take a look at Neil's "In Defense of the Big Bang" if you really want to know. Although I doubt you'll understand it.
cannonultra789 1 month ago
@cannonultra789 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Anyone can make a claim, it's scientists that bother to investigate them.
tweaker1bms 1 month ago
@tweaker1bms The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I didn't know I had such delusions.... but it's interesting you say "even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists." for isn't that an argument against, or at least a point against, god?
Anyway, I don't think you really read what I said, because you definitely didn't respond to it. Please address what I say next time rather than putting words and beliefs in my mouth.
tweaker1bms 1 month ago
@tweaker1bms Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Actually science is derived from epistemology, a branch of philosophy, which deals with the question of how we can know things. Philosophy today has taken the reigns of dealing with what can be known by pure thought: logic and reason and the like. Science deals with investigation of the world. Given the world is material and only the material seems to interact with our instruments, this is simply how we are limited. It's not to say it's all there is, it's all we can work with
tweaker1bms 4 weeks ago
@tweaker1bms Logic is philosophy, not separate from it in the realm of 'pure thought.'
KoutetsuTenshin 3 weeks ago
@tweaker1bms Are you seriously suggesting a world of Cartesian dualism? "What can be known by pure thought", are you kidding me? What is this pure thought that you speak of? Seriously, just look up the mind-body problem. Wow.
RibakTB 3 weeks ago
@RibakTB No reason to act like a jerk... this has nothing to do with the mind-body problem, something I'm very familiar with as a philosophy grad btw. What I'm referring to is the divisions made by skeptics in the like of Kant and Hume, wherein what's examined is what we can learn from examining the world vs from pure reason. This pure thought I speak of I further defined as logic and reason, it deals with the form of arguments rather than the content which also impacts their validity.
tweaker1bms 2 days ago
@tweaker1bms Validity is not truth value. You're not the only one who wasted their college years on a Philosophy degree. (Philo/Anthropology undergrad, MPA).The validity of an argument is not the same as its truth value, and I shouldn't have to tell you that. The truth value of the content has nothing to do with the validity. Whether it is true is another issue. So far all the we have learned from "pure reason" is that it is inadequate for understanding the world. Evidence or nothing.
RibakTB 2 days ago
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 1 month ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh We don't know the preconditions of the universe, if there even are any. For all we know, time is just a result of the universe existing, and without the universe there is no time.
It doesn't matter what my answer is. Your answer is "magic" no matter what religion you are.
But again, let's say you're right. Let's say the universe was created by a god that somehow exists despite your assertion that everything needs a creator. How do you go from that to proving holy book? Magic?
frankvonfrauner 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frankvonfrauner Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frankvonfrauner What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Well because they don't believe that. It's far more complicated, and frankly you should listen to video you're commenting on, because he has a very good reply to you. I wont give out spoilers though, because then you might not watch it ;)
tweaker1bms 1 month ago
@1tabligh And it is a complete lie to say "a considerable number of scientists have religious outlooks". In the damn video you're commenting on he explains 85% of the top scientists DON'T have personal religious views. But what point is there in responding to a religious zealot (a muslim one at that!)?
cannonultra789 1 month ago
@cannonultra789 ...the Big Bang...
___
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
1tabligh 1 month ago
The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
1tabligh 1 month ago
How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Your argument is false because you offer no proof in a god, only that because you don't know what created the big bang that god did it. This is the exact problem that Neil talked about in the video, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that a god did it - that in fact is probably the dumbest way to approach the pursuit of knowledge.
IamSandman 1 month ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh The answer to the question where did the very beginning of the universe is and can always be, wait for it, We don't know. The point is that if you are a theist you are solving a problem by faking a solution. If I say that the universe was created by a giant turtle sneezing it into existence, how would you prove that I am wrong?
The point is that if you say that a god did it, then you better bring some evidence of that god. Also, please disprove my giant turtle theory.
IamSandman 1 month ago
@IamSandman Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter,
1tabligh 1 month ago
@IamSandman without any need for a creator.
Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh So a giant turtle created the universe.
IamSandman 1 month ago
giant turtle
___
I make a claim of ONE God ( Allah, Lord, Gud, Khuda, etc ) then I will produce the evidence to back it up!
Anyone who claims of " giant turtle, zeus,.." etc or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the divinity of " giant turtle, But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
I did claim the divinity of anyone besides God!
The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
1tabligh 1 month ago
I did not claim the divinity of "giant turtle"!
But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
If someone claims that you are an giant turtle , he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
The one who claims that you are an giant turtle is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
1tabligh 1 month ago