I think I found a hero for the first time in my life! It is strange that I have never heard about Weinberg, but I want to read everything he has written. I will even start studying physics now!
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. - CARL SAGAN
The main problem with religion is its certainty. It's time for us to face the facts; we live in a world of uncertainty. Period. Let's move on with the human species please, so we can eventually survive the death of our sun.
@ZachRose88 lol yes, don't worry, people are breaking away from religion everyday. We don't believe in Zeus anymore, or the old Mayan Gods. So one day we'll escape our dying star :)
man i just signed up to make a comment about this 'couchpotato' guy! man oh man I have never encountered such a little educated embacle in my whole life.fucking idiot!
Physics is very difficult. I am extremely good at math, and made A+ In Cal I and Cal II with little effort. However, I got s-h-r-e-d-d-e-d by physics.
I have so much respect for the minds capable of understanding physics, because try as I might, I cannot. I love math, and am seriously considering being a mathematician, but physics? Not in my wildest dreams.
I also tried to read his book...extremely difficult. I pity the editor. ahah
I don't believe in god so I am somewhat aligned to their views. However, consciousness cannot be explained as being the mere by-product of a few elements which have come together. I would like to know what they think consciousness is. Because the definition of consciousness is probably going to be what religious people have been seeking through the ages.
i dont even have a high school diploma but i think what scientists are missing and ignoring is the power of feeling and or understanding things through feeling and love. that also can be another wat of finding him besides science. they just say, why? what else could be the reason we have feelings? to have sex,get burned or feel cold or hot?
@1986bahai Why, might I ask, is faith good? Why is accepting something without good reason or evidence good? Why should "feeling and or understanding things through feeling and love" be considered a virtue? Why should anyone say that having a feeling about something should justify an idea that has no merit otherwise, and how can you distinguish it from any other god? Would you be okay if I told you I felt that the invisible pink unicorn is real? To answer your question, (Con't)
@1986bahai ...we have feelings because they are necessary for our survival, especially as a social species. Why do other social primates have emotions very similar to ours, yet show no signs of worshiping a god?
Understand things through love? You could be in love with the same person for about 10 years and have them cheating on you for the whole time. Love gives absolutely no understanding at all. Emotions are useless in science, humans are absolutely brilliant at getting things wrong.
Understand things through love? You could be in love with the same person for about 10 years and have them cheating on you for the whole time. Love gives absolutely no understanding at all. Emotions are useless in science, humans are absolutely brilliant at getting things wrong.
Understand things through love? You could be in love with the same person for about 10 years and have them cheating on you for the whole time. Love gives absolutely no understanding at all. Emotions are useless in science, humans are absolutely brilliant at getting things wrong.
I wonder why God never answers the prays of the religious. I am sure they pray for the suffering of these children to sees. I guess it might be because he does not care or it might be he is imaginary. I would think it could only be one of the two.
Absolutely. I've always thought the greek and roman gods were far more plausible than the abrahamic God because of this. At least the greeks realised the gods were capricious and mean, that hypothesis at least matches reality.
Listen from 7:42-9:06...listen to the words and phrases: chaotic, no initial conditions, complicated, no fine tuning, burbles on, fluctuations, very complicated, every once in a while, by accident, happens to become smooth, "not by any design". And this "scientific" explanation of what preceded our big bang explains why there is no God? A "burbling" chaotic, accidental, fluctuating, accidental happenstance led to us?
If you believe in a god that didn't start the universe in the way it has been proven to have started, then yes, that disproves your god. If you believe in a god that created the universe we actually have, then it doesn't.
When you say something like "lead to us" when you could have said "lead to the universe" you put in evidence your anthropocentricism, and that is a trap you shoult try to escape from.
@CMVD777 hahahah we're not against god's morality,..we can't be against something that doesn't exist. it's like you having your imaginary friend Ted, and I'm against him,..how the hell does that make any sense? i mean how does god exist? when we can't see, touch, feel, detect him/her/it? we can only get in touch with him through our imagination. that's simply an imaginary friend, disprove me.
3. Blasphemies: if anybody will do it, is puniched very soon and anybody is free to try it, even right now! This one can come immediatly or later and it doesn't mean death or going to hospital (but can also happen).
4. In Bible, we find two (2) candidates to be called GOD, but atheists are arguing just with ONE,not with other pretendent.
1. In Bible we find a lot of prophecies which happened and are happening, examples: vatican, midle east, united states etc.
2. If anybody will follow what God asks (ex: praying), everybody will have whatever they want (ask). Note:Praying in a right form,following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible.
You don't need god to have an objective standard of ethics. We know that it's wrong to kill people. We know it's wrong to steal from people. Why are religious people so convinced that you cannot have a moral code without God. It's ridiculous. In the words of Christopher Hitchens "Human decency isn't derived from religion. It precedes it."
@seanevanmusic yes. I prefer a morality which isn't fixed but changes. I think over the last 2000 years we've seen an evolution of morality. Floggings, lynchings & burning at the stake were all used 500 years ago. About 100 years ago society started to treat women & children better, effort was made to reduce poverty, very recentely humans have started to treat animals and the environment much better. Morality will probably become even better in the future.
The further and further we push our understanding of the universe back in time, the further we push the "need" to invoke (a) creator(s). I wonder what this understanding will do to the future evolution of our current religions, and what kind of future religions will come about.
@anon69 F=ma is not derived, it's an experimental relationship. You can build mathematical laws where F=ma^2. The laws would be mathematically consistant, but they wouldn't be correct.
to @bersa888 Both Jesus and the Apostles taught that we are sinners, and Salvation and is found in the creator who died for the sins of all who recongnize thier guilt and turn in faith to Jesus. If you need me to take you through the Scriptures to show you this, I can do that. God Bless!
@bersa888 You seem like a thinking person who actually evaluted my comments, and it is good that you are thinking about these matters of supreme importance. I would only like to clarify that I don't believe Jesus taught us that "what makes life bearable is in us."
Fascinating discussion. I imagine myself sitting in the room sipping on a whiskey cocktail, smoking a cigar, and particpating in a talk with mental giants.
"why do i have to make peace with the tragedy that I will die?
Jesus is the answer, He made all things for his own glory, he defeated death, he redeemed to Himself a people, through His own death. Praise to the Lord, that I have not fooled myself into believing that I have to make peace with tragedy, My hope is in the Triune God of Scripture.
Thank you for showing everyone what your atheism amounts to Weinberg.... utter hopelessness."
@victor77281488 : In a non-religious way I kind of agree with you... Jesus DID show us that the "divine", the beauty, the importance which all make life bearable and worth living is in us :-) Everything else about religion I find utterly ridiculous. Hoping in the impossible - or nearly so - is the real tragedy, it's sad and hopeless, not trying to understand our universe, being logical and growing up, leaving the needs of early men and children behind.
@victor77281488 If you think his work is worthless I'd gladly compare his accomplishments against the peversity of your religion. You say your faith is the most humble, quite an unmodest statement, yet you drape your smug ego all over anyone who disagrees with you. I mourn your ignorance.
@jacksawild I never said that Weinberg's "work is worthless," in fact he's brilliant. But he is wrong on denying what is self evident to all men that God is real.
Yes my faith, which I did not come up with, but which God gave me is humbling.
Where does the Bible teach perversity? It doesn't
You have no argument, only foolish proud unbelief.
@jacksawild I get it you don't like God's Law's you think they are perverse, but on what basis are they perverse, you have no objective standard as an atheist. Your argument is basically I don't like God becuase he is not like me, therefore what he says is perverse. That is not a legitimate argument.
The Bible teaches that God's laws reflect his Holy nature, therefore if you hate his Laws you essentially hate Him, not a good place to be in.
@victor77281488 The god of Abraham is one that condones slavery, genocide, racism, the dis empowerment of women, homophobia, intolerance of other religions etc.
One should not dismiss the Old Testament's repeated demand for the vilest atrocities as something peculiar to the early Hebrews. Even today, our most atrocious wars, terrorism and hate crimes occur around the world based on ancient religious beliefs, many of them coming directly from verses in the Old and New Testament.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
why do i have to make peace with the tragedy that I will die?
Jesus is the answer, He made all things for his own glory, he defeated death, he redeemed to Himself a people, through His own death. Praise to the Lord, that I have not fooled myself into believing that I have to make peace with tragedy, My hope is in the Triune God of Scripture.
Thank you for showing everyone what your atheism amounts to Weinberg.... utter hopelessness.
Religious beliefs are nothing more than misfiring of our intellectual extrapolation, once somehow useful to our social life, but today completely useless and ridiculous, nothing more than vestigial fictitious remains of our fervid imagination.
i find it much more beautiful that the universe , life and everything we see appeared out of probability and chance ....
rather than the arrogant idea that some god made only 1 planet in the entire universe and send his son there to die for people's sins ...
christianity is a direct proof at how arrogant humans can be ...we made a religion that makes us special than other beings ...thats how sick we are ....
the real beauty is that life is nothing more than a complex chemical reaction
@sidewaysfcs0718 I am not quite sure what it means for life to have appeared out of 'probability'. It sounds like that is the complete opposite of it appearing out of chance (i.e., life was very probable to have occurred). But it did NOT appear out of chance. It developed by the process of evolution, which is antithetical to chance. Both creation and evolution are competitors to the 'chance' explanation, and only one of them is even remotely demonstrable. Read Dawkins's 'The God Delusion.'
@sidewaysfcs0718 I didn't misunderstand what you said - rather, perhaps, you did not say what you meant. What you've said here is not what 'chance' means. Just because it doesn't have a purpose or was planned by some god doesn't mean the only other alternative is chance. Another is the process of evolution, which is not chance. Dawkins explains all of this in his wonderful book. I highly recommend it.
@sidewaysfcs0718 Christianity is the most humbling faith on earth. But let me engage your argument, Christianity is false becuase it centers around the death of God the Son for an ill deserving people whom He chose to save. There is nothing arrogant about that just audacious shows God to be worthy of praise.
Numbers don't have units, but I'll give you a further layer of mystery anyway: the answer to life, the universe, and everything in it is 6 times 9. Hehe : )
I tried to read his book on quantum field theory and found it very very hard to understand. It seemed to me (being trained as a pure mathematician) to start halfway in the middle.
Isn't it strange that in Weinberg's poignant comment about the tragedy of life he stumbles into the first noble truth of Buddhism - a fundamental religious tenet - and perhaps the very point where religion and science agree - yet Dawkins doesn't pick up on it or even notice. He's probably never heard of it.
Unless you have a rebuttal, then your claim has no basis in reality.
Buddha believed in the afterlife and all kinds of supernatural ideas that buddhists are taught to believe. Its just another religion that values emotional comfort over reason afterall.
Buddha, however, was right to postulate the non-existence of a seperate self- but he never quite understood what that meant.
@Alphonzen Everyone knows the world is very beautiful; educated people also know that it is also more tragic and unfair than blissful and equal.
For instance, lions are beautiful but survive by murdering other mammals.
There are 6.8 billion ppl. in the world. Around 500 children die every hour of starvation alone. Yes, flowers are pretty and so are frozen waterfalls.
The real tragedy is that you don't seem to know that Weinberg is an atheist, so you implying he is using some religious aliteration in his comments is nonsense.
That's exactly the point - if there's evidence, science will explore it.
There is no evidence, and the evidence that we have for counter-theories so strongly points to a lack of a "designer" that God is not a scientifically considered possibility.
Religious nuts, however, insist on a God despite the huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.
The problems with these scientists trying to "understand" God is that understanding for them means scientifically understanding how or what he is. By definition God, who wold be supreme could never be understood "compositionally" by the greatest human intellect, but the bible does illustrate how God's character is, his personality, his mind. They want to subject God to a laboratory test.
i myself just cannot understand how any human (no matter how low its iq might be) can just keep finding these ridiculous equivocations to keep up a belief system for which there is no evidence at all while there comes along plenty of evidence that proofs huge essential parts of the belief system to be wrong.
what u r doing is modifying ur belief system and cherrypicking what works out for you (in order to justify your irrational belief) while actually sayin 0
It makes little difference whether you have a high IQ to if you believe there is a metaphysical world. Humans have a brain which is vulnerable to seeing outside agencies at work, it is hard wired into us that we have an outside agency detector. Better to think there is a leopard creeping into your bit of forest and be mistaken than to become cat food. It is a natural part of how we evolved.
As a physicist and atheist I find this discussion one of the most interesting and clear talks I have ever heard. The situation of humans is tragic in many ways, in most ways in fact, but as one of my professors once said "the only joy you will find is in searching not in getting the answer, because you will never get it". That is what saddens me most :(
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Interesting what he says about Scalar fields, considering that wikipedia refers to them as pseudo science, lol.
But also interesting is his take (early in this clip) about how unsatisfactory it is to just say something like, "things are as they should be" or whatever, suggesting that religious belief would somehow mean that no one would want to understand the world. John Polkinghorne, on the other hand, believes that belief in God was actually a major motivator of scientific discovery. Hmmm...
I'm sorry, my mistake - it was Scalar WAVES I had once looked up. The first google hit is wiki's page, "Scalar field theory (pseudoscience." But there is ALSO another wiki page on "Scalar field theory" which I had overlooked.
The second paragraph begins, "Scalar waves in these theories (as opposed to a scalar field in mainstream physics) are hypothetical waves, which differ from the conventional electromagnetic..." etc, etc
The neutrality and factual accuracy of the page is in dispute.
what I see here is great respect for Weinberg from Richard. Indeed science pioneers here discussing the very fundamentals of nature and thus our existence.
Look at Dawkins. He looks like a little kid interviewing his favorite teacher.
Notice his body language. Unlike other videos where his body suggests great dominance, here he actually seems timid. He loves this guy! He even stumbled on some of his words in the first vid. This is hilarious.
You are absolutely right on the money. I was just thinking "Now here's a man who is considered an incredible intellect (Dawkins) and he is absolutely humbled and almost awestruck by Weinberg" I picked that up too. He is respectful of him because he has a very high regard for Weinberg's intellect. Even Dawkins knows when to back off. LOL Good point.
Our universe DOES require a creator....not only that, but His fingerprints are all over it. Our universe screams design.
No one created God, that is a retarded statement by someone who is supposed to have a brain. Weinberg is (insert insult here).
Here's a question... Does our universe have an end in sight for it? If so, how can you say it is eternal? How can something not have a beginning but have an end?
In regards to your question, the universe does not necessarily have to have an end. However, it looks as though that may be the case. Scientists are very willing to admit that the universe did in fact have a beginning, but they have yet to prove that a designer caused this beginning.
Couch "Where did your mass come from?" This is such a pedestrian argument, I suppose I can start with an insulting comment but I won't. To argue this point either way, two conditions must be proven. 1: An Enity Exists now 2: An entity has always existed. Argument for God 1: An Enity Exists now : ? 2: An entity has always existed ? Argument for Matter as we know today. 1: An Enity Exists now 'YES" 2: An entity has always existed ? Now, which is more likely of the two
that's weird, I got different answers for the Argument for God question.....both my answers were yes, and that leads me to the conclusion that it is more likely that God created matter.....hmmm.
What exactly is it that you want from God that you would consider as proof of His existence? Are you wanting Him to come down here and eat with us and talk with us and go fishing with us? (You know He already did that, right?) The answer to this riddle is that you don't want it to be true.
Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, yup sounds like an idiot to me. As for the universe, who told you that there is an end? It is likely that all matter will break down to simpler particles then to some kind os wave energy as it expends. It will not completely disappear and it did not come from nothing. I get the feeling that you skipped all your physics classes..
wow, you're a feisty one. Belief in God has been around much longer than the new atheist movement. The burden of proof IS on you to prove to me that you are right. I am challenging your view and this video. Your job is to convince me that you are correct by saying something intelligible that would convince me 100% that science proves that there is no God. You. Can't. Do. It.
So how do YOU explain the walls of a city collapsing outwardly?
"Belief in God has been around much longer than the new atheist movement."
SO-FUCKING-WHAT?
"that would convince me 100% that science proves that there is no God."
Could you be any more retarded? First of all there's no 100% certainty in science. Secondly the burden of proof is on you cause you possess a positive claim "God exists". Thirtdly positive claims need positive evidence. My incompetence to prove there's no god is not evidence for god. That's why you have the burden of proof.
No way dude. I've met God. He's a lot closer than you think. And if you would take a second and give him credit for arcaeopteryx (which has been classified as a bird by scientists that believe in evolution) and the Cambrian explosion, you might actually learn something pretty cool about Him. Mainly that you don't have to know everything to be confident about it. The burden is on you to prove to me that God does not exist and my experiences of Him have only been glandular secretion.
Bahahaha. I usually don't comment on crap like thid, but since you're using the whole burden of proof concept, I thought it was worth a reply.
Anyone who's taken a class in logic can tell you that the burden of proof is on YOU. You can't pull arguments and premises out of thin air and say "disprove them". That's simply fallacious. It's okay though, faith and reason have never gone hand in hand.
I'm pretty certain I'm on the correct side though.
Actually, I did watch it. And your so-called answers can be found throughout using the word "theory". I have legitimate questions for all of you, and have yet to receive an acceptable answer. If you are making the statement that God does not exist based on the theory of evolution, you must prove it. Theory is not proof. Where did your mass come from?
Ok, but at best, god is only a theory and unlike the theory of evolution, one for which there is no evidence whatsoever. At best you are arguing form the weaker position, so apply your own argument to yourself, how does the unproven and untestable god theory increase our understanding of where matter came from?
It's actually somewhat simple. God says He spoke creation into existence and by His words all things are held together. Science has now discovered that new cells building DNA know how to line up based upon minute vibrations. You might be able to say how God did something, but just because it can be explained by science doesn't disprove His existence. Have you seen the ruins at Jericho? Did you know they found the original wall and it actually DID fall outwards? How do you explain this?
You still didn't answer my question. Where did the mass come from? How do you get something from nothing?
How am I supposed to find anything you say credible if you can't even answer a simple question like that? How do you get something from nothing? How am I supposed to believe you? Where did all of this come from? In order for atheism to be correct, you NEED an answer to this question and only this question. Where did the mass come from?
The honest answer is that no one knows. It's possible that one day we will know. Then again, maybe we won't. It may be that matter has always existed. If we say that God created the matter, we would have to answer the question of who created God. If we say that God has always existed, then we could just as well say that matter has always existed. Whatever the reason, it was simple and natural, not complex and supernatural like a God.
So you're saying that matter has always existed and has given you your purpose in life. And it created moral law and truth. You are actually saying the same thing I am saying, but you say that science did it and not God. There's proof all around you, you just claim it is pointing to somewhere else. And I claim it points to somewhere other than where you say it does. Who decides which is right? Where is the absolute end to all of this? Who says "yes" and "no"?
Matter hasn't always existed because in order for anything to be eternal, it has to have no beginning and no end. There IS an end for matter, I'm sure you know that it is inevitable. Our universe is still expanding and will not be able to contract. Which means it will eventually burn out. Because of this we can say that matter is not eternal. If it has an end, it had a beginning. Where did it come from?
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another, which is stated by the first law of thermodynamics. Since matter is just another form of energy, matter is eternal. It is not going to "burn out". Physicist now believe that the early universe was completely made out of energy.
Where did your energy come from? So you're trying to tell me that matter has always existed and always will exist.....where's your proof on that? Your use of the definition of the first law of thermodynamics is weak. It means that WE cannot create it or destroy it because it's already here. At one point it wasn't. If it was, you would be able to say that this has happened numerous times where the universe expands and collapses. But it is not going to collapse this time....where's your proof?
"Our lack of knowledge doesn't mean that a god exists." True. Our abundance of knowledge does not mean that He does not exist either. It really seems strange to me that only the top minds of this world can understand the mindless process of evolution. Does that make sense to you? If there is no God, there is no point in you even caring about being right! Who would it matter to even if you were? It would go down into the dirt with you when you die....
"Our abundance of knowledge does not mean that He does not exist either"
Nobody's trying to prove your god doesnt exist. It's your job to prove your god exists if you want your god to be taken seriously. We will lack belief in your god untill you come up with evidence.
Actually, belief in God has been around for around 6,000 years. The burden of proof is on you. I already asked but it wasn't directed at you, so here goes again.....Have you heard about the walls at Jericho? Archaeologists have found the ruins of the city and discovered that the wall of the city actually collapsed outwardly. The Bible story has been backed up by evidence. How do you explain this "phenomenon"? There are a lot more discoveries like this. I will be happy to share them with you.
"Actually, belief in God has been around for around 6,000 years."
So? Totally irrelevant thing to note.
" The burden of proof is on you"
No it's not you dumb fucktard. You have the claim, you have the burden of proof.
"The Bible story has been backed up by evidence."
So the bible has some references to real events. So what? That doesn't make the whole damn book true. And there is no proof that jewish magic collpased the walls.
According to the Bible, the walls of Jericho neither fell inward nor outward.
Josh. 6:20: "So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat..."
ok, but the fact that the walls have been found to have fallen outwards means that it is more likely that the story in the Bible is true. Had they fallen inwardly, you could say that the city was seized upon.
This is my real point. Evolution and science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. I happen to find Him in science because I know Him and you happen to not find Him because you can explain a few things. Being able to explain something does not take away His existence or cause.
couchpotatoe244: "This is my real point. Evolution and science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God."
I believe that you are very right to say this. Science will never disprove God, because it is scientifically impossible to prove a negative. However, if God existed it might be possible to prove it.
"if God existed it might be possible to prove it"
Read isaiah 53. It was written 1,000 years before Jesus even walked the earth and He fulfills at least 12 prophecies just in this one chapter. Read Psalm 22 and tell me who it reminds you of. Read Micah 5:2 and tell me how Jesus somehow manipulated it for himself. Explain to me why 12 guys would put their lives on the line if they knew it was a joke.
Matt. 3:3: "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias (Isaiah), saying, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
Obviously, Matthew and the writers of the gospels had access to the writings of Isiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and David. Notice the special emphasis that Matthew places on pointing out all the prophecies that had been full-filled. The gospels were written to look as though prophecies had been full-filled.
As for the twelve disciples, they were almost certainly fictitious characters. Very revealingly, the Bible is foggy on the names of all twelve of the men. Matthew and Mark are in agreement as to the names. However, when we turn to Luke and Acts, "Judas, brother of James" has taken the place of "Thaddaeus." Although John does not give a complete list of the disciples, it does give us the name of a totally different disciple, "Nathanael", who is not mentioned in any of the other gospels.
You argue that god is real and present evidence in the bible, when questioned about the evidence in the bible you say it is true because it is the word of god. That's circular logic to me, how do you know that stuff isn't invented by men? You weren't there, and the bible is the ONLY account of many of the things it describes, it does NOT agree with other historical accounts in many cases. Hmm...
wow. You are putting words in my mouth. And you don't know your Bible. When did I say it is true because it is the word of God? Have you ever read Josephus? Have you ever read any books by anyone that believes in creation and works in the scientific fields? I think your judgment of me is highly miscalculated and you should go back and rethink before you speak.
I do know the bible I read a pretty big chunk of it when I was growing up. Do you believe the bible is true?
Yes I've read the creationist bullshit. Anyone who believes in creation and works in the scientific fields is deluded. How can you possibly dedicate your life to the pursuit of knowledge by the scientific method and yet dismiss one of the largest bodies of supporting evidence of any scientific theory ever?
Nope I haven't, jewish historian right? What has Josephus to say that is so convincing?
What the fuck is up with your disdain for the scientific method? I suppose "1.Blindly believe ancient fairy tale because it was the one I happened to hear growing up 2. Ignore all contrary evidence, repeat" is much more rewarding.
And are you serious, what is the benefit to scientific progress? LOOK AROUND, YOU AREN'T HUNTING MOOSE WITH YOUR BARE HANDS IDIOT. I suppose the bible keeps you healthy and warm?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes. Jewish historian. Look him up. My disdain for the scientific method is that it isn't the end of all rules. This "fairy tale" that I happened to hear growing up never actually made sense to me. I don't agree with most of what the church is teaching nowadays. I "happened" to hear it honestly and personally about 5 years ago, LONG after my separation from the church. 2. Evidence? Really? What evidence do you have to prove that God doesn't exist? Science can neither prove or disprove Him.....
One can't disprove the existence of faeries, or unicorns, or leprechauns, or Santa Clause, there's an infinite number of "unprovable" things. One should not proceed from the assumption that the supernatural must be disproved. Since there is no evidence of a creator, rather only a bunch of flimsy ontological arguments, there's no reason to believe there is one, and, even if there was, there's no way to know anything about him/her/it's wishes, and hence no basis for religious observance.
Perhaps you don't believe science keeps you "healthy and warm," but it's certainly what allows you to be disseminating this nonsense on the internet, either deluding the minds of others, or, more likely, making them laugh scornfully.
its not 43, its 42 you motherfucker! jk, the guy is a genius
ironman1478 1 week ago
I think I found a hero for the first time in my life! It is strange that I have never heard about Weinberg, but I want to read everything he has written. I will even start studying physics now!
astroboomboy 1 month ago in playlist Steven Weinberg Discussion - Richard Dawkins
I think when he's talking about the period of time that is "incredibly early in the history of the Universe" he means the Planck epoch.
It's 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after The Big Bang.
TweekDash 2 months ago in playlist Steven Weinberg Discussion - Richard Dawkins
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. - CARL SAGAN
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
The main problem with religion is its certainty. It's time for us to face the facts; we live in a world of uncertainty. Period. Let's move on with the human species please, so we can eventually survive the death of our sun.
ZachRose88 4 months ago
@ZachRose88 lol yes, don't worry, people are breaking away from religion everyday. We don't believe in Zeus anymore, or the old Mayan Gods. So one day we'll escape our dying star :)
Omnislash2000 4 months ago
man i just signed up to make a comment about this 'couchpotato' guy! man oh man I have never encountered such a little educated embacle in my whole life.fucking idiot!
aqaehsan11 9 months ago
I've always wondered how we know the age of the Universe within 1%, yet we know what happened during the first picosecond...
rgrannell1 9 months ago
@rgrannell1 that is interesting. they're really two different problems.
dsanzo 4 months ago
@rgrannell1 that is interesting. they're really two different problems.
dsanzo 4 months ago
Physics is very difficult. I am extremely good at math, and made A+ In Cal I and Cal II with little effort. However, I got s-h-r-e-d-d-e-d by physics.
I have so much respect for the minds capable of understanding physics, because try as I might, I cannot. I love math, and am seriously considering being a mathematician, but physics? Not in my wildest dreams.
I also tried to read his book...extremely difficult. I pity the editor. ahah
braydenbeautiful 11 months ago 12
the two wisemen
MrHtunc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This government sponsored Antichrist Jew homosexual is just riding the gravy train. LOL at you bunch of idiotic evolutards.
thechessstick 1 year ago
I don't believe in god so I am somewhat aligned to their views. However, consciousness cannot be explained as being the mere by-product of a few elements which have come together. I would like to know what they think consciousness is. Because the definition of consciousness is probably going to be what religious people have been seeking through the ages.
HenrySpiritedJigsaw 1 year ago
@HenrySpiritedJigsaw But then we must ask do worms have consciousness or can a computer have consciousness?
SuperSharko 1 year ago
"burping off these big bangs"
funny :)
llkdll 1 year ago
i dont even have a high school diploma but i think what scientists are missing and ignoring is the power of feeling and or understanding things through feeling and love. that also can be another wat of finding him besides science. they just say, why? what else could be the reason we have feelings? to have sex,get burned or feel cold or hot?
1986bahai 1 year ago
@1986bahai Why, might I ask, is faith good? Why is accepting something without good reason or evidence good? Why should "feeling and or understanding things through feeling and love" be considered a virtue? Why should anyone say that having a feeling about something should justify an idea that has no merit otherwise, and how can you distinguish it from any other god? Would you be okay if I told you I felt that the invisible pink unicorn is real? To answer your question, (Con't)
kfk4life 1 year ago
@1986bahai ...we have feelings because they are necessary for our survival, especially as a social species. Why do other social primates have emotions very similar to ours, yet show no signs of worshiping a god?
kfk4life 1 year ago
@1986bahai
Understand things through love? You could be in love with the same person for about 10 years and have them cheating on you for the whole time. Love gives absolutely no understanding at all. Emotions are useless in science, humans are absolutely brilliant at getting things wrong.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@1986bahai
Understand things through love? You could be in love with the same person for about 10 years and have them cheating on you for the whole time. Love gives absolutely no understanding at all. Emotions are useless in science, humans are absolutely brilliant at getting things wrong.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1986bahai
Understand things through love? You could be in love with the same person for about 10 years and have them cheating on you for the whole time. Love gives absolutely no understanding at all. Emotions are useless in science, humans are absolutely brilliant at getting things wrong.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
I wonder why God never answers the prays of the religious. I am sure they pray for the suffering of these children to sees. I guess it might be because he does not care or it might be he is imaginary. I would think it could only be one of the two.
jrwilson98 1 year ago
@jrwilson98
Absolutely. I've always thought the greek and roman gods were far more plausible than the abrahamic God because of this. At least the greeks realised the gods were capricious and mean, that hypothesis at least matches reality.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure the folks that are visiting this planet could tell us pretty easily, search Stephen Bassett
Helios601 1 year ago
43... meta joke?
yuishy2003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi there. If you like this, you might like my book at evolvingcaveman 'dot' com
It's a kind of guide to navigate future human evolution. I've described it in my video.
Jeff
EvolvingCaveman 1 year ago
Listen from 7:42-9:06...listen to the words and phrases: chaotic, no initial conditions, complicated, no fine tuning, burbles on, fluctuations, very complicated, every once in a while, by accident, happens to become smooth, "not by any design". And this "scientific" explanation of what preceded our big bang explains why there is no God? A "burbling" chaotic, accidental, fluctuating, accidental happenstance led to us?
ytrmr 1 year ago
@ytrmr
If you believe in a god that didn't start the universe in the way it has been proven to have started, then yes, that disproves your god. If you believe in a god that created the universe we actually have, then it doesn't.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@ytrmr
When you say something like "lead to us" when you could have said "lead to the universe" you put in evidence your anthropocentricism, and that is a trap you shoult try to escape from.
BohemianBlasphemy 1 year ago
5. Mostly atheist, are against GOD's morality and justice but never refer the same to other candidate: satan.
6. Bible maintans evolution after creation, earth have billions of years etc.
Atheism is a dead concept.
CMVD777 1 year ago
@CMVD777 hahahah we're not against god's morality,..we can't be against something that doesn't exist. it's like you having your imaginary friend Ted, and I'm against him,..how the hell does that make any sense? i mean how does god exist? when we can't see, touch, feel, detect him/her/it? we can only get in touch with him through our imagination. that's simply an imaginary friend, disprove me.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@CMVD777 watch: Richard Dawkins Debunks Noah's Ark
RatRippinReptileRage 1 year ago
3. Blasphemies: if anybody will do it, is puniched very soon and anybody is free to try it, even right now! This one can come immediatly or later and it doesn't mean death or going to hospital (but can also happen).
4. In Bible, we find two (2) candidates to be called GOD, but atheists are arguing just with ONE,not with other pretendent.
CMVD777 1 year ago
God exist! evidences:
1. In Bible we find a lot of prophecies which happened and are happening, examples: vatican, midle east, united states etc.
2. If anybody will follow what God asks (ex: praying), everybody will have whatever they want (ask). Note:Praying in a right form,following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible.
CMVD777 1 year ago
You don't need god to have an objective standard of ethics. We know that it's wrong to kill people. We know it's wrong to steal from people. Why are religious people so convinced that you cannot have a moral code without God. It's ridiculous. In the words of Christopher Hitchens "Human decency isn't derived from religion. It precedes it."
seanevanmusic 1 year ago 2
@seanevanmusic yes. I prefer a morality which isn't fixed but changes. I think over the last 2000 years we've seen an evolution of morality. Floggings, lynchings & burning at the stake were all used 500 years ago. About 100 years ago society started to treat women & children better, effort was made to reduce poverty, very recentely humans have started to treat animals and the environment much better. Morality will probably become even better in the future.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Its 42 man... physisists...
podliza123 1 year ago
The further and further we push our understanding of the universe back in time, the further we push the "need" to invoke (a) creator(s). I wonder what this understanding will do to the future evolution of our current religions, and what kind of future religions will come about.
sfmike20 1 year ago
The period before the big bang??? This is blowing my mind!
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
0:58 "We can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don't describe the world as we know it" Can anyone name some examples of this?
anon69 1 year ago
@anon69 F=ma is not derived, it's an experimental relationship. You can build mathematical laws where F=ma^2. The laws would be mathematically consistant, but they wouldn't be correct.
lokhtar 1 year ago
to @bersa888 Both Jesus and the Apostles taught that we are sinners, and Salvation and is found in the creator who died for the sins of all who recongnize thier guilt and turn in faith to Jesus. If you need me to take you through the Scriptures to show you this, I can do that. God Bless!
victor77281488 1 year ago
@bersa888 You seem like a thinking person who actually evaluted my comments, and it is good that you are thinking about these matters of supreme importance. I would only like to clarify that I don't believe Jesus taught us that "what makes life bearable is in us."
victor77281488 1 year ago
Fascinating discussion. I imagine myself sitting in the room sipping on a whiskey cocktail, smoking a cigar, and particpating in a talk with mental giants.
obdami 1 year ago
"why do i have to make peace with the tragedy that I will die?
Jesus is the answer, He made all things for his own glory, he defeated death, he redeemed to Himself a people, through His own death. Praise to the Lord, that I have not fooled myself into believing that I have to make peace with tragedy, My hope is in the Triune God of Scripture.
Thank you for showing everyone what your atheism amounts to Weinberg.... utter hopelessness."
victor77281488 1 year ago
@victor77281488 : In a non-religious way I kind of agree with you... Jesus DID show us that the "divine", the beauty, the importance which all make life bearable and worth living is in us :-) Everything else about religion I find utterly ridiculous. Hoping in the impossible - or nearly so - is the real tragedy, it's sad and hopeless, not trying to understand our universe, being logical and growing up, leaving the needs of early men and children behind.
bersa888 1 year ago
@victor77281488 If you think his work is worthless I'd gladly compare his accomplishments against the peversity of your religion. You say your faith is the most humble, quite an unmodest statement, yet you drape your smug ego all over anyone who disagrees with you. I mourn your ignorance.
jacksawild 1 year ago
@jacksawild I never said that Weinberg's "work is worthless," in fact he's brilliant. But he is wrong on denying what is self evident to all men that God is real.
Yes my faith, which I did not come up with, but which God gave me is humbling.
Where does the Bible teach perversity? It doesn't
You have no argument, only foolish proud unbelief.
victor77281488 1 year ago
@victor77281488 Leviticus. Next question?
jacksawild 1 year ago
@jacksawild I get it you don't like God's Law's you think they are perverse, but on what basis are they perverse, you have no objective standard as an atheist. Your argument is basically I don't like God becuase he is not like me, therefore what he says is perverse. That is not a legitimate argument.
The Bible teaches that God's laws reflect his Holy nature, therefore if you hate his Laws you essentially hate Him, not a good place to be in.
victor77281488 1 year ago
@victor77281488 The god of Abraham is one that condones slavery, genocide, racism, the dis empowerment of women, homophobia, intolerance of other religions etc.
One should not dismiss the Old Testament's repeated demand for the vilest atrocities as something peculiar to the early Hebrews. Even today, our most atrocious wars, terrorism and hate crimes occur around the world based on ancient religious beliefs, many of them coming directly from verses in the Old and New Testament.
seanevanmusic 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why do i have to make peace with the tragedy that I will die?
Jesus is the answer, He made all things for his own glory, he defeated death, he redeemed to Himself a people, through His own death. Praise to the Lord, that I have not fooled myself into believing that I have to make peace with tragedy, My hope is in the Triune God of Scripture.
Thank you for showing everyone what your atheism amounts to Weinberg.... utter hopelessness.
victor77281488 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"we have to live with the tragedy that we will die"- Weinberg
Can you tell me why dieing is a "tragedy"?
I am not asking you if there are "tragedys",
My question is what makes a tragedy a "tragedy," if you don't believe in God.
victor77281488 1 year ago
Religious beliefs are nothing more than misfiring of our intellectual extrapolation, once somehow useful to our social life, but today completely useless and ridiculous, nothing more than vestigial fictitious remains of our fervid imagination.
bersa888 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i find it much more beautiful that the universe , life and everything we see appeared out of probability and chance ....
rather than the arrogant idea that some god made only 1 planet in the entire universe and send his son there to die for people's sins ...
christianity is a direct proof at how arrogant humans can be ...we made a religion that makes us special than other beings ...thats how sick we are ....
the real beauty is that life is nothing more than a complex chemical reaction
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago 14
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Humbleness? Don't you mean humility?
daddypriam 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 I am not quite sure what it means for life to have appeared out of 'probability'. It sounds like that is the complete opposite of it appearing out of chance (i.e., life was very probable to have occurred). But it did NOT appear out of chance. It developed by the process of evolution, which is antithetical to chance. Both creation and evolution are competitors to the 'chance' explanation, and only one of them is even remotely demonstrable. Read Dawkins's 'The God Delusion.'
eulercircles 1 year ago
u must of misunderstood me ..
all im saying is life itself appeared out of chance as in it doesnt have a purpose or wasnt planned by some god ...
it just appeared cus the chemical conditions for it to appear where there ....
thats what "life" is ...its just a more complex form of chemical systems ....
and i think this is a much better story , that the universe produced beauties like the galaxy , the complexity of the atom , life, flowers ...etc
then the selfish idea of a creator.
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 I didn't misunderstand what you said - rather, perhaps, you did not say what you meant. What you've said here is not what 'chance' means. Just because it doesn't have a purpose or was planned by some god doesn't mean the only other alternative is chance. Another is the process of evolution, which is not chance. Dawkins explains all of this in his wonderful book. I highly recommend it.
eulercircles 1 year ago
@sidewaysfcs0718 Christianity is the most humbling faith on earth. But let me engage your argument, Christianity is false becuase it centers around the death of God the Son for an ill deserving people whom He chose to save. There is nothing arrogant about that just audacious shows God to be worthy of praise.
victor77281488 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
that will only happen when we learn everthing about everything in every univeras
kokofan50 2 years ago
Just a correction to Weinberg's comment at 3:12, the number is 42 not 43.
nuclearcollision 2 years ago
@nuclearcollision
A good follow-up question to 42 is....what are the units?
DauntlessNullifidian 2 years ago
Numbers don't have units, but I'll give you a further layer of mystery anyway: the answer to life, the universe, and everything in it is 6 times 9. Hehe : )
darkmiles22 1 year ago
Great discussion.
magicbibledotcom 2 years ago
I tried to read his book on quantum field theory and found it very very hard to understand. It seemed to me (being trained as a pure mathematician) to start halfway in the middle.
Can't deny his brilliance though.
huntmatuk 2 years ago 27
@huntmatuk
Another mathematician agrees with you.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@huntmatuk Precisely what I thought (being trained as a pure mathematician as well).
LeonhardEuler1 9 months ago
Isn't it strange that in Weinberg's poignant comment about the tragedy of life he stumbles into the first noble truth of Buddhism - a fundamental religious tenet - and perhaps the very point where religion and science agree - yet Dawkins doesn't pick up on it or even notice. He's probably never heard of it.
There's the real tragedy.
Hufflewaffle 2 years ago
No, perhaps the real tragedy, is the ignorance of making huge sweeping generalisations.
Life is not only tragic. Its also blissful and strikingly beautiful.
Buddha was full of it.
Alphonzen 2 years ago 10
"Buddha was full of it" - ah yes - the ignorance of making huge sweeping generalizations. Well done!
Hufflewaffle 2 years ago
Unless you have a rebuttal, then your claim has no basis in reality.
Buddha believed in the afterlife and all kinds of supernatural ideas that buddhists are taught to believe. Its just another religion that values emotional comfort over reason afterall.
Buddha, however, was right to postulate the non-existence of a seperate self- but he never quite understood what that meant.
Alphonzen 2 years ago
@Alphonzen Everyone knows the world is very beautiful; educated people also know that it is also more tragic and unfair than blissful and equal.
For instance, lions are beautiful but survive by murdering other mammals.
There are 6.8 billion ppl. in the world. Around 500 children die every hour of starvation alone. Yes, flowers are pretty and so are frozen waterfalls.
ripticdu 1 year ago
@ripticdu Great examples of the tragedy's of life on our planet.
jrwilson98 1 year ago
The real tragedy is that you don't seem to know that Weinberg is an atheist, so you implying he is using some religious aliteration in his comments is nonsense.
PCoderch 2 years ago 3
Can't believe he hasn't read the "Hitchhiker"
geoforn 2 years ago 2
I found Weinburg's humble comments on the tragedy of human life very moving indeed.
MrCripes 2 years ago 5
'Why?'
aerycksmusic 2 years ago
As brilliant as Weinberg is, I'm more impressed with his humbleness at 0:35.
mlsmithers4 2 years ago 5
God cannot be subjected to science... until a scientific method proves his existence then you'll be all over it.
shunt19 2 years ago
That's exactly the point - if there's evidence, science will explore it.
There is no evidence, and the evidence that we have for counter-theories so strongly points to a lack of a "designer" that God is not a scientifically considered possibility.
Religious nuts, however, insist on a God despite the huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago 2
And "if" God did exist there most defiantly would be evidence. Anything that "acts" within this physical world can and will be explored by science.
Religious .. nuts or otherwise use the science can't touch God to avoid the complete lack of evidence from sciences viewpoint.
I'm baffled by the religious mind.
shunt19 2 years ago 4
Agreed!
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Does My Father Love Me?" - A new video on my channel that looks at how Atheists and Christians interpret the same evidence very differently.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The problems with these scientists trying to "understand" God is that understanding for them means scientifically understanding how or what he is. By definition God, who wold be supreme could never be understood "compositionally" by the greatest human intellect, but the bible does illustrate how God's character is, his personality, his mind. They want to subject God to a laboratory test.
ilaglobal 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dont they hear the thunder... god is trying to give an answer
rugs729 2 years ago
It was going to be a rainy day outside whether they were going to have the interview or not.
bersa888 2 years ago 4
i don't think you really listened to what to what they say...
antitna 2 years ago
Imagine, at the moment we die, the universe from our perspective instantaneously passes us by... Scary thought...
gotank 2 years ago
To prove their is no god is so simple but there are always why this and that.
Life is a drama.
john5o 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no god
Get over it you religous nut cases.
gatzu86 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
God is not a God of explanation.
That is why God created a mind of process and thought that can lead to discovery.
Which is why we have science, God gave us science to discover and explain the mysteries and wonders of being, time and the earth.
Evolution is most definitely a discovery.
God is a creator, but not an explanation to the creation.
If that is what you are seeking you will not find the answer.
God is love, seek him in this way.
pnadin123 2 years ago
No.
spinesnapper 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its not me you have to answer to.
pnadin123 2 years ago
And how is it that you know this?
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 years ago
Comment removed
jaimerpm 2 years ago
what an aweful and typical comment!
i myself just cannot understand how any human (no matter how low its iq might be) can just keep finding these ridiculous equivocations to keep up a belief system for which there is no evidence at all while there comes along plenty of evidence that proofs huge essential parts of the belief system to be wrong.
what u r doing is modifying ur belief system and cherrypicking what works out for you (in order to justify your irrational belief) while actually sayin 0
Pasqualino2k 2 years ago 6
It makes little difference whether you have a high IQ to if you believe there is a metaphysical world. Humans have a brain which is vulnerable to seeing outside agencies at work, it is hard wired into us that we have an outside agency detector. Better to think there is a leopard creeping into your bit of forest and be mistaken than to become cat food. It is a natural part of how we evolved.
LouisPlume 2 years ago 2
what?
ashbash986 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I feel I have to say something witty here, but I don't think it's worth the effort, so I'm just gonna say, GODDISSATWAT!
DanRaccoon 2 years ago
As a physicist and atheist I find this discussion one of the most interesting and clear talks I have ever heard. The situation of humans is tragic in many ways, in most ways in fact, but as one of my professors once said "the only joy you will find is in searching not in getting the answer, because you will never get it". That is what saddens me most :(
ArianeQube 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Interesting what he says about Scalar fields, considering that wikipedia refers to them as pseudo science, lol.
But also interesting is his take (early in this clip) about how unsatisfactory it is to just say something like, "things are as they should be" or whatever, suggesting that religious belief would somehow mean that no one would want to understand the world. John Polkinghorne, on the other hand, believes that belief in God was actually a major motivator of scientific discovery. Hmmm...
Terry5135 2 years ago
wtf, Scalar fields are never considered as pseudo science. They are not even in wikipedia.
bbsonjohn 2 years ago
I'm sorry, my mistake - it was Scalar WAVES I had once looked up. The first google hit is wiki's page, "Scalar field theory (pseudoscience." But there is ALSO another wiki page on "Scalar field theory" which I had overlooked.
The second paragraph begins, "Scalar waves in these theories (as opposed to a scalar field in mainstream physics) are hypothetical waves, which differ from the conventional electromagnetic..." etc, etc
The neutrality and factual accuracy of the page is in dispute.
Terry5135 2 years ago
I watch this discussion alot. You always discover something different from it, each time. It's fascinating, moving, uplifting and very inspiring.
zthechainz 2 years ago
douglas adams rocks
ahabthewhaler 2 years ago 2
what I see here is great respect for Weinberg from Richard. Indeed science pioneers here discussing the very fundamentals of nature and thus our existence.
zygi22 2 years ago
Look at Dawkins. He looks like a little kid interviewing his favorite teacher.
Notice his body language. Unlike other videos where his body suggests great dominance, here he actually seems timid. He loves this guy! He even stumbled on some of his words in the first vid. This is hilarious.
Baldingchimp 2 years ago 6
I really hadn't noticed that but now that you've brought it to light, your right...
TheWildAssCopyCat 2 years ago
well in the beginning he said hes in awe of such an amazing physicist :)
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
You are absolutely right on the money. I was just thinking "Now here's a man who is considered an incredible intellect (Dawkins) and he is absolutely humbled and almost awestruck by Weinberg" I picked that up too. He is respectful of him because he has a very high regard for Weinberg's intellect. Even Dawkins knows when to back off. LOL Good point.
2eelShmeal 2 years ago
listening to these things makes my mind hurt. But very interesting.
Omid45 2 years ago
Just for the record, Weinberg, it's 42, not 43. Arg, that bit is like fingers on the chalk board. . . but at least he had some inkling. I guess.
markstevo77 2 years ago
Comment removed
SiliconBong 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You're Beautiful.
. . . and accurate on that little discrepency of Mr. Weinbergs' as well.
SiliconBong 2 years ago
It's 42, not 43. Noob.
XD
cutepinkbandanaman 2 years ago
this is fantastic
tomikkkkk 2 years ago
Science has never claimed non-existence of god with absolute certainty. Our claim is that the universe as we know it
does not require a creator. It is you who are so certain of deity.
As Weinberg says, if god had to create this universe, who created god. I'm paraphrasing.
Bing Bang is not creation of something from nothing and no scientist has claimed to be so.
Obviously, no one knows state of the singularity before the Big Bang. It is very like that it had been there.
robertoppenheimer 2 years ago
Our universe DOES require a creator....not only that, but His fingerprints are all over it. Our universe screams design.
No one created God, that is a retarded statement by someone who is supposed to have a brain. Weinberg is (insert insult here).
Here's a question... Does our universe have an end in sight for it? If so, how can you say it is eternal? How can something not have a beginning but have an end?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
In regards to your question, the universe does not necessarily have to have an end. However, it looks as though that may be the case. Scientists are very willing to admit that the universe did in fact have a beginning, but they have yet to prove that a designer caused this beginning.
HalfDeath13 2 years ago
"Our universe screams design"
No. Your human brain screams design.
villeppi 2 years ago
Ya i guess your physics classes are randomly structured too....
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
robertoppenheimer 2 years ago
that's weird, I got different answers for the Argument for God question.....both my answers were yes, and that leads me to the conclusion that it is more likely that God created matter.....hmmm.
What exactly is it that you want from God that you would consider as proof of His existence? Are you wanting Him to come down here and eat with us and talk with us and go fishing with us? (You know He already did that, right?) The answer to this riddle is that you don't want it to be true.
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
One last comment.
Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, yup sounds like an idiot to me. As for the universe, who told you that there is an end? It is likely that all matter will break down to simpler particles then to some kind os wave energy as it expends. It will not completely disappear and it did not come from nothing. I get the feeling that you skipped all your physics classes..
robertoppenheimer 2 years ago
wow, you're a feisty one. Belief in God has been around much longer than the new atheist movement. The burden of proof IS on you to prove to me that you are right. I am challenging your view and this video. Your job is to convince me that you are correct by saying something intelligible that would convince me 100% that science proves that there is no God. You. Can't. Do. It.
So how do YOU explain the walls of a city collapsing outwardly?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
"Belief in God has been around much longer than the new atheist movement."
SO-FUCKING-WHAT?
"that would convince me 100% that science proves that there is no God."
Could you be any more retarded? First of all there's no 100% certainty in science. Secondly the burden of proof is on you cause you possess a positive claim "God exists". Thirtdly positive claims need positive evidence. My incompetence to prove there's no god is not evidence for god. That's why you have the burden of proof.
villeppi 2 years ago
No way dude. I've met God. He's a lot closer than you think. And if you would take a second and give him credit for arcaeopteryx (which has been classified as a bird by scientists that believe in evolution) and the Cambrian explosion, you might actually learn something pretty cool about Him. Mainly that you don't have to know everything to be confident about it. The burden is on you to prove to me that God does not exist and my experiences of Him have only been glandular secretion.
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
What does god look like?
therock27374 2 years ago
What does mass look like?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
It depends what the mass is composed of and how it is arranged, and of course if it is large enough for us to see.
therock27374 2 years ago
a load of poeple in posh clothes an hats in a big building called a church lol
smoke123455 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually, I don't have posh clothes and the church that I go to isn't really big at all.....
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
Bahahaha. I usually don't comment on crap like thid, but since you're using the whole burden of proof concept, I thought it was worth a reply.
Anyone who's taken a class in logic can tell you that the burden of proof is on YOU. You can't pull arguments and premises out of thin air and say "disprove them". That's simply fallacious. It's okay though, faith and reason have never gone hand in hand.
I'm pretty certain I'm on the correct side though.
Frankacy 2 years ago 5
Couch, are you even listening to any of this discussoin. All your childish arguments are all answered, if you watch the video in it's entirety.
robertoppenheimer 2 years ago
Actually, I did watch it. And your so-called answers can be found throughout using the word "theory". I have legitimate questions for all of you, and have yet to receive an acceptable answer. If you are making the statement that God does not exist based on the theory of evolution, you must prove it. Theory is not proof. Where did your mass come from?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
Ok, but at best, god is only a theory and unlike the theory of evolution, one for which there is no evidence whatsoever. At best you are arguing form the weaker position, so apply your own argument to yourself, how does the unproven and untestable god theory increase our understanding of where matter came from?
quinbrady 2 years ago
It's actually somewhat simple. God says He spoke creation into existence and by His words all things are held together. Science has now discovered that new cells building DNA know how to line up based upon minute vibrations. You might be able to say how God did something, but just because it can be explained by science doesn't disprove His existence. Have you seen the ruins at Jericho? Did you know they found the original wall and it actually DID fall outwards? How do you explain this?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
42!
kdum8 2 years ago
The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Damn, I missed 13.699.999.978 years
What the hell?!
This is outrages! I want my money back
wtfisditvoorbullshit 2 years ago
You still didn't answer my question. Where did the mass come from? How do you get something from nothing?
How am I supposed to find anything you say credible if you can't even answer a simple question like that? How do you get something from nothing? How am I supposed to believe you? Where did all of this come from? In order for atheism to be correct, you NEED an answer to this question and only this question. Where did the mass come from?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
couchpotatoe244: "Where did the mass come from?"
The honest answer is that no one knows. It's possible that one day we will know. Then again, maybe we won't. It may be that matter has always existed. If we say that God created the matter, we would have to answer the question of who created God. If we say that God has always existed, then we could just as well say that matter has always existed. Whatever the reason, it was simple and natural, not complex and supernatural like a God.
HalfDeath13 2 years ago
So you're saying that matter has always existed and has given you your purpose in life. And it created moral law and truth. You are actually saying the same thing I am saying, but you say that science did it and not God. There's proof all around you, you just claim it is pointing to somewhere else. And I claim it points to somewhere other than where you say it does. Who decides which is right? Where is the absolute end to all of this? Who says "yes" and "no"?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
Matter hasn't always existed because in order for anything to be eternal, it has to have no beginning and no end. There IS an end for matter, I'm sure you know that it is inevitable. Our universe is still expanding and will not be able to contract. Which means it will eventually burn out. Because of this we can say that matter is not eternal. If it has an end, it had a beginning. Where did it come from?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another, which is stated by the first law of thermodynamics. Since matter is just another form of energy, matter is eternal. It is not going to "burn out". Physicist now believe that the early universe was completely made out of energy.
HalfDeath13 2 years ago
Where did your energy come from? So you're trying to tell me that matter has always existed and always will exist.....where's your proof on that? Your use of the definition of the first law of thermodynamics is weak. It means that WE cannot create it or destroy it because it's already here. At one point it wasn't. If it was, you would be able to say that this has happened numerous times where the universe expands and collapses. But it is not going to collapse this time....where's your proof?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
Nobody knows where matter or energy came from. Our lack of knowledge doesn't mean that a god exists.
Where ever there's a mystery, religious nutcases are placing god there.
villeppi 2 years ago
"Our lack of knowledge doesn't mean that a god exists." True. Our abundance of knowledge does not mean that He does not exist either. It really seems strange to me that only the top minds of this world can understand the mindless process of evolution. Does that make sense to you? If there is no God, there is no point in you even caring about being right! Who would it matter to even if you were? It would go down into the dirt with you when you die....
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
"Our abundance of knowledge does not mean that He does not exist either"
Nobody's trying to prove your god doesnt exist. It's your job to prove your god exists if you want your god to be taken seriously. We will lack belief in your god untill you come up with evidence.
villeppi 2 years ago
Actually, belief in God has been around for around 6,000 years. The burden of proof is on you. I already asked but it wasn't directed at you, so here goes again.....Have you heard about the walls at Jericho? Archaeologists have found the ruins of the city and discovered that the wall of the city actually collapsed outwardly. The Bible story has been backed up by evidence. How do you explain this "phenomenon"? There are a lot more discoveries like this. I will be happy to share them with you.
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
"Actually, belief in God has been around for around 6,000 years."
So? Totally irrelevant thing to note.
" The burden of proof is on you"
No it's not you dumb fucktard. You have the claim, you have the burden of proof.
"The Bible story has been backed up by evidence."
So the bible has some references to real events. So what? That doesn't make the whole damn book true. And there is no proof that jewish magic collpased the walls.
villeppi 2 years ago
According to the Bible, the walls of Jericho neither fell inward nor outward.
Josh. 6:20: "So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat..."
HalfDeath13 2 years ago
ok, but the fact that the walls have been found to have fallen outwards means that it is more likely that the story in the Bible is true. Had they fallen inwardly, you could say that the city was seized upon.
This is my real point. Evolution and science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. I happen to find Him in science because I know Him and you happen to not find Him because you can explain a few things. Being able to explain something does not take away His existence or cause.
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
couchpotatoe244: "This is my real point. Evolution and science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God."
I believe that you are very right to say this. Science will never disprove God, because it is scientifically impossible to prove a negative. However, if God existed it might be possible to prove it.
HalfDeath13 2 years ago
"if God existed it might be possible to prove it"
Read isaiah 53. It was written 1,000 years before Jesus even walked the earth and He fulfills at least 12 prophecies just in this one chapter. Read Psalm 22 and tell me who it reminds you of. Read Micah 5:2 and tell me how Jesus somehow manipulated it for himself. Explain to me why 12 guys would put their lives on the line if they knew it was a joke.
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
Matt. 3:3: "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias (Isaiah), saying, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
Obviously, Matthew and the writers of the gospels had access to the writings of Isiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and David. Notice the special emphasis that Matthew places on pointing out all the prophecies that had been full-filled. The gospels were written to look as though prophecies had been full-filled.
PCgamer29388 2 years ago
As for the twelve disciples, they were almost certainly fictitious characters. Very revealingly, the Bible is foggy on the names of all twelve of the men. Matthew and Mark are in agreement as to the names. However, when we turn to Luke and Acts, "Judas, brother of James" has taken the place of "Thaddaeus." Although John does not give a complete list of the disciples, it does give us the name of a totally different disciple, "Nathanael", who is not mentioned in any of the other gospels.
HalfDeath13 2 years ago
I wonder how you are so sure the bible is true?
You argue that god is real and present evidence in the bible, when questioned about the evidence in the bible you say it is true because it is the word of god. That's circular logic to me, how do you know that stuff isn't invented by men? You weren't there, and the bible is the ONLY account of many of the things it describes, it does NOT agree with other historical accounts in many cases. Hmm...
forza599 2 years ago
wow. You are putting words in my mouth. And you don't know your Bible. When did I say it is true because it is the word of God? Have you ever read Josephus? Have you ever read any books by anyone that believes in creation and works in the scientific fields? I think your judgment of me is highly miscalculated and you should go back and rethink before you speak.
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
I do know the bible I read a pretty big chunk of it when I was growing up. Do you believe the bible is true?
Yes I've read the creationist bullshit. Anyone who believes in creation and works in the scientific fields is deluded. How can you possibly dedicate your life to the pursuit of knowledge by the scientific method and yet dismiss one of the largest bodies of supporting evidence of any scientific theory ever?
forza599 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
scientific method?!?! You can't even prove that George Washington was the first president of the United States with the scientific method.....
You didn't answer me when I asked you if you've read Josephus. Have you?
So tell me, what are you gonna do when science finally has all the answers? Where are you gonna be? What will it have benefited you?
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
Nope I haven't, jewish historian right? What has Josephus to say that is so convincing?
What the fuck is up with your disdain for the scientific method? I suppose "1.Blindly believe ancient fairy tale because it was the one I happened to hear growing up 2. Ignore all contrary evidence, repeat" is much more rewarding.
And are you serious, what is the benefit to scientific progress? LOOK AROUND, YOU AREN'T HUNTING MOOSE WITH YOUR BARE HANDS IDIOT. I suppose the bible keeps you healthy and warm?
forza599 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes. Jewish historian. Look him up. My disdain for the scientific method is that it isn't the end of all rules. This "fairy tale" that I happened to hear growing up never actually made sense to me. I don't agree with most of what the church is teaching nowadays. I "happened" to hear it honestly and personally about 5 years ago, LONG after my separation from the church. 2. Evidence? Really? What evidence do you have to prove that God doesn't exist? Science can neither prove or disprove Him.....
couchpotatoe244 2 years ago
One can't disprove the existence of faeries, or unicorns, or leprechauns, or Santa Clause, there's an infinite number of "unprovable" things. One should not proceed from the assumption that the supernatural must be disproved. Since there is no evidence of a creator, rather only a bunch of flimsy ontological arguments, there's no reason to believe there is one, and, even if there was, there's no way to know anything about him/her/it's wishes, and hence no basis for religious observance.
nirtseg 2 years ago 5
Perhaps you don't believe science keeps you "healthy and warm," but it's certainly what allows you to be disseminating this nonsense on the internet, either deluding the minds of others, or, more likely, making them laugh scornfully.
nirtseg 2 years ago 4