Wow. One of the greatest speeches I have ever come across. I wish that segment alone could play in every church, synagog and mosque. I wish that segment could be heard by every angry, starving, despondent, and confused person on earth.
I am elated to hear it, and saddened that I am unlikely to hear its like again.
WLC continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! "
William Lane Craig " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
William Lane Craig Continued "i don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent circumstance that I’m in and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the evidence if I could get the correct picture would support what the witness of the holy spirit tells me
WLC "The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity.
Wow, it's as if Hitchens jsut delivered his own eulogy. Will his friends - Amis, McEwin, Rushdie, Dawkins, etc - encapsulate all the man stood for better than this?
Hitchens' publicity team orchestrated all these events for atheists. It's like a homophobe taking on a pro-gay rights crowd against a lesbian activist. These events, these theatrics are made for them to lose.
HItchens lost to this guy William Lane Craig.
He lost because real intellect, real debate, real critique beats 5 word argument stretched over countless books and videos.
@dolphinsufi William Lane Craig is a peon compared to Hitchens. He throws regurgitated arguments and meaningless word salad around until his opponent starts ignoring him. He isn't an intellect.
@ThePsychoReturns A regurgitated argument until his opponent ignores him? That makes no sense. Meaningless word salad? You do realise what a debate is don't you or are you just making things up in order to just hang to one point of view because you have to accept everything and then critique everything as an intellect. You just clearly stated this is something Hitchens fails to do because he insults the debater and not the debate.
@ThePsychoReturns I think you need to read up because a lot of what Hitchens says are generalised or absolute nonsense. You think if somebody blames a billion people for the actions of about 10 or 20 people it is intellectual and appropriate. I am sure you should see the gross flaws there.
@dolphinsufi There are more than 10 or 20 muslims who practice female circumcision, or who kill their family members for seeing people from a different sect. This is a much larger problem than you are admitting.
@ThePsychoReturns Well, in all fairness, I don't think there are enough people in general on this planet that actively condemn such atrocious acts by insane people, nevermind their religious because they're bigots of the worst kind.
Both the Quran and the Bible gives a loving message if you're reading the books as a constructive, caring individual. But yes, they are antiquities and thus they MUST be read through the eyes of people of that age or else it's killing time.
@DrMadolite Finding value in the quran or bible requires you to ignore long stretches of nonsense and cruelty. You'd get a much better message out of a Stephen King novel.
@ThePsychoReturns Not ignore them, but understand them differently. Death isn't exclusively about death of a physical corpus. Statements aren't exclusively about "you better do this, or I will punish you with this fact".
I would actually argue that, because of the very fact that both books are so non-sensical in the literal sense, then that would make it obvious to people (maybe as the authors intended) that the books are meant metaphorically.
@DrMadolite A little bit harder to see the metaphors in Harry Potter, LOTR and Stephen King, when the reader is so easily fixed on the superficial story because it actually makes sense.
A great literological tool of fiction is to present a non-sensical story (like Discworld) if you plan is to actually tell an underying story.
@DrMadolite In order to believe that either the quran or the bible are anything more than bronze-age garbage, you'd have to ignore all the stupidity written in those pages.
Maybe they're written metaphorically, maybe they're written literally. Either way, they shouldn't be taken seriously.
@ThePsychoReturns No you don't have to ignore it, you have to analyse it literologically to see if the text was supposed to be read literally or if it's meant to be understood metaphorically.
Once you see the metaphors, even the socalled "stupid bronze age garbage" will make much more sense. Not necessarily all of it, because one sentence could be easier understood than another, an so on.
The way I see it, Hitchens is doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.
@ThePsychoReturns Btw, do you even know what the word "metaphorical" means? It's like, if I tell you that my life is a dance on roses or that I'm walking on sunshine, I'm not actually telling you that I'm physically dancing on top of roses or walking on the surface of the sun.
They're both metaphors for being an optimist and having a great feeling inside, respectively.
@TheNamelessCharacter You're saying somebody who doesn't need the marketing and publicity that Hitchens first created by going to the same publicist as Dawkins is sly and dirty? If that is the case why does Dawkins insult Craig and not his ideas even as he doesn't face him in debate. You see Dawkins never questions Craigs arguments - instead he insults him. That's why he has lost the argument before it even started.
Dawkins responds to your criticism of him: "The mere fact that you can ask a question in the English answer doesn't make it a question that deserves an answer. I could say 'what is the color of jealousy?' It's not a sensible question."
Craig doesn't present arguments worth answering, either because they've already been answered and debunked (he has many of these, but continues to use them anyway), or because they aren't relevant and/or meaningful.
@KalElprevails Why isn't the colour of jealousy perfect question? That is where you fail. Craig beat Hitchens because he knows more and delivers more. Hitchens is an identity created for a crow of people addicted to pseudo intellectual utterances.
@KalElprevails Ridiculous, and you don't see the flaw in this? Crazy and laughable. Dawkins delivers exactly something he blames others for and you fall for it? You do realise it is Dawkins saying this and not Craig and you are so blind you can't see that he is trying to stop you from adventuring beyond his narrow perspective on academia and life. Laughable.
@TheNamelessCharacter You mean because he beat someone who has no real intellectual merit at all who is also your bias induced messiah in your celebrity commercialised needs you don't like him? Makes sense.
@dolphinsufi The religious will always lose these debates simply because they have nothing except blind faith in something, by all we know, doesent exist.
@dolphinsufi I'm not getting into everlasting trench warfare about faith, I simply attack the existence of the various fantasymade things believers blindly believe in. Epistemology is by far my favourite pillar in philosophy, I would say that my understanding of faith as a consept is well above avrage.
@1TtidnaB I bet you've never published something and even if you have it was probably a regurgitation of another paper based upon present experimentation techniques. That is your belief, that is the flaw in science that it has pre-supposed experiments with pre-supposed results. That is the problem in science and that is its philosophical failing as well.
Is that enough philosophy for you or do you require a book tour, massive publicity and ignoring Craig beat Hitchens to fuel your identity?
@1TtidnaB That is where you fail. You don't understand the reasoning and logic and flaws in structural science. That is a philosophical edge to it and that is why Hitchens was only useful for people with laptops looking for an identity on the internet.
@dolphinsufi Craig is no doubt a great public speaker, with impressive charisma, but Hitchens defeated him in almost every argument brought up in that debate. If you listen closely and take a philosophy course or two, you'll notice Craig's speeches are full of fallacies (only one hitchens really ever commits is ad hominem, but thats just for comedy). Also failing him is his apparent lack of understanding of the word "atheism" as he kept asking Hitchens to provide proof for it.
Well, Craig did answer the question, at the end, by adjusting his argument in sustaining he addressed what we usually think of as being Atheism (I do hate the wording here too, but let's go beyond the semantic and just take it as a label) -- that actually proves his entire speech was gigantic fallacy: he build a straw-man for one hour long and kept poking at it, never answering anything Hitchens brought up...
But Hitchens had the unfair advantage of not being a theistic apologist.
@renger6002 A philosophy course or two? I've spent years studying philosophy. That ends that part of your argument because everything else you say is masturbation over Hitchens driven by a fantasy of selective reasoning.
Religion at its core is selfish and your either brainwashed into it as a child, in the uk we all are--- forced to pray before we know what praying is in reception etc.. or you find it when youve lost all hope; nothing else will support you, so you need something that you can say is always there watching over me and guiding me. it reduces possible worry of whats to come and is really just you telling you or clergy telling you itll be alright--- which is always nice to hear (who cares if its true)
@stjimmy95 That's not what religion is. You're just paying fiddle to these unbelievably bad internet videos instead of going out and researching and critiquing for yourself. If you said something unique I would highlight that - you merely said what Dawkins says which doesn't have any substance just statement and empty statement at that.
Here is something Dawkisn won't tell you - an intellect/academic, critiques and analyses everything - that includes himself. Get a clue.
@dolphinsufi thats just my opinion from what ive experienced... and since this video isnt about dawkins im guessing youve just been watching a few looking for someone to reply to? if you meant dawkins then i dont know..havnt really seen many of his videos
@onefodderunit That's not at all what I believe. what I KNOW is that man and modern apes evolved separately from common ancestral lines. I know this to be true because there is an exhaustive amount of scientific evidence in support of that fact. And again I ask you...who created the creator?
19th century Darwinism is dispelled by the fossil record and fact that genetic mutation does not advance DNA.
you ask again: "who created the creator"
I won't answer the same question for twice for you, Atheist.
Darwinism teaches that dinosaurs changed into birds. Can you rationalize what you believe you "know" by explaining how you imagine natural selection would favor mutation of the forelegs of dinosaurs into bird wings?
@onefodderunit You haven't responded to the two messages I've sent you yet, creationist. Are you ignoring what I've said again or is it that you can't see my comments, liar?
@onefodderunit atheism doesnt need to be rationalised... thats sorta the point. the world is what it is and developed that way itself... surely if you take a step back from repeating retoric and try to ignore all those thoughts and beliefs drilled into you as a child or that you picked up in a difficult time you'll maybe see that its the belief in an omnipotent being whom cant control many things (e.g.satan)is what needs to be rationalised.-- sorry for my spelling, sometimes wrong
I think I've watched every Hitchens video on YouTube and this is by far my favorite. Here, with only months left to live, I think he has given us a blueprint for how he lived his life. Never ceasing, always hungry for knowledge & wisdom, never settling for anything less. He wouldn't have it any other way...
i have a small journal that i've been keeping since 08 (obviously pretty infrequent) when i heard him say the last part of the speech i thought i've heard that before.....that's b/c i wrote that quote (from take the risk...on the 1st page of the journal.
am i an asshole to compare him to the great Socrates (whom he mentioned)? seems to me he's our Socrates...at least the religious powers that be couldn't take him from us.
@bdwilson1000 Thank you so much for sharing this glimpse of quite a valuable gentleman. Christopher Hitchens' honesty, knowledge, passions and compassion are simply priceless
signed, sealed and delivered. The world lost such a great man, however, think of all that we have gained by the simple fact that he lived in our time. I know that I am a better person because of him and I know that the world is a better place because of him.
I am so sad I never got to meet him and will miss him for the rest of my life. He was a truly great man, brilliant and using his gifts to help free people from misery. I hope someone uses part of this speech in a Symphony of Science one day, it is so incredible.
I think that this speaks for Hitchens now, too. I never met the man, I never will meet the man, We will not be "corporealy reassembled" and meet in an immortal next-life... But the man is immortal in the works and words that he's left behind. He will be sorely missed.
Rest in Peaceful Oblivion, Christopher Hitchens. You will be missed by all those who value human rights, freedom, and peace in the name of love, not some holy deity.
@ 1:32 "I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don't know anything like 'enough' yet. That I haven't understood enough. That I can't know enough. That I'm always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn't have it any other way. "
I really never saw him say anything intellectual when he lived. I don't know what all the fuss is about. There are many great speakers out there with a great knowledge on certain subject matters.
If anybody can tell me what he says in the above speech that is of great intellect please do but apart from saying he doesn't believe in God because (irrelevantly) Socrates (standing on the shoulder of giants) was questioning (if you don't know Greek history you won't know how wrong he is...
@unpeuconfusee If there is something to respect about a man who spread hate and fear because he generalised the words "religious" and "religion" then I would but look at you all? Salivating at his need to cause conflict with ugly ideas where he says the actions of a tiny tiny minority of say 10 or 20 people is equal to that of billions?
You have to be stupid no, insane to believe this ugly tirade!
@dolphinsufi you have to press play to listen to what it says, I assume you thought the silence was his argument? You cannot deny his skill at debating, he has won so many against Christians and Muslims and other religious people. His wit and intellect, and his ability to pull apart any argument the opposition made, is the reason he will be remembered and missed.
I have read some of your books and many of your essays and have met you on a couple of occasions...our meetings certainly were not a disappointment. We shall miss you when your dead.
Atheism teaches children they are animals. That matter is their creator. That they have no soul. That maggots are their relatives. That life is unintended - a fluke - and their lives are of no more significance than a maggot's.
Atheism teaches children that if they kill themselves, the only consequence will be permanent unconsciousness.
You need it explained to you how it is dehumanizing to tell a child they are an animal, they have no soul, life was never intended, and if they are depressed and commit suicide there will be no repercussions?
Why do you lie and present these Atheist faith based beliefs as "truth"?
@lughcious I guess you think it's better to tell a child that he/she was born in sin and if they don't bow to your god they will burn in hell forever.
Lol. You call me "atheist" like its a bad thing. Fine then THEIST. I was really trying to have a civil conversation with you. The big bang theory requires no faith to accept. Mainstream science accepts it as a whole. Its a little thing called EVIDENCE. They have it. The most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansions seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements.
Cosmological redshift is one of about thirty different theories for redshift Plasma redshift is another, and plasma, which comprises 99% of the visible universe, also includes electromagnetism which could be the source of cosmic background radiation.
How does Big Bang theory explain why planets in this solar system spin in both directions, or the plasma filaments spanning thousands of light years and in every possible direction?
Well for starters you can try to google search the study done by stephen jay gould. It should be an article that appeared in Nature magazine titled "Leading scientists still reject god". It goes on to show a poll taken at 3 different times in history each yielding a decrease in theistic scientists and a majority of atheistic scientists. I'm curious onefodderunit. What is your definition of atheism?
Religion should consist solely of reason and commonsense which no belief is permitted to override.
Einstein said: "When the answer is simple, God is speaking."
There has never been a functional system that is known to be a creation of anything other than intelligence. The Atheist faith that the universe, nature, and consciousness are each byproducts of whatever, so long as no intelligence was involved, is an insult to commonsense and reason.
@onefodderunit You couldn't be any more wrong. An atheist is one who lacks a belief in a god or gods. That position alone does not carry an additional claim about how the universe came into existence. An atheist could simply say he "does not know" how the universe got here and that would be an honest answer. Because truly no one really knows how it happened. Some will pretend they have all the answers. But they are just appealing to their own emotions and ignorance by making these claims.
Atheism is faith that no intelligence was involved in creation of the universe, or thought. Do you not have faith that matter organized itself into thought?
@onefodderunit No atheism is the refusal to believe It HAD to be a creator due to a lack of evidence to support that claim. Your "god" hypothesis does not answer the question of how the universe was formed. It simply appeals to this ignorance by invoking an unexplainable being that is beyond our comprehension and then you claim to have answered the question of existence. You explain nothing this way. Thought is merely a word to describe a physical process in the brain. Nothing more.
@chuckwagon1645 We should not believe in things until they are proven false but rather disbelieve until they are proven to be true. If you insist that everything requires a designer then what designed your complex designer? You leave yourself open to a logical contradiction that way. You do not hold your god to the same criticism you give to the universe itself.
@onefodderunit Stop spreading mis information. If energy is infinite the universe would not be grinding to a halt in about 40 billions years when the energy run outs.....
@onefodderunit Its not "going" anywhere. Its constantly being used. It eventually run out when the last high mass stars stop converting hyrdogen to helium.
The best assumption based on logical interpretation and evidence for what we know would quitely point towards the big bang being coming from a black hole from another universe/ dimension etc.
My original point to you being is stop talking about things for which you are inadequate to deal with. You sound like you have been brainwashed
The evidence for a big bang is beyond question. This is silly , a fantasy? Are you even aware your radio whenever you turn it on is still picking up radio waves which you here as static to go along with the 1000 of other fields of science which prove its occurence
And please i have not called nor am i an "atheist" . I stepped in to correct your Deepark Chopra like jargon for which there is no evidence.
@onefodderunit I believe only for what there is proof - evidence. We are the products of high mass stars. The atoms forged and created by nuclear fusion. The atoms of iron in your blood which can still be traced back to the same star which made the planets and you. Then further back to the big bang.
No, creation by nuclear fusion is a 20th century belief. It is not "all we know". The universe is electric. You're apparently totally ignorant of Plasma Cosmology.
Are you incapable of beginning to rationalize your faith in the theory of Big Bang?
How do you believe energy originated, in your words?
@onefodderunit ah good one. Yes lets dimiss the theroy with all the evidence behind it we get proof for every second and put forward one which was dismissed 20 years ago and to this day still has nothing behind it.
Again i ask for proof.
Heres the funny thing about science its not up to random people to come up with how energy was created - i wouldnt be on here if i had some a novel idea.
How amusing that you deny your Atheist faith. You're incapable of explaining where you believe the energy originated for your fantasy Bang. What an Atheist.
@onefodderunit Your a strange logic. I dont "believe" in anything. My agnostic perception is based on the lack of evidence for anything else .....it has nothing to do with whether there was or was not a big bang.
@Donal277 Your agnostic position is a false one. And here is why. Agnosticism refers to what we can "KNOW"...not what we "BELIEVE". You are still an atheist by definition if you lack a belief in a deity. I'm an agnostic myself. But I'm also an atheist because i hold no belief in a god or gods. Hence you get an agnostic atheist. It is actually a useless label because it only explains what we do NOT believe in. It does not show what we DO believe in. So i prefer secular humanist.
Big Bang is a theory and it is all but dead, like Darwinism. By QED, you mean Quantum Electrodynamics? Are you incapable of explaining how you imagine energy originated, in your words?
@onefodderunit Before we go any further oh so brave poster who refuses to give a real name or address please explain how the big bang theory is dead. Your field is what exactly?
Provide any 1 thing which refutes a cosmic expansion please...
You also lets not forget began this conversation with a comment a 12 year old would no is incorrect.
@Donal277 wrote: "You also lets not forget began this conversation with a comment a 12 year old would no is incorrect."
You began your conversation with me, self-denying Atheist. Exactly what comment are you referring to, because you have not, nor could you refute a word I've written. Post the specific quote which you claim is incorrect.
@onefodderunit Your last comment before i wrote you to a different poster stating energy will last forever.
Completely against every piece of evidence we have on the eventual demise into a cold dead universe.
Ya that one.
Yes and i didnt refute your plasma no? ...here il say it again - it has no evidence behind cant account for cosmitcbackground radiation and oh the big bang can while also being proved daily due to the red shift
I said consciousness is energy and energy is infinite. You're incapable of explaining how you believe energy, or consciousness originated, but you reject intelligence having been involved.
@onefodderunit You could use a 5 min google search on the big bang theory and see for yourself it has much more credibility than your 2000 yr old story book.
You're in denial, Atheist. Your faith that matter could turn itself into consciousness is comical to those of us who prefer to think.
Evidence that the universe and consciousness are creations of intelligence is in every functional system. None has ever been known to be a creation of anything other than intelligence.
That's how anti-scientific your Atheist faith is - It defies all evidence.
You have faith in the theory of Big Bang? Where did the energy originate?
@onefodderunit LOL. The big bang is the most widely accepted theory by physicists. Its not a baseless claim. They can measure the increased wavelengths in light coming from all matter because of that one explosion. I believe it is called the cosmological redshift. Where is this evidence your talking about? In every functional system? Well the majority of matter in the universe IS NOT a functional system. It is mostly matter being acted upon by physical process such as gravity. No creator needed.
@onefodderunit Heres a fun one....the big bang predicted a cosmic background radiation - which was proven. And which has not been accounted for what so ever by your dear plasma theory.
Your imbecile , a coward who wont place his name online and ignorant .
@onefodderunit I didnt ask you to give your name to me. Your homepage is hidden away with a fake name so you can write anon like a coward without fearing of being found out.
Secondly you came on this video yourself - please can you act somewhat civil. Its rather depressing seeing endless trolls insulting people for no reasons
I have not said anything about matter turning into conscious , again a pointless remark while ignoring my questions....
You cannot begin to rationalize your faith in the theory of Big Bang. How does it explain the fact that planets in our solar system rotate in both directions? How does your faith in Big Bang explain the plasma filaments spanning throughout the visible universe for thousands of light years, in all directions?
From where did the energy for an imagined 'Bang' originate?
@onefodderunit It would not let me link it. I tried. I stated in the last post to google search "Leading scientists still reject god" by stephen jay gould.
And again i must correct you again. It is not a "faith". You are merely asserting that. Atheism holds not position about the creation of the universe or life or anything else besides the existence of a deity. So you are logically flawed in assuming an atheist MUST believe the big bang or evolution, etc. An atheist is simply one that LACKS a belief in a deity. Nothing more
What a commonly dishonest Atheist. You hold the faith that the universe, nature, and consciousness are each unintended byproducts of whatever, as long as there was no intelligence involved in their creation.
Atheism is Orthodox Materialism and the Orthodox rejection of intelligence.
All functional systems of known origin have been creations of intelligence. There's no exception. The Atheist faith goes against all evidence.
@onefodderunit WHat an utter uttter utter depressing moron you are.
Its simple . There is no evidence for intelligent. No yet so deal with and stop filling in gaps with nonsense.
Just cos what we are aware of due to our tiny time in a tiny proportion of universe does not constitute universal truths.
People like you make me fear for the future of the world. Constant attacking people. putting people into boxes and misquoting , calling a atheism a faith.
All evidence points to intelligence in creation of the universe, nature, and consciousness. There's never been a functional system known to be created by anything other than intelligence. Your Atheist rejection of intelligence is 100% faith based.
Your Atheist faith that matter turned itself into consciousness is especially absurd.
Once you begin your spiritual evolution, you'll be far less bitter. God bless you.
Self-denying Atheist, you're in full denial. There's not one functional system that is known to have ever come from anything other than intelligence. Your rejection of intelligence goes against the evidence of every functional system.
You cannot begin to rationalize your faith in the theory of Big Bang.
1. How does space supposedly expand in space?
2. How does time supposedly begin at a point in time?
@onefodderunit AND i'll go even further to say that EVEN IF the big bang was disproven tommorow it STILL leaves you with a huge burden of proof to meet for your god hypothesis to be a valid claim. YOU CANNOT PROVE GOD BY DISPROVING THE BIG BANG. it does not work that way. Get your lies and half truths off the internet where they do not belong. The civilized world has grown out of your bronze age mythology.
No one said energy is consciousness, self-denying Atheist. Consciousness is a form of energy. Energy is infinite. You believe that matter could turn itself into consciousness, do you not?
@onefodderunit There is no use in trying to reason with you. You have already been inflicted with indoctrination and your mind has been sealed shut. Poor guy. Its ok though. Your fairytale beliefs are slowly dying. hundreds of years from now we will look back on those beliefs and laugh.
You're incapable of reason, Atheist. That's why you have no argument supporting your idiotic belief that matter could turn itself into consciousness. And why you can't begin to rationalize your faith in the theory of Big Bang.
If you Atheists believe life was never intended, why do so few of you take command of your fate and get out on your terms? Why do you insist on lingering on to the point that you're so decrepit that you require someone feed and wipe you? Greed? Fear?
What created consciousness? What created that? What created that? I don't have an answer for what and when started existence since I wasn't there, nor was anyone else. I however do not feel the need to create a warm and fuzzy fairy tale to describe it. I prefer the intelligent observation of evidence than simple minded delusion.
cancer?
H3770mynameis 18 hours ago
Wow. One of the greatest speeches I have ever come across. I wish that segment alone could play in every church, synagog and mosque. I wish that segment could be heard by every angry, starving, despondent, and confused person on earth.
I am elated to hear it, and saddened that I am unlikely to hear its like again.
drfoxcourt 1 week ago
RIP, he was just on another playing field. One of the few speakers that ever make me feel like I don't measure up.
spiffaz 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePsychoReturns Actually, the Quran states that a woman is worth "one-half of man", not "one-half of a man". Man = humanity, not male humans.
Females are worth 1/2, Males are worth 1/2
Female + Male = Humanity.
Did it make more sense now?
Also, the Earth is still flat, the difference is that we today ALSO see things 3-dimensionally. But the Earth is still flat from a 2D perpective.
Nah, I don't find the claims non-sensical at all. Only the insane readers of today.
DrMadolite 1 week ago
Comment removed
DrMadolite 1 week ago
god bless Christopher Hitchens.
WKRPinCINN 2 weeks ago
Along with the Catholic church one, this is among one of my favorite Hitch debates
Fenixx117 1 month ago
WLC continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! "
emailpobox666 1 month ago
William Lane Craig " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
William Lane Craig Continued "i don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent circumstance that I’m in and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the evidence if I could get the correct picture would support what the witness of the holy spirit tells me
emailpobox666 1 month ago
WLC "The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
lol
virtualguitarist 2 months ago
Do not worry My Hitchens, this conversation will continue on long after your passing. The world lost a great intellect.
Denmanize 2 months ago 30
Wow, it's as if Hitchens jsut delivered his own eulogy. Will his friends - Amis, McEwin, Rushdie, Dawkins, etc - encapsulate all the man stood for better than this?
AtticusOfAmber 2 months ago
Hitchens' publicity team orchestrated all these events for atheists. It's like a homophobe taking on a pro-gay rights crowd against a lesbian activist. These events, these theatrics are made for them to lose.
HItchens lost to this guy William Lane Craig.
He lost because real intellect, real debate, real critique beats 5 word argument stretched over countless books and videos.
dolphinsufi 2 months ago
@dolphinsufi William Lane Craig is a peon compared to Hitchens. He throws regurgitated arguments and meaningless word salad around until his opponent starts ignoring him. He isn't an intellect.
ThePsychoReturns 2 months ago
@ThePsychoReturns A regurgitated argument until his opponent ignores him? That makes no sense. Meaningless word salad? You do realise what a debate is don't you or are you just making things up in order to just hang to one point of view because you have to accept everything and then critique everything as an intellect. You just clearly stated this is something Hitchens fails to do because he insults the debater and not the debate.
dolphinsufi 2 months ago
@dolphinsufi Maybe it'll only make sense to you once you grow a brain.
I know what a debate is. Hitchens can support his claims with evidence, while Craig is forced to make things up.
ThePsychoReturns 2 months ago
@ThePsychoReturns I think you need to read up because a lot of what Hitchens says are generalised or absolute nonsense. You think if somebody blames a billion people for the actions of about 10 or 20 people it is intellectual and appropriate. I am sure you should see the gross flaws there.
dolphinsufi 1 month ago
Comment removed
dkthg 1 month ago
@dolphinsufi lol!
dkthg 1 month ago
@dolphinsufi There are more than 10 or 20 muslims who practice female circumcision, or who kill their family members for seeing people from a different sect. This is a much larger problem than you are admitting.
ThePsychoReturns 1 month ago
@ThePsychoReturns There's also a majority of Muslims that condemn female circumcision and see it as a perversion of the Islamic faith.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Not enough.
ThePsychoReturns 2 weeks ago
@ThePsychoReturns Well, in all fairness, I don't think there are enough people in general on this planet that actively condemn such atrocious acts by insane people, nevermind their religious because they're bigots of the worst kind.
Both the Quran and the Bible gives a loving message if you're reading the books as a constructive, caring individual. But yes, they are antiquities and thus they MUST be read through the eyes of people of that age or else it's killing time.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Finding value in the quran or bible requires you to ignore long stretches of nonsense and cruelty. You'd get a much better message out of a Stephen King novel.
ThePsychoReturns 1 week ago
@ThePsychoReturns Not ignore them, but understand them differently. Death isn't exclusively about death of a physical corpus. Statements aren't exclusively about "you better do this, or I will punish you with this fact".
I would actually argue that, because of the very fact that both books are so non-sensical in the literal sense, then that would make it obvious to people (maybe as the authors intended) that the books are meant metaphorically.
DrMadolite 1 week ago
@DrMadolite A little bit harder to see the metaphors in Harry Potter, LOTR and Stephen King, when the reader is so easily fixed on the superficial story because it actually makes sense.
A great literological tool of fiction is to present a non-sensical story (like Discworld) if you plan is to actually tell an underying story.
DrMadolite 1 week ago
@DrMadolite In order to believe that either the quran or the bible are anything more than bronze-age garbage, you'd have to ignore all the stupidity written in those pages.
Maybe they're written metaphorically, maybe they're written literally. Either way, they shouldn't be taken seriously.
ThePsychoReturns 1 week ago
@ThePsychoReturns No you don't have to ignore it, you have to analyse it literologically to see if the text was supposed to be read literally or if it's meant to be understood metaphorically.
Once you see the metaphors, even the socalled "stupid bronze age garbage" will make much more sense. Not necessarily all of it, because one sentence could be easier understood than another, an so on.
The way I see it, Hitchens is doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.
DrMadolite 1 week ago
@ThePsychoReturns Btw, do you even know what the word "metaphorical" means? It's like, if I tell you that my life is a dance on roses or that I'm walking on sunshine, I'm not actually telling you that I'm physically dancing on top of roses or walking on the surface of the sun.
They're both metaphors for being an optimist and having a great feeling inside, respectively.
DrMadolite 1 week ago
@dolphinsufi Craig is a sly, dirty, incredibly skilled debator. His points outside of his words however, are crap.
TheNamelessCharacter 2 months ago
@TheNamelessCharacter You're saying somebody who doesn't need the marketing and publicity that Hitchens first created by going to the same publicist as Dawkins is sly and dirty? If that is the case why does Dawkins insult Craig and not his ideas even as he doesn't face him in debate. You see Dawkins never questions Craigs arguments - instead he insults him. That's why he has lost the argument before it even started.
dolphinsufi 2 months ago
@dolphinsufi
Dawkins responds to your criticism of him: "The mere fact that you can ask a question in the English answer doesn't make it a question that deserves an answer. I could say 'what is the color of jealousy?' It's not a sensible question."
Craig doesn't present arguments worth answering, either because they've already been answered and debunked (he has many of these, but continues to use them anyway), or because they aren't relevant and/or meaningful.
KalElprevails 2 months ago 9
@KalElprevails
typo correction: "...in the English language doesn't make it..."
KalElprevails 2 months ago
@KalElprevails Why isn't the colour of jealousy perfect question? That is where you fail. Craig beat Hitchens because he knows more and delivers more. Hitchens is an identity created for a crow of people addicted to pseudo intellectual utterances.
dolphinsufi 1 month ago
@KalElprevails Ridiculous, and you don't see the flaw in this? Crazy and laughable. Dawkins delivers exactly something he blames others for and you fall for it? You do realise it is Dawkins saying this and not Craig and you are so blind you can't see that he is trying to stop you from adventuring beyond his narrow perspective on academia and life. Laughable.
dolphinsufi 1 month ago
@KalElprevails thats the thing with dawkins side steps a lot of questions with that sort of thinking unlike Hitchens who always had an answer.
dontpunchgirls 3 days ago
@TheNamelessCharacter You mean because he beat someone who has no real intellectual merit at all who is also your bias induced messiah in your celebrity commercialised needs you don't like him? Makes sense.
dolphinsufi 1 month ago
@dolphinsufi You're projecting so hard you point yourself at a wall and give powerpoint presentations.
TheNamelessCharacter 1 month ago
@dolphinsufi LOL!
dkthg 2 months ago
@dkthg About as monosyballic and short cut as Hitchens' book tour. Difference is, he made millions from it. You didn't.
dolphinsufi 1 month ago
@dolphinsufi The religious will always lose these debates simply because they have nothing except blind faith in something, by all we know, doesent exist.
1TtidnaB 2 months ago
@1TtidnaB You need to read more books and understand the concept of faith not merely in the surrounds of religion but in secular society too.
dolphinsufi 2 months ago
@dolphinsufi I'm not getting into everlasting trench warfare about faith, I simply attack the existence of the various fantasymade things believers blindly believe in. Epistemology is by far my favourite pillar in philosophy, I would say that my understanding of faith as a consept is well above avrage.
1TtidnaB 2 months ago
@1TtidnaB "trench warfare"
Can I just say that is a remarkably astute metaphor to describe YouTube arguments.
Do you mind if I use it?
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
@1TtidnaB I bet you've never published something and even if you have it was probably a regurgitation of another paper based upon present experimentation techniques. That is your belief, that is the flaw in science that it has pre-supposed experiments with pre-supposed results. That is the problem in science and that is its philosophical failing as well.
Is that enough philosophy for you or do you require a book tour, massive publicity and ignoring Craig beat Hitchens to fuel your identity?
dolphinsufi 1 month ago
@1TtidnaB That is where you fail. You don't understand the reasoning and logic and flaws in structural science. That is a philosophical edge to it and that is why Hitchens was only useful for people with laptops looking for an identity on the internet.
dolphinsufi 1 month ago
@dolphinsufi Craig is no doubt a great public speaker, with impressive charisma, but Hitchens defeated him in almost every argument brought up in that debate. If you listen closely and take a philosophy course or two, you'll notice Craig's speeches are full of fallacies (only one hitchens really ever commits is ad hominem, but thats just for comedy). Also failing him is his apparent lack of understanding of the word "atheism" as he kept asking Hitchens to provide proof for it.
renger6002 1 month ago
@renger6002 WLC is the ` IFMAN `,win
naybobdenod 1 month ago
@naybobdenod Craig is a dishonest apologist
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@renger6002
Well, Craig did answer the question, at the end, by adjusting his argument in sustaining he addressed what we usually think of as being Atheism (I do hate the wording here too, but let's go beyond the semantic and just take it as a label) -- that actually proves his entire speech was gigantic fallacy: he build a straw-man for one hour long and kept poking at it, never answering anything Hitchens brought up...
But Hitchens had the unfair advantage of not being a theistic apologist.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing
hahah well said
renger6002 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing Craig admitted in a debate with Quentin smith that his Cosmological argument was incoherent but it hasn't stopped him from using it
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@renger6002 A philosophy course or two? I've spent years studying philosophy. That ends that part of your argument because everything else you say is masturbation over Hitchens driven by a fantasy of selective reasoning.
dolphinsufi 1 month ago
Religion at its core is selfish and your either brainwashed into it as a child, in the uk we all are--- forced to pray before we know what praying is in reception etc.. or you find it when youve lost all hope; nothing else will support you, so you need something that you can say is always there watching over me and guiding me. it reduces possible worry of whats to come and is really just you telling you or clergy telling you itll be alright--- which is always nice to hear (who cares if its true)
stjimmy95 2 months ago
@stjimmy95 That's not what religion is. You're just paying fiddle to these unbelievably bad internet videos instead of going out and researching and critiquing for yourself. If you said something unique I would highlight that - you merely said what Dawkins says which doesn't have any substance just statement and empty statement at that.
Here is something Dawkisn won't tell you - an intellect/academic, critiques and analyses everything - that includes himself. Get a clue.
dolphinsufi 2 months ago
@dolphinsufi thats just my opinion from what ive experienced... and since this video isnt about dawkins im guessing youve just been watching a few looking for someone to reply to? if you meant dawkins then i dont know..havnt really seen many of his videos
stjimmy95 2 months ago
I'm pretty sure that my jaw cannot drop any lower. Love this man.
okcmallrat 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
"Who created the creator"? What pap.
"Creator"? "Infinite"? Bollocks I say, Hitchens was right.
Abnegate your responsibility (to a magical sky being) if you so prefer, but leave the rest of us alone, we don't abnegate, you utter prawn.
neilgreatorex 2 months ago
Hitchens at his best, I just scanned the comments below, it's unbelievable what some people come here for..
The amount of religious pap that's touted is amazing, bet the majority are US'ian fundamentalists.
neilgreatorex 2 months ago
@onefodderunit That's not at all what I believe. what I KNOW is that man and modern apes evolved separately from common ancestral lines. I know this to be true because there is an exhaustive amount of scientific evidence in support of that fact. And again I ask you...who created the creator?
1moreastronaut 2 months ago
@1moreastronaut
19th century Darwinism is dispelled by the fossil record and fact that genetic mutation does not advance DNA.
you ask again: "who created the creator"
I won't answer the same question for twice for you, Atheist.
Darwinism teaches that dinosaurs changed into birds. Can you rationalize what you believe you "know" by explaining how you imagine natural selection would favor mutation of the forelegs of dinosaurs into bird wings?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit You haven't responded to the two messages I've sent you yet, creationist. Are you ignoring what I've said again or is it that you can't see my comments, liar?
ArkyneIII 2 months ago
@1moreastronaut
Do you have a moral objection to either beastiality, or suicide, Atheist?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
Obviously beastiality was good enough for your father.
rubberbaby00 2 months ago
@rubberbaby00
Charming. You know better than attempt to rationalize your ridiculous Atheist faith.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
Thank you, I wasn't sure you were capable of understanding humor. Now I know.
rubberbaby00 2 months ago
@onefodderunit atheism doesnt need to be rationalised... thats sorta the point. the world is what it is and developed that way itself... surely if you take a step back from repeating retoric and try to ignore all those thoughts and beliefs drilled into you as a child or that you picked up in a difficult time you'll maybe see that its the belief in an omnipotent being whom cant control many things (e.g.satan)is what needs to be rationalised.-- sorry for my spelling, sometimes wrong
stjimmy95 2 months ago
I think I've watched every Hitchens video on YouTube and this is by far my favorite. Here, with only months left to live, I think he has given us a blueprint for how he lived his life. Never ceasing, always hungry for knowledge & wisdom, never settling for anything less. He wouldn't have it any other way...
rubberbaby00 2 months ago
Trying to start a dedicatory meme: Merry Hitchmas!!
tdp1909 2 months ago
Onefodderunit makes a note that a person did not reply to a question of his 12 hours ago (this is an older comment on this very video).
I asked him a question over a month ago and he has still not answered it.
ArkyneII 2 months ago
i have a small journal that i've been keeping since 08 (obviously pretty infrequent) when i heard him say the last part of the speech i thought i've heard that before.....that's b/c i wrote that quote (from take the risk...on the 1st page of the journal.
am i an asshole to compare him to the great Socrates (whom he mentioned)? seems to me he's our Socrates...at least the religious powers that be couldn't take him from us.
FUCK U CANCER.
moria06 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bdwilson1000 Thank you so much for sharing this glimpse of quite a valuable gentleman. Christopher Hitchens' honesty, knowledge, passions and compassion are simply priceless
thedeeliciousplum 2 months ago
Comment removed
thedeeliciousplum 2 months ago
miss u already christopher
olejohnny64 2 months ago 8
I heard on one of the innumerous youtube tributes to Christopher Hitchens the Whitman quote:
"the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse".
It may not be my place to say . . . but I think this is his.
I only hope I will one day be able to muster up a 'verse' in my lifetime worthy of following it.
He will be sorely missed.
weemanaz 2 months ago
signed, sealed and delivered. The world lost such a great man, however, think of all that we have gained by the simple fact that he lived in our time. I know that I am a better person because of him and I know that the world is a better place because of him.
okcmallrat 2 months ago
I am so sad I never got to meet him and will miss him for the rest of my life. He was a truly great man, brilliant and using his gifts to help free people from misery. I hope someone uses part of this speech in a Symphony of Science one day, it is so incredible.
AtheistSisters 2 months ago
0:24
I think that this speaks for Hitchens now, too. I never met the man, I never will meet the man, We will not be "corporealy reassembled" and meet in an immortal next-life... But the man is immortal in the works and words that he's left behind. He will be sorely missed.
Rest in Peaceful Oblivion, Christopher Hitchens. You will be missed by all those who value human rights, freedom, and peace in the name of love, not some holy deity.
VenomShock 2 months ago 2
Miss you, comrade
ghettowizard 2 months ago
@ 1:32 "I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don't know anything like 'enough' yet. That I haven't understood enough. That I can't know enough. That I'm always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn't have it any other way. "
Words the live by.
pulmonarykid123 2 months ago 5
I really never saw him say anything intellectual when he lived. I don't know what all the fuss is about. There are many great speakers out there with a great knowledge on certain subject matters.
If anybody can tell me what he says in the above speech that is of great intellect please do but apart from saying he doesn't believe in God because (irrelevantly) Socrates (standing on the shoulder of giants) was questioning (if you don't know Greek history you won't know how wrong he is...
dolphinsufi 2 months ago
@dolphinsufi time and place? respect the dead.
unpeuconfusee 2 months ago
@unpeuconfusee If there is something to respect about a man who spread hate and fear because he generalised the words "religious" and "religion" then I would but look at you all? Salivating at his need to cause conflict with ugly ideas where he says the actions of a tiny tiny minority of say 10 or 20 people is equal to that of billions?
You have to be stupid no, insane to believe this ugly tirade!
dolphinsufi 2 months ago
Comment removed
apinkzeppelin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dolphinsufi you have to press play to listen to what it says, I assume you thought the silence was his argument? You cannot deny his skill at debating, he has won so many against Christians and Muslims and other religious people. His wit and intellect, and his ability to pull apart any argument the opposition made, is the reason he will be remembered and missed.
apinkzeppelin 2 months ago
Christopher Hitchens intellect and wit will be missed
emailpobox666 2 months ago 47
Christopher Hitchens has just passed away, Vanity Fair has announced. This speech should be his epitaph.
ShootNeutrality 2 months ago 62
I have read some of your books and many of your essays and have met you on a couple of occasions...our meetings certainly were not a disappointment. We shall miss you when your dead.
jesseblake 2 months ago
absolute brilliance !
naybobdenod 2 months ago
@hempartist420
Atheism teaches children they are animals. That matter is their creator. That they have no soul. That maggots are their relatives. That life is unintended - a fluke - and their lives are of no more significance than a maggot's.
Atheism teaches children that if they kill themselves, the only consequence will be permanent unconsciousness.
Atheism enables child suicide.
lughcious 3 months ago
i love you so much christopher
stevolution666 3 months ago
@hempartist420
I've been trying to respond to you via a PM, but for some reason it isn't sending. Do you know why this is?
THEEVANTHETOON 3 months ago
@hempartist420
You need it explained to you how it is dehumanizing to tell a child they are an animal, they have no soul, life was never intended, and if they are depressed and commit suicide there will be no repercussions?
Why do you lie and present these Atheist faith based beliefs as "truth"?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious I guess you think it's better to tell a child that he/she was born in sin and if they don't bow to your god they will burn in hell forever.
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666
I'm not religious. Matter is not your creator. Intelligence is. Intelligence is creative, not matter.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious Matter and energy compose the universe out of which intelligence arose. So thank matter and energy for intelligence
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@lughcious why are you frightened to recognize the real world and your connection to it?
stevolution666 3 months ago
I would say "God bless Christopher Hitchens" but I'm an atheist :P His voice will be as loud in death as it is in life.
sulijoo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've already offered it. You're just too stupid to understand.
LucisFerre1 3 months ago
Lol. You call me "atheist" like its a bad thing. Fine then THEIST. I was really trying to have a civil conversation with you. The big bang theory requires no faith to accept. Mainstream science accepts it as a whole. Its a little thing called EVIDENCE. They have it. The most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansions seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645
Cosmological redshift is one of about thirty different theories for redshift Plasma redshift is another, and plasma, which comprises 99% of the visible universe, also includes electromagnetism which could be the source of cosmic background radiation.
How does Big Bang theory explain why planets in this solar system spin in both directions, or the plasma filaments spanning thousands of light years and in every possible direction?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645
Your fanatical rejection of intelligence in creation of the universe and nature goes against all evidence.
You can't name a single functional system that is a known creation of something other than intelligence.
Furthermore, your Atheist faith that matter can turn itself into consciousness is an insult to intelligence.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
Well for starters you can try to google search the study done by stephen jay gould. It should be an article that appeared in Nature magazine titled "Leading scientists still reject god". It goes on to show a poll taken at 3 different times in history each yielding a decrease in theistic scientists and a majority of atheistic scientists. I'm curious onefodderunit. What is your definition of atheism?
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
Onefodderunit proclaims he is not a part of a religion.
His very definition of religion seems to disagree.
Inconsistency is a sign of muddled thinking, something that is congruous with onefodderunit's messages to myself.
Arkyne88 3 months ago
@Arkyne88
Religion should consist solely of reason and commonsense which no belief is permitted to override.
Einstein said: "When the answer is simple, God is speaking."
There has never been a functional system that is known to be a creation of anything other than intelligence. The Atheist faith that the universe, nature, and consciousness are each byproducts of whatever, so long as no intelligence was involved, is an insult to commonsense and reason.
The Atheist faith is anti-science.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit You couldn't be any more wrong. An atheist is one who lacks a belief in a god or gods. That position alone does not carry an additional claim about how the universe came into existence. An atheist could simply say he "does not know" how the universe got here and that would be an honest answer. Because truly no one really knows how it happened. Some will pretend they have all the answers. But they are just appealing to their own emotions and ignorance by making these claims.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645
Atheism is faith that no intelligence was involved in creation of the universe, or thought. Do you not have faith that matter organized itself into thought?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit No atheism is the refusal to believe It HAD to be a creator due to a lack of evidence to support that claim. Your "god" hypothesis does not answer the question of how the universe was formed. It simply appeals to this ignorance by invoking an unexplainable being that is beyond our comprehension and then you claim to have answered the question of existence. You explain nothing this way. Thought is merely a word to describe a physical process in the brain. Nothing more.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 We should not believe in things until they are proven false but rather disbelieve until they are proven to be true. If you insist that everything requires a designer then what designed your complex designer? You leave yourself open to a logical contradiction that way. You do not hold your god to the same criticism you give to the universe itself.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645
The creator needs no creator because consciousness is energy and energy is infinite.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit Stop spreading mis information. If energy is infinite the universe would not be grinding to a halt in about 40 billions years when the energy run outs.....
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277 Where do you believe energy came from and where is it going?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit Its not "going" anywhere. Its constantly being used. It eventually run out when the last high mass stars stop converting hyrdogen to helium.
The best assumption based on logical interpretation and evidence for what we know would quitely point towards the big bang being coming from a black hole from another universe/ dimension etc.
My original point to you being is stop talking about things for which you are inadequate to deal with. You sound like you have been brainwashed
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
Where do you believe the energy originated for your fantasy Bang, Atheist?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit What do you mean fantasy bang?
The evidence for a big bang is beyond question. This is silly , a fantasy? Are you even aware your radio whenever you turn it on is still picking up radio waves which you here as static to go along with the 1000 of other fields of science which prove its occurence
And please i have not called nor am i an "atheist" . I stepped in to correct your Deepark Chopra like jargon for which there is no evidence.
Its not known yet but QED seems feasible
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
You reject Atheism? What do you believe created consciousness?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit I believe only for what there is proof - evidence. We are the products of high mass stars. The atoms forged and created by nuclear fusion. The atoms of iron in your blood which can still be traced back to the same star which made the planets and you. Then further back to the big bang.
This is all that we know of to be true.
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
No, creation by nuclear fusion is a 20th century belief. It is not "all we know". The universe is electric. You're apparently totally ignorant of Plasma Cosmology.
Are you incapable of beginning to rationalize your faith in the theory of Big Bang?
How do you believe energy originated, in your words?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit ah good one. Yes lets dimiss the theroy with all the evidence behind it we get proof for every second and put forward one which was dismissed 20 years ago and to this day still has nothing behind it.
Again i ask for proof.
Heres the funny thing about science its not up to random people to come up with how energy was created - i wouldnt be on here if i had some a novel idea.
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
How amusing that you deny your Atheist faith. You're incapable of explaining where you believe the energy originated for your fantasy Bang. What an Atheist.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit Your a strange logic. I dont "believe" in anything. My agnostic perception is based on the lack of evidence for anything else .....it has nothing to do with whether there was or was not a big bang.
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277 Your agnostic position is a false one. And here is why. Agnosticism refers to what we can "KNOW"...not what we "BELIEVE". You are still an atheist by definition if you lack a belief in a deity. I'm an agnostic myself. But I'm also an atheist because i hold no belief in a god or gods. Hence you get an agnostic atheist. It is actually a useless label because it only explains what we do NOT believe in. It does not show what we DO believe in. So i prefer secular humanist.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 I dont get too hung up in man made definitions to classify believes or understandings of reality.
Once someone takes a skeptical logical evidence based approach its fine.
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
Big Bang is a theory and it is all but dead, like Darwinism. By QED, you mean Quantum Electrodynamics? Are you incapable of explaining how you imagine energy originated, in your words?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit Before we go any further oh so brave poster who refuses to give a real name or address please explain how the big bang theory is dead. Your field is what exactly?
Provide any 1 thing which refutes a cosmic expansion please...
You also lets not forget began this conversation with a comment a 12 year old would no is incorrect.
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277 wrote: "You also lets not forget began this conversation with a comment a 12 year old would no is incorrect."
You began your conversation with me, self-denying Atheist. Exactly what comment are you referring to, because you have not, nor could you refute a word I've written. Post the specific quote which you claim is incorrect.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit Your last comment before i wrote you to a different poster stating energy will last forever.
Completely against every piece of evidence we have on the eventual demise into a cold dead universe.
Ya that one.
Yes and i didnt refute your plasma no? ...here il say it again - it has no evidence behind cant account for cosmitcbackground radiation and oh the big bang can while also being proved daily due to the red shift
Donal277 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Donal277
I said consciousness is energy and energy is infinite. You're incapable of explaining how you believe energy, or consciousness originated, but you reject intelligence having been involved.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Donal277
Cosmic background is electromagnetic radiation. 99% of the visible universe is plasma. Plasma is surrounded by electromagnetic fields.
You lied and claimed you refuted plasma. What a self-denying Atheist.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit You could use a 5 min google search on the big bang theory and see for yourself it has much more credibility than your 2000 yr old story book.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645
You're in denial, Atheist. Your faith that matter could turn itself into consciousness is comical to those of us who prefer to think.
Evidence that the universe and consciousness are creations of intelligence is in every functional system. None has ever been known to be a creation of anything other than intelligence.
That's how anti-scientific your Atheist faith is - It defies all evidence.
You have faith in the theory of Big Bang? Where did the energy originate?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit LOL. The big bang is the most widely accepted theory by physicists. Its not a baseless claim. They can measure the increased wavelengths in light coming from all matter because of that one explosion. I believe it is called the cosmological redshift. Where is this evidence your talking about? In every functional system? Well the majority of matter in the universe IS NOT a functional system. It is mostly matter being acted upon by physical process such as gravity. No creator needed.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645
Why do some planets in our solar system spin in the reverse direction?
How does Big Bang account for the filaments of plasma spanning in every direction for thousands of light years throughout the visible universe?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit Heres a fun one....the big bang predicted a cosmic background radiation - which was proven. And which has not been accounted for what so ever by your dear plasma theory.
Your imbecile , a coward who wont place his name online and ignorant .
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
Why would I give a name to an Atheist fanatic who lies about their Atheism?
You believe matter turned itself into consciousness and you have the chutzpah to call people imbecile.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit I didnt ask you to give your name to me. Your homepage is hidden away with a fake name so you can write anon like a coward without fearing of being found out.
Secondly you came on this video yourself - please can you act somewhat civil. Its rather depressing seeing endless trolls insulting people for no reasons
I have not said anything about matter turning into conscious , again a pointless remark while ignoring my questions....
I do get so tired these internet warriors ...
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
Your real name is Donal277, or are you a gross hypocrite as well as a self denying Atheist?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit Yes my name is Donal.
Your a horrible person , a troll who sees nothing better to do than spread hate and misinformation.
Donal277 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Donal277
Truth is not hate, poor loser.
You cannot begin to rationalize your faith in the theory of Big Bang. How does it explain the fact that planets in our solar system rotate in both directions? How does your faith in Big Bang explain the plasma filaments spanning throughout the visible universe for thousands of light years, in all directions?
From where did the energy for an imagined 'Bang' originate?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit I believe you have been misled as to what an atheist position really implies.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645
Still waiting for you to post a source for your claim that "the vast majority of scientists" share your Atheist faith.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit It would not let me link it. I tried. I stated in the last post to google search "Leading scientists still reject god" by stephen jay gould.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
And again i must correct you again. It is not a "faith". You are merely asserting that. Atheism holds not position about the creation of the universe or life or anything else besides the existence of a deity. So you are logically flawed in assuming an atheist MUST believe the big bang or evolution, etc. An atheist is simply one that LACKS a belief in a deity. Nothing more
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 Atheism holds *no* position. my apologies
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@chuckwagon1645
What a commonly dishonest Atheist. You hold the faith that the universe, nature, and consciousness are each unintended byproducts of whatever, as long as there was no intelligence involved in their creation.
Atheism is Orthodox Materialism and the Orthodox rejection of intelligence.
All functional systems of known origin have been creations of intelligence. There's no exception. The Atheist faith goes against all evidence.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit WHat an utter uttter utter depressing moron you are.
Its simple . There is no evidence for intelligent. No yet so deal with and stop filling in gaps with nonsense.
Just cos what we are aware of due to our tiny time in a tiny proportion of universe does not constitute universal truths.
People like you make me fear for the future of the world. Constant attacking people. putting people into boxes and misquoting , calling a atheism a faith.
Simple put .... fuck off
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
All evidence points to intelligence in creation of the universe, nature, and consciousness. There's never been a functional system known to be created by anything other than intelligence. Your Atheist rejection of intelligence is 100% faith based.
Your Atheist faith that matter turned itself into consciousness is especially absurd.
Once you begin your spiritual evolution, you'll be far less bitter. God bless you.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit As i say again provide one piece of evidence. Just cos you say its doesnt make it so.
Like wise just cos science cant say for now what created the big bang doesnt mean god did it.
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
Self-denying Atheist, you're in full denial. There's not one functional system that is known to have ever come from anything other than intelligence. Your rejection of intelligence goes against the evidence of every functional system.
You cannot begin to rationalize your faith in the theory of Big Bang.
1. How does space supposedly expand in space?
2. How does time supposedly begin at a point in time?
3. From where did the energy originate?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit Provide evidence again i ask you, instead of saying intelligence needs a creator .
Where is your evidence?
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
Name a functional system that you believe is known to be a creation of something other than intelligence.
You can't answer one of the three questions regarding your Atheist faith in Big Bang theory. Do you deny it?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit You Sir, is a moron. The burden of proof is on you. You claim, you prove. We (atheist) just reject your claim. Thats all.
KvollerKvoller 3 months ago
@KvollerKvoller wrote: "You Sir, is a moron."
Atheist comedy.
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit AND i'll go even further to say that EVEN IF the big bang was disproven tommorow it STILL leaves you with a huge burden of proof to meet for your god hypothesis to be a valid claim. YOU CANNOT PROVE GOD BY DISPROVING THE BIG BANG. it does not work that way. Get your lies and half truths off the internet where they do not belong. The civilized world has grown out of your bronze age mythology.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
@onefodderunit What part of me saying now for the 3rd time the big bang has nothing to do with my lack of belief in a deity can you comprehend
While your at it wheres your proof for enery being consciousness oh and also infinite ......
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277
No one said energy is consciousness, self-denying Atheist. Consciousness is a form of energy. Energy is infinite. You believe that matter could turn itself into consciousness, do you not?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit There is no use in trying to reason with you. You have already been inflicted with indoctrination and your mind has been sealed shut. Poor guy. Its ok though. Your fairytale beliefs are slowly dying. hundreds of years from now we will look back on those beliefs and laugh.
chuckwagon1645 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chuckwagon1645
You're incapable of reason, Atheist. That's why you have no argument supporting your idiotic belief that matter could turn itself into consciousness. And why you can't begin to rationalize your faith in the theory of Big Bang.
If you Atheists believe life was never intended, why do so few of you take command of your fate and get out on your terms? Why do you insist on lingering on to the point that you're so decrepit that you require someone feed and wipe you? Greed? Fear?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit
On that "logic" something then had to create god...... What was that?
conekiller13 3 months ago
@conekiller13
Consciousness is energy and energy is infinite.
A bang is a sudden release of energy. What do you believe created the energy for an imagined Big Bang?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
@onefodderunit
What created consciousness? What created that? What created that? I don't have an answer for what and when started existence since I wasn't there, nor was anyone else. I however do not feel the need to create a warm and fuzzy fairy tale to describe it. I prefer the intelligent observation of evidence than simple minded delusion.
conekiller13 3 months ago