Interesting to think that centuries ago, George Coyne would have been murdered by his own church for saying what he says in this video. Progress of a sort.
Coyne is a scientist who is interested in Christian history and a Christian philosophy and who emphasises tradition so much that he's not willing to completely give up faith. He therefore created a framework in which for him faith and science can co-exist. Many sceptical religious people create such a framework to avoid the conflicting questions but I think more and more of these sceptics will become Atheists with coming generations.
@Chris197980CH This is exactly what I was thinking about during the entire debate. It is actually quite delusional as a framework.. I guess Coyne DECIDED to believe.
@Chris197980CH There is no conflict, that's the point. Throughout the interview Fr. Coyne says that his faith does not conflict with science because faith is "OUTSIDE" of science. Faith and science do and can co-exist but you have to TRULY understand faith and then choose to either accept or reject it. Atheists obviously reject - which is perfectly fine, but be sure you really understand what you are rejecting.
If you did, you wouldn't be saying they can't co-exists.
@playbak For me faith (religion) is like a drug, I have no idea how it feels but I also don't necessarily want to know. I would therefore refuse your offer to take it even if that means I'll never know whether I would have accepted it if I did. On the subject of coexistence you should read my original post to find that I never said that science and faith can't coexist, I said the opposite and I did so without taking the drug.
@Chris197980CH You idiot, by reading your stupid comment you just lowered my IQ and every other person who read your comment by 10%. Thank you for making this world dumb., are you happy now???????
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to create
Why would you expect the universe to make sense in the first place to our limited minds? If it wasn't for the tool of science we wouldn't be able to even begin to imagine how the universe works - stop being arrogant about your brain's capabilities.
@nerothos I agree, science is a great thing, all im saying is that science can work hand in hand with belief in God. It is the people who try to use science to disprove God and belittle people with faith who are arrogant.
@nerothos I agree, science is a great thing. It can go hand in hand with belief in God. It is those who try and use science to disprove Gods existence and belittle people with faith who are truly arrogant.
My God, even though he is one of 10,000 gods men have worshiped, is the Real God. Screw your god.
I can not prove he exists.
I can not prove that he made anything.
I can not prove that he is good.
However, he is my God and the book that some people say he sorta-kinda wrote is a true and accurate reflection of the universe, even if no one believes it anymore.
@Waltham1892 No one believes it anymore? LOL Try billions of people believe it. Yes Catholics don't believe that much of the O.T is to believed literally but believe that it is full of truth in its message, as were Jesus' parables. No-one says God, sorta kinda wrote it. The O.T was written by many various prophets, etc. The New by the early apostles of Christ, who were eye witnesses of Jesus. There were various accounts by different apostles, written at different times about the same things,
Respond to this video... like Christs death for example, and none of them contradict each other and explain the same things even down to fine details. However yes, to prove God's existence to an atheist is indeed difficult, if not impossible. This is why we have such a christian virtue that we call 'faith'. However even among the apostles many doubted Jesus' Resurrection. This is why Thomas said that if he could not put his fingers through Jesus' wounds he would not believe. Faith is
something that a person finds. It is something that grows inside, like falling in love. Although many people claim it, it cannot be indoctrinated or forced upon someone as has been proved with many people brought up with religion, only to leave it at a certain age, and of course the many atheists who turn to God at certain times in their lives. So you see it is a mystery, and for me to prove what is inside me to you, or you to prove it false to me is a waste of our time.
I know my wife loves me because she acts in the way I would expect someone who loves me acts.
To say it another way, she exhibits behaviors which I can observe and directly attribute to her which are consistent with my understanding of demonstrative acts of affection (love).
Someone doesn't tell me she loves me, and I believe it.
@Waltham1892 Yes but you cant prove to anyone that she loves you. What would be the greatest example of Love that one person could show another? And what do you believe love is?
I don't agree that I can't prove to anyone that she loves me. I think our definitions of love vary, but there are core features that all definitions share.
I believe love is to value another more highly than yourself, and the greatest love is to advance their cause with not gain to yourself.
@Waltham1892 Your getting very close to the core of Christianity. Jesus said there is no greater love than to lay your life down for a friend. This is exactly what he did. What greater way to show how much he loves us? Definitions of love vary, but what is your definition? Do you put it down to chemicals, or do you believe there is something more to love?
@Waltham1892 The Centre of Christianity is love. Jesus made this clear.John 13:34-35. Jesus' death was indeed a sacrifice, the substitution of the innocent Messiah for guilty mankind;
the deliverance of the guilty from sin and punishment through the suffering of the Messias;
the manner of this suffering was through the bloody death on the Cross. You still haven't answered my question, what do you believe that love itself is?
To answer your question, I don't believe "love" can be defined. It is a profound attachment between individuals. My feelings for my daughter are different then those for my wife, mother, father, or vanilla ice cream. Yet, I use the word "love" to describe my feelings for all of them.
The word "love" may be like the word "dark." What is dark?
Its called a Cosmos, not a Chaos, for a reason. It is orderly, dynamic, and fecund beyond imagining. Many people see that as being very consistent with the existence of God. Now I agree that we don't see a mind like our own at work in nature (a designer), and there is a great deal of chance at work. But not once have we observed any chance happening anywhere in the universe that was completely decoupled from some kind of lawlike framework. Chance and law are as inseperable as salt and sea water.
He talks about the fact that changing a small constant or two would not allow us to live here, and that is true, but there is no supernatural reason for it. The universe is infinite. There are literally trillions of planets that are uninhabited BECAUSE of a few different constants. We are just a fluke, a coincidence. The fact that this planet has the correct constants to support our life is nothing more than chance. The fact that he actually believes otherwise is sad and proves his ignorance.
There is actually quite a bit of evidence for the diversity and resilience of life in the cosmos. They just found water floating through space that is trillions of times the size of the Earth's Oceans, to name one example. When he is speaking of constants, he is speaking of what applies to the whole system, not to this or that planet. If you actually saw the whole video, you'll find that he does not claim the fine-tuning argument for theology, saying that it requires a sceintific explanation.
@flockofseagulls87 I did watch the whole video. I never once said that there wasn't diversity or resilience of life anywhere else. I merely said that it was not created by some make-believe supernatural being that there is no proof for. I think you're misunderstanding me.
"There has to be a prime mover, there has to be someone who started it all"
Oh yeah, and where did HE come from?
The whole fucking idea of religion is full of holes, and even though this guy has the common sense enough to except evolution, he still falls prey to these gaping holes that all religion has.
Regardless of whether or not George Coyne's argument sounds convincing, he still offersno proof of the existence of this supernatural being. No religious person can, because there IS none. The only "proof" that he gives is that it is a consistent cultural facet over the last 2,000 or more years. So is storytelling, and that is where these come from. These stories were passed down from generations of ignorant, ancient people to the next, and they all swallowed it up because of superstition.
@IAmBadatStarcraft You ask for proof, but what kind of proof would be acceptable to you? Does each individual atom have to say "made by God" ? Does God have to be a tangible descrete entity? These are the kinds of things that proofs deal with, very concrete, matter of fact things. To say that anything beyond that realm is nonsense is self defeating. That to me is very anti-copernican and the epitome of ignorance.
@flockofseagulls87 You can prove gravity. You can run it through the scientific method and show that it exists. You can do the same for evolution, or friction, or any other scientific theory, which is how they become theories. You can't run god through the scientific method. You can't perform tests to prove that he exists, or did anything at all. Almost everything that "God" was said to have created has been proven scientifically. And yes, god being tangible would be great proof.
@IAmBadatStarcraft You can't prove your parents caring for you through the scientific method. Would you reject that? What you are saying is that the only kind of knowledge we can have is through an extremely limited method devised by fallible, finite human intellects. I have no doubt that our descendents will one day look back on that idea and laugh, and consider it more dishonest than the ancient Greek Pantheon, because at least the latter had little or nothing to go on.
The God you disbelieve in has nothing to do with the one I believe in. What science tells us is that the Universe is a dynamic system in which happenstance operates under regularities that we detect through repeatable experiments. That's it. As a beleiver, I see these regularities or laws AS God's action. God's ways are not man's ways. To create, God need only be responsible for the existence and sustenance of this process in which law and chance are of his own doing.
@flockofseagulls87 No, I disbelieve in that God as well, because again, there is no proof for it. Even though the scientific method and everything else was created through our admittedly narrow human intellect, it still is a method of proof that is tried and true. It is still a method of gathering evidence and observing it, something that cannot be done for any supreme being. So, it is basically a case between lots of evidence created by flawed humans, or no evidence at all.
but i still think were a little bit early to say we can draw any conclussions on before the big bang or how physics works fully yet, if as a species we get our acts together and stop putting our heads in the sand(religion or spirituality) then we have i think its 5 billions years before the sun steralises our solar system and possibly killing off the only life in the universe to have reached the capability we have. I think alien life could potentially exist but hasnt come to earth.
the atoms that did balance and these atoms became dominant and stacked up to make our existance, the big bang theory is: everything in existance was compressed in the singularity called the big bang, not that everything came from nothing! and that was 13.7 billion years ago. we do not know if this has happened before maybe billions of times, and we do not know where the energy/mass of the singularity came from or if it has always existed , does "Nothing" even exist :)
the closest thing i can come to , to reslove the fine tuning arguement is abit like ying and yang negative space/time and posative space/time are th oposite and among this chaos where there is balance is existence. Like with natural selection all the things that do not work are bad mutations would be eliminated, and so all tuneing of the atoms other than they are would be eliminated due to not sustaining themselfs effectively and the ones that did and resonated created a balance reproducing cont
There was something on the discovery channel recently, Curiosity - Did god create the universe? and Stephen Hawkings concludes that you don't need a god to create the universe.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
We are products of a complex cosmos. We were not the end goal of it, just an offshoot of the many many things that are going on in this Universe. I find the argument that "changing things would result in different outcomes therefore it was all about us" ludicrous. If physics had been diffrent we would not exist. So, what? They are the way they are and things transpired... not conspired. Same principle applies to evolution. There was no goal. We are but a step in a blind process.
WTF has the awesome Darwin not got two camera men? If i had the money I'd contribute one, he deserves much better sources, while Cheryl cole and crew get all kind of resources thrown at them.
@TheSultan03 I have to disagree. Science only deals with what is natural and god is obviously a supernatural claim. Therefore god is not a scientific assertion only because he is supernatural claim. Consequently so, god can be kept out of science because he is not a natural claim. In other words, god does not describe anything in of scientific in the first place.
It is easy to keep him out of science, just do not say,'' got did it'' to fill in the blanks when 'explaining' things.
@07Aristotle I see your point. Still, I assert that if one claims that they have an understanding of the creation and the overall nature of the universe, than that claim is fundamentally scientific. It is proporting a system or phenomenon by which all matter has come to be. Even if that is a "supernatural" being, it had to have interaction with the natural world. In so much, the claim of it becomes scientific. Poor scientific hypothesis though it might be, this is how I see it.
@TheSultan03 Well said, my opinion is that if any claim intervenes scientific inquiry at our point of progress, only then it becomes a problem. Since they are talking about first cause, and our scientific discovery has not reached this point, however speculative it might be, still does not intrude in our current scientific understanding of how the universe works. In other words, if supernatural claims does not make our science more confusing, I do not care what people speculate.
If god exists and is really as prone to mood swings as Father Coyne says he is then I would think that by now he (god) would have eradicated this species and started over. Why would an omnipotent being ever have cause to be "angry" or experience any other emotion in the first place? Father Coyne is just projecting his own human emotions onto a replacement father figure like so many others do because they still as adults, feel the need to be comforted, guided and even disciplined.
@Damienf77 1. Beware the genetic fallacy, which is to try to falsify a belief by talking about how it originated. Even if we come to believe in God by projecting, it says nothing about whether God actually exists.
2. God's anger should not be read as God having a hissy fit. God's anger is his passion to set things right. A good parent gets angry sometimes, not in spite of their love, but precisely because of it.
@Mystagogia87 An analogy can not be drawn between parents and god. Parents are not omnipotent and they are indesputably proven to exist. He can not be given human qualities and emotions just because we would like him to have them, unless he is imaginary. How does anger figure into the character of a PERFECT being? A "good parent" gets angry sometimes not out of love but out of FEAR. Even if that fear is a result of caring for their child and not wanting harm to come to them, it is still fear.
@Damienf77 If I say my love is LIKE a red red rose, it immediately means in certain ways my love is not like a red red rose. That's the nature of analogy. "How does anger figure into the character of a PERFECT being" A perfect being would be angry at injustice. Haven't you ever seen injustice, that caused no harm to you and caused you no fear, but gave you a passion to set things right? This is analogous to God's anger.
@Mystagogia87 A perfect being would be angry at nothing, have nothing to prove, require no worship of any kind and would not have created an imperfect world in the first place. The word "perfect" removes any need to change or manipulate anything and a perfect being would be incapable of creating anything less than perfect (which precludes there being anything to BE angry about). If he knows the entire plan (seeing as he designed it), what's the point of his frustration at watching it unfold?
@Damienf77 I agree that God does not require worship. God tells us to worship not out of his own need, but out of our need to order our souls to the highest good.
"The word "perfect" removes any need to change or manipulate anything" God did not create out of need, but out of love.
@Damienf77 I agree that God does not require worship. God tells us to worship not out of his own need, but out of our need to order our souls to the highest good.
"The word "perfect" removes any need to change or manipulate anything"
God did not create out of need, but out of love, for the benefit of the creature.
@Damienf77 Does that not fit with the fictional story of Noah? I think that for the character described in Mr. Coynes bible that moodiness is a reasonable attribute. What really suprises me is that despite this he still feels comforted by the idea of his (as you so eloquently put it) replacement father.
Dawkins has said elsewhere that the argument for God he finds most compelling or most challenging is the fine tuning of the universe in a very specific way that is conducive to life (in 'the four horsemen'). Father Coyne is clearing up Dawkins doubts about atheism.
@InnocenceExperience - To me, that's a false argument. If the conditions were different then most likely a different form of life would have evolved, then that life would of at some point looked back and said how unlikely it was that the conditions were just right for it to evolve. That's irrelevant to me and I'm surprised that Dawkins, of all people, actually hasn't considered this.
@MrSmudger687 the idea is that if the physical constant were different by even a little bit (he gives some examples), no life could have evolved because no stars/planet would have formed etc etc. Its as if the actual laws of the universe are precisely rigged to make it optimal for the evolution a cosmos with life in it.
@MrSmudger687 the point is that if the constants were just a little bit different, no life would be possible- at least anything like we know it, living on planets with suns etc. I think even the heavy elements that make up our bodies wouldn't have come about because that requires stars. The laws of this universe are very precisely the ones needed to produce stars and planets and life, it seems, and this is apparently an enormous coincidence.
@MrSmudger687 a proposed solution is the multiverse theory- an infinite number of universes, in which there are an infinite variety of constants. In many universes there would not be the suitable conditions for life but in others such as ours, the constants are just right. Of course it would only be in such a universe that the question could be asked, why are our constants just right for life to evolve?
This is pure speculation but you might prefer it to positing a higher intelligence.
@InnocenceExperience ... a long enough amount of time, there is bound to be some process that would lead either to creation of heavier atoms, or indeed a life that would evolve from them. Who knows, if the constants of the universe were slightly different, stars may not be the only way to create the heavier elements, or even if very heavy elements would be necessary for life. This type of argument is similar to a creationist looking at an internal organ and thinking it must of been designed...
@InnocenceExperience - ...as it would seem intended for life to evolve, just as the design of the eye was intended. The way I see it that regardless of the conditions or constants of the universe, at some point, some form of life will arise from it.
@MrSmudger687 maybe no matter what the constants are, some form of life in some circumstance, however inconceivable to us, would evolve. There could be power sources other than suns we just can't imagine and bodies that are much different to ours. I think there have to be bodies of some sort though- an organic basis of egocentric life- and probably stable homes to have social lives. Maybe there are many ways to achieve that and many versions of that...
@MrSmudger687 3) do you think it is reasonable to suppose that there are some set of possible constants that wouldn't produce life of any sort? or do you assert that life will always arise no matter what the constants are?
@InnocenceExperience - I doubt it. Based upon the immense size and timescale of the universe, life is in fact quite a probable event to happen at least somewhere.
@InnocenceExperience - As I said, though it would seem difficult to imagine life in any other circumstances, over a long enough timescale, it would seem likely for life to evolve, very very different to the life we know.
@InnocenceExperience - Whoops, just seen your other comments :S I don't mean to sound arrogant I've only seen one other comment at a time. Yes, although stars are required for creation of elements beyond helium and hydrogen. Again, stars, so far, are the only method which creates these heavier atoms in the processes of fusion and the subsequent supernova. As a chemist, an idea of life that consists of only hydrogen and helium would seem near impossible, but personally I believe that over...
@InnocenceExperience I am religious but I wonder why Dawkins finds fine-tuning compelling. Why not just say the constants have to be that way? Do we have any evidence that gravity or electromagnetism could have had different strengths?
@Mystagogia87 I'm not at the cutting edge of physics but I don't think there is any indication that they could have been different. They just are as they are and it seems sort of arbitrary- we don't know of any fundamental or deeper reason why they should be as they are. At the same time, they are perfect for the evolution of life- that seems very coincidental. Maybe they had to be as they are for some reason...but since we don't know, its a possibility that God did it.
@Mystagogia87 2) I don't know if you know this but this kind of argument has been characterised as a 'God of the gaps' type of argument, meaning there is a gap in scientific knowledge (why the constants are so) and God is being used to explain what we don't know- to fill the gaps. Father Coyne obviously doesn't find this an acceptable proof for God. Then again, I would say that if there is a higher intelligence that rigged the constants, there *would* be a gap there for materialist scientists.
@Mystagogia87 if it answers your question better, (as far as I know) we don't have evidence that they could be different but we don't have any evidence that they couldn't be different either or that they have to be as they are. Its quite conceivable that they could be different- there doesn't seem to be any reason why they have to be as they are. maybe there is but we don't know it. its an open question- we just don't know and are left to speculate.
@InnocenceExperience While I don't buy the argument, it isn't a God-of-the-Gaps argument. God-of-gaps says "we don't know, so God did it." But the fine tuning argument would say the fine tuning is based on chance, necessity, or design. It would then reject chance and necessity, saying that the result is therefore designed.
"or do you assert that life will always arise no matter what the constants are?" No, with different constants the universe would collapse or be all helium or hydrogen.
@Mystagogia87 the last part I was asking somebody else but thanks for your input (not being sarcastic). I don't know if we can say that for sure though- a different set of constants might involve possibilities we can't imagine. (??).
So a God of the gaps argument literally takes the form, we don't know, THEREFORE God did it/must have done it?? wow, that's obviously a fallacy....
@Mystagogia87 Couldn't a God who designed the constants be called a 'God of the gaps' even if it isn't strictly a God of the gaps argument. It is a God existing in the gaps, being sustained because of the gaps, and even the argument depends on lack of a plausible scientific explanation a gap in our knowledge.
@Mystagogia87 1) In the wikipedia presentation of a God of the gaps argument, it says: 'There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore the cause must be supernatural.'. I just wanted to share the point with you that I have a problem with this kind of use of 'supernatural'. I think its used rhetorically and ignorantly to discredit or demean non materialistic explanations. The fact is that if there is a higher intelligence that orders the universe....
@Mystagogia87 2)....or consciousness/awareness is an ultimate reality and not just contingent on material processes, then this 'spiritual' reality of awareness and higher intelligence is as natural as anything else. To put it in a theistic way, if God exists by necessity and is fundamentally the reality, then that is completely natural, as natural as you could get.
I suppose it depends how one defines natural. If you define natural as space, time, matter, and energy, then even some things science has discovered, which lie beyond those things, are supernatural. OK, if you want to define natural in the way you named I'd agree that God is natural. However, he is not a material thing, or a thing in time, or an amount of energy, and does not "occupy" space, but sustains all those things in being and exists in and through all of them.
@Mystagogia87 I think of natural as not artificial, or manufactured or contrived- occurring naturally.
Do you believe that God possesses awareness? that this awareness is that which is without spatial limits or a particle of substance, and that this ultimate reality of God is the source of the universe and all living things? Or do u believe that God has created limited beings that are apart from the reality of God and forever limited, to spend eternity as egocentric beings in heaven or hell?
@InnocenceExperience You asked if I believe A or B. I believe both, with the exception of the egocentric part. To be in heaven is to be saved, and that includes salvation from the selfishness of the ego.
I believe that God is intelligent, and exists in and through all things. God is what Aquinas called ipsum esse subsistens, i.e. being itself. I am not being itself, but share in being itself. So I am separated from God yet sustained by God.
I wish that all people with such passionate and polar world views could discuss, share, and explain their ideas and beliefs as patiently and openly like these two guys.
I'll give him credit for calling out and dismissing the God of the Gaps argument. It's such a convenient "proof" for theists, but Coyne won't take the bait (at least in this case). His prime mover is just another GotG, but people tend to give it more credit because it's rooted in more traditional philosophy. I'd say he's batting about a .300 so far. Impressive for a man with a white collar.
It's like if they have the same point of view, but one simple difference in the oppinion about how the things started, together with the way they were raised made one to be a father and the other to be an active atheist, thats kind of funny.
Everything that the Father said up until 1:16 was just... Yeah, why can't we have religious people believing that rather than the bullshit they spew most of the time?
@PorkFrog It's not about giving a "make-over", it's about satisfying a need for fundamental truth and meaning, that "creates" the loving god, a point of view which is neither verifieable nor falsifiable, but it is a fundamental part of our reasoning, so therefore it remains true to ourselves.
The danger of an anthropomorphic 'God' is, if he is loving or more importantly angry, its because of something YOU did, and religions use that to assert authority
The bottom line to all religion, and almost all "God talk', is authority, even when its couched pleasantly and deferentially, like this marvelous Coyne fellow.
Do we want to be autonomous, or listen to other people tell us how to be because they know 'God' better than we can? If they can know, why can't we know for ourselves?
i am open to idea of an exterior force (call it god if u want) affecting the parameters, but i will not call it definite. I take issue with claims of a divinity which cares about what you eat, who you love, how you pray, what you wear etc. Those are enitrely man made constructions to control their respective populations
Don't know how this priest being as smart as he is can still truly believe in god. He can debunk the bible in all aspects with his knowledge of science, and he knows the bible is just interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of 'god' over thousands of years.. yet still devoted his life to being a virgin? priest. Either these guys get super fat paychecks or there is some 'under the table' bonus's to this career choice that i don't think i want to know about...
@infected69 "Don't know how this priest being as smart as he is can still truly believe in god. "
You shouldn't be surprised. Plenty of geniuses belong to all different religious traditions.
"He can debunk the bible in all aspects with his knowledge of science"
As he says, there's no science in scripture. Science didn't exist then. The Bible has different genres than science, and describes existence in a different way.
I suspect that George has been battling with his own faith and belief in god for most of his life, he seems too intelligent to be completely convinced that god actually exists.
Deism is God setting existence into motion but then letting the world create it's own future that is the free ill of the Bible, but A catholic Diest, hmm.... different. Interesting fact: Americas forefathers were Deist.
As an atheist, I can accept a model where a supernatural force outside the realm of our understanding set the universe and its laws into motion. If you want to call it God and leave it at that, then that would be OK. But then they bring in all that heaven and angels and prayer crap. That's where it falls apart.
@ovinophile I can't accept that, because it creates more problems than it solves. The whole point of that model is to have a first cause, but you then must explain how that "force" began and so on. Unless you want to create an infinite number of "forces" or gods which created each other and then the universe, it is pointless. Much easier to say that there was no god to begin with.
@FDSCEV That sounds too much like giving up. The question of how our universe came to exist is there whether you care to address it or not. It suffices to say there are forces behind the nature of existence we do not yet (and may never) understand. You can call that abstract idea whatever you wish for now. Just don't tell me you have all the answers and they're in a book written thousands of years ago.
@ovinophile I have no such book, and i was thinking you were the one 'giving up'. Your word "supernatural" means something outside of nature. I was merely asking you to substantiate your claim that something supernatural "set up the universe", I see no need for it. Saying there is a need is a concession likely to be lapped up by deists and theists alike.
Yes, but you might as well call the universe itself a god and call it a day. If Multi-universe theory becomes a fact in the future then do we have one god for each or one god for all? lol
@ovinophile Some would argue that even heaven and the angels do not have a literal interpretation. Heaven, for example, could be, instead of a place like commonly assumed, more like a state.
I am an atheist, by the way. I do love reading Joseph Campbell, though, and his ideas regarding religion are the ones that make the most sense to me.
angels and prayer "crap" are symbolic means used to express the often inexpressible, and are most frequently attacked by those most ignorant of the religious tradition. When you say "fall apart", do you mean it contradicts the religious/scientific doctrines or simply that you don't understand it beyond a pure surface-level interpretation?
I would argue that most believers take the concepts of angels and prayer quite literally. "Symbolic means used to express the inexpressible"? Forgive me, but that sounds like BS 101. By "fall apart" I simply mean it becomes too difficult for me to take it seriously once these fairy tale ideas are introduced.
Anyway, don't get too worked up over it. That's just my take, and everyone is still entitled to believe what they want regardless.
I'm just curious because you're demonstrating a very limited understanding of scripture. The model devoid of angels and prayer is a model devoid of the religious history and the history of linguistics. I will concede to you the point that there are many who take scripture literally, but that's just the unfortunate reality of human stupidity. What you seem to be against is religious rituals, which I, as a non-religious person, cannot comment on.
@GayTempest Good point. I don't think I'm a deist, but I'm open to anything. A supreme being, the Matrix, whatever - as long as there's scientific evidence. Some people become frightened when they question existence and the seeming insignificance of it all. So I say you can abstract the mysteries of the universe into an idea called God if it puts your mind at ease, but don't tell me he's a magical man in the sky. Personally, I'd prefer we keep searching for the answers... if there are any.
@ovinophile The great majority of atheists agree with you. A deistic view is much more plausible then a theistic view. Most would say such a being is not necessary, but possibly existing and impossible to test. That's the agnostic atheist POV that most atheists hold.
Atheism is in fact not adeism. It only claims that there is not reasonable proof supporting the idea that a theistic god exists who answers prayers, reveals himself to humans, etc.
@ovinophile They bring in heaven and angels which are actually extraterrestrials. Notice how every religion around the world talks about coming from the stars, and space brothers, or people depending from space. And there's no way they all thought that up independently. And prayer, just like self affirmation, etc, has been proven to change the mind, which can change reality - just like a sham operation and the placebo effect. I think you may be missing the overlap with what you already believein
Science does make the claim that if any of countless constants were tweaked slightly, humans might not or could not exist; however, there is also a theory that suggests, due to the relativity of time, the very particle/quantum physics experiments which verify that the universe is perfect for humanity may have in fact caused the universe to be such that those experiments could be performed. In short, that we created ourselves.
@coryskawaffle Sounds more like poetry than science to me. But I like poetry. lol (Also, I wouldn't say the universe is "perfect" for humanity. There is a mountain of evidence to the countrary, even in the thin layer of atmosophere in which we live. If you count the rest of the universe, one might as well say the universe was perfectly made to see us die, or never exist, or soon die out.)
Science does make the claim that if any of countless constants were tweaked slightly, humans might not or could not exist; however, there is also a theory that suggests, due tot he relativity of time, the very particle/quantum physics experiments which verify that the universe is perfect for humanity may have in fact caused the universe to be such that those experiments could be performed. In short, that we created ourselves.
Try this: if god authored the Logical Laws, or gave them, or if god is not contingent on anything (including the Laws) that means he exists outside of the Logical Laws. That means god can be X and not be X at the same time. It means god can make X equals Y and X does not equal Y true at the same time. It means that god does not equal god. You've just proved that a nonexistent god authored the Logical Laws...which means there was no god, and the Logical Laws still stand.
The laws are causally effete. They don't cause anything. But contingent reality must have had a beginning, so the laws are a lame candidate for their cause and the necessarily existing ground of contingency.
@Jugglable You still haven't hit on the standard apolegetic yet. Here's the problem: reality in some form always existed, as you agreed. "Causing" therefore, is not a problem. Moreover, the Laws are uncaused. They are necessary, hence they are the essence. They apply to everything, including themselves.
@Jugglable Not an uncaused cause, in the way you imply. You are again making the Newtonian Absolute time mistake. That's off the table now. There is no absolute time. Reality always existed in some form. No cause required.
Different religious people believe in different things. There's no consistency. At least he believes evolution is true, she doesn't even believe in that /watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
This guy just said his God is not a designer. Now he is saying that his God is continuously creating the universe. Is there any logic in this?
What conceit it is for a person to claim to know what God is thinking. Any why 'He'? Of what use does 'God" have for sexual organs? This old man's thoughts seem to be muddled and foolish, so unlike to objective clarity of a first class scientist such as Dawkins.
@1fotcn I think he meant that God does not directly design the universe (hence God not being a designer). God is continuously creating the universe by letting the universe takes its own course (through evolution and other natural processes). And Coyne called God a he or she in the previous video (at the end). I think it is just easier not to assume God is a man, but just to call it he. Coyne is a very bright and respectable person.
Father Coyne is by far the wisest catholic priest I have ever heard. But stating that you don't want the god of the philosophers because you desire a god of love is nothing more than supposing a personal choice - you cannot get to choose the type of god you follow. Also - you cannot ever have a prime mover - because the question is always 'who moved the prime mover'.
@mgollogly1 You know. That's why it is called the prime mover. Certainly, if there is truly a God, it is more than likely that we cannot understand him at all, let alone comprehend how he does stuff. Plus, if he truly is an omnipotent God, (and by the definition of omnipotent), he could do WHATEVER he would like to do, even if we lack the ability to understand how he did it.
As for the multiverse theory & his take on it.. I'd argue that we CAN know of these places. Not simply through mathmatics & physics research, but also because they HAVE to be within our reach. Through wormholes, dimensional rifts (which some say could be what black holes are... holes punched into the fabric of space/time) or whatever. I don't think anything is beyond our eventual ability to reach. We are a wily and brilliant group of evolved apes. If gods out there, we will find it.
I like how he says god wouldn't want to interfere. That means he's powerless. He exists only within the mind. Physics dispells an interfering god because he would have to violate everything that is within the realm of reason. The realm of the mind is still open to some speculation. I study neuroscience (& QP) so I know how our brains work fairly well. It's all laid out & scientific.. but the soul/higher mind is still up for grabs. We haven't disproven the soul yet, so he can play with it for now
it's amazing what such an intelligent mind can convince itself of. all due respect of course. i like him. which is rare among people who present this position.
appreciate the mention of Aristotle and Aquinas
ramatirthadasa 3 days ago
Interesting to think that centuries ago, George Coyne would have been murdered by his own church for saying what he says in this video. Progress of a sort.
Ribofl4vin 2 weeks ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins 5
Coyne is a scientist who is interested in Christian history and a Christian philosophy and who emphasises tradition so much that he's not willing to completely give up faith. He therefore created a framework in which for him faith and science can co-exist. Many sceptical religious people create such a framework to avoid the conflicting questions but I think more and more of these sceptics will become Atheists with coming generations.
Chris197980CH 2 months ago 9
@Chris197980CH This is exactly what I was thinking about during the entire debate. It is actually quite delusional as a framework.. I guess Coyne DECIDED to believe.
pongells 2 weeks ago
@Chris197980CH There is no conflict, that's the point. Throughout the interview Fr. Coyne says that his faith does not conflict with science because faith is "OUTSIDE" of science. Faith and science do and can co-exist but you have to TRULY understand faith and then choose to either accept or reject it. Atheists obviously reject - which is perfectly fine, but be sure you really understand what you are rejecting.
If you did, you wouldn't be saying they can't co-exists.
playbak 1 week ago
@playbak For me faith (religion) is like a drug, I have no idea how it feels but I also don't necessarily want to know. I would therefore refuse your offer to take it even if that means I'll never know whether I would have accepted it if I did. On the subject of coexistence you should read my original post to find that I never said that science and faith can't coexist, I said the opposite and I did so without taking the drug.
Chris197980CH 1 week ago
@Chris197980CH You idiot, by reading your stupid comment you just lowered my IQ and every other person who read your comment by 10%. Thank you for making this world dumb., are you happy now???????
TheLaw055 1 week ago
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
Not much of a difference in their beliefs, except one believes in a creator and one does not.
isOneRight 3 months ago
I think that the priest is deluded about the existence of a god, but he's no typical religiotard.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 So you're saying that just because he finds ways to interlock God and science that he's deluded?
link0zeldarulz89 3 months ago
The problem with the argument of "God of the Gaps" is that it starts from the conclusion; "God must exists because we are here..."
Well, in order for us to conceive of a God, the universe must be as it is.
The argument is circular, not falsifiable, not testable, and therefore not rational.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
Atheism:
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to create
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
@damienbrennan1
Why would you expect the universe to make sense in the first place to our limited minds? If it wasn't for the tool of science we wouldn't be able to even begin to imagine how the universe works - stop being arrogant about your brain's capabilities.
nerothos 3 months ago
@nerothos I agree, science is a great thing, all im saying is that science can work hand in hand with belief in God. It is the people who try to use science to disprove God and belittle people with faith who are arrogant.
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nerothos I agree, science is a great thing. It can go hand in hand with belief in God. It is those who try and use science to disprove Gods existence and belittle people with faith who are truly arrogant.
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
Religion:
My God, even though he is one of 10,000 gods men have worshiped, is the Real God. Screw your god.
I can not prove he exists.
I can not prove that he made anything.
I can not prove that he is good.
However, he is my God and the book that some people say he sorta-kinda wrote is a true and accurate reflection of the universe, even if no one believes it anymore.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 No one believes it anymore? LOL Try billions of people believe it. Yes Catholics don't believe that much of the O.T is to believed literally but believe that it is full of truth in its message, as were Jesus' parables. No-one says God, sorta kinda wrote it. The O.T was written by many various prophets, etc. The New by the early apostles of Christ, who were eye witnesses of Jesus. There were various accounts by different apostles, written at different times about the same things,
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
Respond to this video... like Christs death for example, and none of them contradict each other and explain the same things even down to fine details. However yes, to prove God's existence to an atheist is indeed difficult, if not impossible. This is why we have such a christian virtue that we call 'faith'. However even among the apostles many doubted Jesus' Resurrection. This is why Thomas said that if he could not put his fingers through Jesus' wounds he would not believe. Faith is
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
something that a person finds. It is something that grows inside, like falling in love. Although many people claim it, it cannot be indoctrinated or forced upon someone as has been proved with many people brought up with religion, only to leave it at a certain age, and of course the many atheists who turn to God at certain times in their lives. So you see it is a mystery, and for me to prove what is inside me to you, or you to prove it false to me is a waste of our time.
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
@damienbrennan1
So, what you are saying is that god is a belief system and not something that can be objectively proven.
Well, at least you are honest.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 Well done you have just grasped the concept of faith. How can a person prove that they love another?
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
@damienbrennan1
Now, don't go to far afield...
I know my wife loves me because she acts in the way I would expect someone who loves me acts.
To say it another way, she exhibits behaviors which I can observe and directly attribute to her which are consistent with my understanding of demonstrative acts of affection (love).
Someone doesn't tell me she loves me, and I believe it.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 Yes but you cant prove to anyone that she loves you. What would be the greatest example of Love that one person could show another? And what do you believe love is?
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
@damienbrennan1
I don't agree that I can't prove to anyone that she loves me. I think our definitions of love vary, but there are core features that all definitions share.
I believe love is to value another more highly than yourself, and the greatest love is to advance their cause with not gain to yourself.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 Your getting very close to the core of Christianity. Jesus said there is no greater love than to lay your life down for a friend. This is exactly what he did. What greater way to show how much he loves us? Definitions of love vary, but what is your definition? Do you put it down to chemicals, or do you believe there is something more to love?
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
I knew you were going in this direction, and I'm ready for you.
The central tenet of Christianity is vicarious human sacrifice. Thank you, but I will pass.
I do not believe the sacrifice of one human (operative word, human), relieves the species from individual accountability to each other.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 The Centre of Christianity is love. Jesus made this clear.John 13:34-35. Jesus' death was indeed a sacrifice, the substitution of the innocent Messiah for guilty mankind;
the deliverance of the guilty from sin and punishment through the suffering of the Messias;
the manner of this suffering was through the bloody death on the Cross. You still haven't answered my question, what do you believe that love itself is?
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
Your assumptions are:
1. There is a god
2. Jesus was the messia
3. Vicarious sacrafice is possible
I do not agree with any of these.
To answer your question, I don't believe "love" can be defined. It is a profound attachment between individuals. My feelings for my daughter are different then those for my wife, mother, father, or vanilla ice cream. Yet, I use the word "love" to describe my feelings for all of them.
The word "love" may be like the word "dark." What is dark?
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 Dark is the absence of light. I asked you what do you believe love is? Love for your daughter or wife I mean not for ice cream.
damienbrennan1 3 months ago
@damienbrennan1
Not meaning to sound Buddist, but love is small word whose definition is to large to be contained in the largest library.
Love is, how ever you experience it...
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 Absence of light.
s4lesman 2 months ago
@s4lesman
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment.
"absence of light"?
Waltham1892 2 months ago
Its called a Cosmos, not a Chaos, for a reason. It is orderly, dynamic, and fecund beyond imagining. Many people see that as being very consistent with the existence of God. Now I agree that we don't see a mind like our own at work in nature (a designer), and there is a great deal of chance at work. But not once have we observed any chance happening anywhere in the universe that was completely decoupled from some kind of lawlike framework. Chance and law are as inseperable as salt and sea water.
flockofseagulls87 4 months ago
He talks about the fact that changing a small constant or two would not allow us to live here, and that is true, but there is no supernatural reason for it. The universe is infinite. There are literally trillions of planets that are uninhabited BECAUSE of a few different constants. We are just a fluke, a coincidence. The fact that this planet has the correct constants to support our life is nothing more than chance. The fact that he actually believes otherwise is sad and proves his ignorance.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago
There is actually quite a bit of evidence for the diversity and resilience of life in the cosmos. They just found water floating through space that is trillions of times the size of the Earth's Oceans, to name one example. When he is speaking of constants, he is speaking of what applies to the whole system, not to this or that planet. If you actually saw the whole video, you'll find that he does not claim the fine-tuning argument for theology, saying that it requires a sceintific explanation.
flockofseagulls87 4 months ago
@flockofseagulls87 I did watch the whole video. I never once said that there wasn't diversity or resilience of life anywhere else. I merely said that it was not created by some make-believe supernatural being that there is no proof for. I think you're misunderstanding me.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago
"There has to be a prime mover, there has to be someone who started it all"
Oh yeah, and where did HE come from?
The whole fucking idea of religion is full of holes, and even though this guy has the common sense enough to except evolution, he still falls prey to these gaping holes that all religion has.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago
"God sustains everything that is in existence"
PROVE IT!
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago
Regardless of whether or not George Coyne's argument sounds convincing, he still offersno proof of the existence of this supernatural being. No religious person can, because there IS none. The only "proof" that he gives is that it is a consistent cultural facet over the last 2,000 or more years. So is storytelling, and that is where these come from. These stories were passed down from generations of ignorant, ancient people to the next, and they all swallowed it up because of superstition.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago
@IAmBadatStarcraft You ask for proof, but what kind of proof would be acceptable to you? Does each individual atom have to say "made by God" ? Does God have to be a tangible descrete entity? These are the kinds of things that proofs deal with, very concrete, matter of fact things. To say that anything beyond that realm is nonsense is self defeating. That to me is very anti-copernican and the epitome of ignorance.
flockofseagulls87 4 months ago
@flockofseagulls87 You can prove gravity. You can run it through the scientific method and show that it exists. You can do the same for evolution, or friction, or any other scientific theory, which is how they become theories. You can't run god through the scientific method. You can't perform tests to prove that he exists, or did anything at all. Almost everything that "God" was said to have created has been proven scientifically. And yes, god being tangible would be great proof.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago
@IAmBadatStarcraft You can't prove your parents caring for you through the scientific method. Would you reject that? What you are saying is that the only kind of knowledge we can have is through an extremely limited method devised by fallible, finite human intellects. I have no doubt that our descendents will one day look back on that idea and laugh, and consider it more dishonest than the ancient Greek Pantheon, because at least the latter had little or nothing to go on.
flockofseagulls87 4 months ago
The God you disbelieve in has nothing to do with the one I believe in. What science tells us is that the Universe is a dynamic system in which happenstance operates under regularities that we detect through repeatable experiments. That's it. As a beleiver, I see these regularities or laws AS God's action. God's ways are not man's ways. To create, God need only be responsible for the existence and sustenance of this process in which law and chance are of his own doing.
flockofseagulls87 4 months ago
@flockofseagulls87 No, I disbelieve in that God as well, because again, there is no proof for it. Even though the scientific method and everything else was created through our admittedly narrow human intellect, it still is a method of proof that is tried and true. It is still a method of gathering evidence and observing it, something that cannot be done for any supreme being. So, it is basically a case between lots of evidence created by flawed humans, or no evidence at all.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago
this priest waffles a hefty amount of shite
DaveDragon10 5 months ago
Comment removed
DaveDragon10 5 months ago
but i still think were a little bit early to say we can draw any conclussions on before the big bang or how physics works fully yet, if as a species we get our acts together and stop putting our heads in the sand(religion or spirituality) then we have i think its 5 billions years before the sun steralises our solar system and possibly killing off the only life in the universe to have reached the capability we have. I think alien life could potentially exist but hasnt come to earth.
irtehpwn09 5 months ago
the atoms that did balance and these atoms became dominant and stacked up to make our existance, the big bang theory is: everything in existance was compressed in the singularity called the big bang, not that everything came from nothing! and that was 13.7 billion years ago. we do not know if this has happened before maybe billions of times, and we do not know where the energy/mass of the singularity came from or if it has always existed , does "Nothing" even exist :)
irtehpwn09 5 months ago
the closest thing i can come to , to reslove the fine tuning arguement is abit like ying and yang negative space/time and posative space/time are th oposite and among this chaos where there is balance is existence. Like with natural selection all the things that do not work are bad mutations would be eliminated, and so all tuneing of the atoms other than they are would be eliminated due to not sustaining themselfs effectively and the ones that did and resonated created a balance reproducing cont
irtehpwn09 5 months ago
There was something on the discovery channel recently, Curiosity - Did god create the universe? and Stephen Hawkings concludes that you don't need a god to create the universe.
LotusPhoenix93 5 months ago
George Coyne knows so much about science and leaves no more room for God! Amazing he can still believe in God.
emerald142 5 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
We are products of a complex cosmos. We were not the end goal of it, just an offshoot of the many many things that are going on in this Universe. I find the argument that "changing things would result in different outcomes therefore it was all about us" ludicrous. If physics had been diffrent we would not exist. So, what? They are the way they are and things transpired... not conspired. Same principle applies to evolution. There was no goal. We are but a step in a blind process.
TheSultan03 6 months ago
WTF has the awesome Darwin not got two camera men? If i had the money I'd contribute one, he deserves much better sources, while Cheryl cole and crew get all kind of resources thrown at them.
(sorry for the rant)
codownni 6 months ago
Thank you for posting this, richarddawkinsdotnet.
writersblock26 7 months ago
If god must be left out of science, then he does not exist. Existence of god is a scientific assertion.
TheSultan03 7 months ago
@TheSultan03 I have to disagree. Science only deals with what is natural and god is obviously a supernatural claim. Therefore god is not a scientific assertion only because he is supernatural claim. Consequently so, god can be kept out of science because he is not a natural claim. In other words, god does not describe anything in of scientific in the first place.
It is easy to keep him out of science, just do not say,'' got did it'' to fill in the blanks when 'explaining' things.
07Aristotle 6 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
@07Aristotle I see your point. Still, I assert that if one claims that they have an understanding of the creation and the overall nature of the universe, than that claim is fundamentally scientific. It is proporting a system or phenomenon by which all matter has come to be. Even if that is a "supernatural" being, it had to have interaction with the natural world. In so much, the claim of it becomes scientific. Poor scientific hypothesis though it might be, this is how I see it.
TheSultan03 6 months ago
@TheSultan03 Well said, my opinion is that if any claim intervenes scientific inquiry at our point of progress, only then it becomes a problem. Since they are talking about first cause, and our scientific discovery has not reached this point, however speculative it might be, still does not intrude in our current scientific understanding of how the universe works. In other words, if supernatural claims does not make our science more confusing, I do not care what people speculate.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle I like that point of view. It also allows god to shrink everytime science grows. That is the way the world should be!
TheSultan03 6 months ago
This is amazing.
08infidel 7 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
If god exists and is really as prone to mood swings as Father Coyne says he is then I would think that by now he (god) would have eradicated this species and started over. Why would an omnipotent being ever have cause to be "angry" or experience any other emotion in the first place? Father Coyne is just projecting his own human emotions onto a replacement father figure like so many others do because they still as adults, feel the need to be comforted, guided and even disciplined.
Damienf77 8 months ago
@Damienf77 1. Beware the genetic fallacy, which is to try to falsify a belief by talking about how it originated. Even if we come to believe in God by projecting, it says nothing about whether God actually exists.
2. God's anger should not be read as God having a hissy fit. God's anger is his passion to set things right. A good parent gets angry sometimes, not in spite of their love, but precisely because of it.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 An analogy can not be drawn between parents and god. Parents are not omnipotent and they are indesputably proven to exist. He can not be given human qualities and emotions just because we would like him to have them, unless he is imaginary. How does anger figure into the character of a PERFECT being? A "good parent" gets angry sometimes not out of love but out of FEAR. Even if that fear is a result of caring for their child and not wanting harm to come to them, it is still fear.
Damienf77 7 months ago
@Damienf77 If I say my love is LIKE a red red rose, it immediately means in certain ways my love is not like a red red rose. That's the nature of analogy. "How does anger figure into the character of a PERFECT being" A perfect being would be angry at injustice. Haven't you ever seen injustice, that caused no harm to you and caused you no fear, but gave you a passion to set things right? This is analogous to God's anger.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 A perfect being would be angry at nothing, have nothing to prove, require no worship of any kind and would not have created an imperfect world in the first place. The word "perfect" removes any need to change or manipulate anything and a perfect being would be incapable of creating anything less than perfect (which precludes there being anything to BE angry about). If he knows the entire plan (seeing as he designed it), what's the point of his frustration at watching it unfold?
Damienf77 7 months ago
@Damienf77 I agree that God does not require worship. God tells us to worship not out of his own need, but out of our need to order our souls to the highest good.
"The word "perfect" removes any need to change or manipulate anything" God did not create out of need, but out of love.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Damienf77 I agree that God does not require worship. God tells us to worship not out of his own need, but out of our need to order our souls to the highest good.
"The word "perfect" removes any need to change or manipulate anything"
God did not create out of need, but out of love, for the benefit of the creature.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Damienf77 Does that not fit with the fictional story of Noah? I think that for the character described in Mr. Coynes bible that moodiness is a reasonable attribute. What really suprises me is that despite this he still feels comforted by the idea of his (as you so eloquently put it) replacement father.
TheSultan03 6 months ago
Dawkins has said elsewhere that the argument for God he finds most compelling or most challenging is the fine tuning of the universe in a very specific way that is conducive to life (in 'the four horsemen'). Father Coyne is clearing up Dawkins doubts about atheism.
InnocenceExperience 8 months ago 7
@InnocenceExperience - To me, that's a false argument. If the conditions were different then most likely a different form of life would have evolved, then that life would of at some point looked back and said how unlikely it was that the conditions were just right for it to evolve. That's irrelevant to me and I'm surprised that Dawkins, of all people, actually hasn't considered this.
MrSmudger687 8 months ago
@MrSmudger687 the idea is that if the physical constant were different by even a little bit (he gives some examples), no life could have evolved because no stars/planet would have formed etc etc. Its as if the actual laws of the universe are precisely rigged to make it optimal for the evolution a cosmos with life in it.
InnocenceExperience 8 months ago
@MrSmudger687 constants*
InnocenceExperience 8 months ago
@InnocenceExperience - Constants are responsible for the conditions of you universe. The use of the word conditions still gives a valid point.
MrSmudger687 8 months ago
@MrSmudger687 the point is that if the constants were just a little bit different, no life would be possible- at least anything like we know it, living on planets with suns etc. I think even the heavy elements that make up our bodies wouldn't have come about because that requires stars. The laws of this universe are very precisely the ones needed to produce stars and planets and life, it seems, and this is apparently an enormous coincidence.
cont...
InnocenceExperience 8 months ago
@MrSmudger687 a proposed solution is the multiverse theory- an infinite number of universes, in which there are an infinite variety of constants. In many universes there would not be the suitable conditions for life but in others such as ours, the constants are just right. Of course it would only be in such a universe that the question could be asked, why are our constants just right for life to evolve?
This is pure speculation but you might prefer it to positing a higher intelligence.
InnocenceExperience 8 months ago
@InnocenceExperience ... a long enough amount of time, there is bound to be some process that would lead either to creation of heavier atoms, or indeed a life that would evolve from them. Who knows, if the constants of the universe were slightly different, stars may not be the only way to create the heavier elements, or even if very heavy elements would be necessary for life. This type of argument is similar to a creationist looking at an internal organ and thinking it must of been designed...
MrSmudger687 8 months ago
@InnocenceExperience - ...as it would seem intended for life to evolve, just as the design of the eye was intended. The way I see it that regardless of the conditions or constants of the universe, at some point, some form of life will arise from it.
MrSmudger687 8 months ago
@MrSmudger687 maybe no matter what the constants are, some form of life in some circumstance, however inconceivable to us, would evolve. There could be power sources other than suns we just can't imagine and bodies that are much different to ours. I think there have to be bodies of some sort though- an organic basis of egocentric life- and probably stable homes to have social lives. Maybe there are many ways to achieve that and many versions of that...
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@MrSmudger687 ...or maybe it has to be done our way, with planets and suns and our constants.
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@MrSmudger687 3) do you think it is reasonable to suppose that there are some set of possible constants that wouldn't produce life of any sort? or do you assert that life will always arise no matter what the constants are?
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@MrSmudger687 ...or there might be another explanation altogether which we haven't discovered or worked out etc
InnocenceExperience 8 months ago
@InnocenceExperience - I doubt it. Based upon the immense size and timescale of the universe, life is in fact quite a probable event to happen at least somewhere.
MrSmudger687 8 months ago
@MrSmudger687 even if there are no stars or planets?
InnocenceExperience 8 months ago
@InnocenceExperience - As I said, though it would seem difficult to imagine life in any other circumstances, over a long enough timescale, it would seem likely for life to evolve, very very different to the life we know.
MrSmudger687 8 months ago
@InnocenceExperience - Whoops, just seen your other comments :S I don't mean to sound arrogant I've only seen one other comment at a time. Yes, although stars are required for creation of elements beyond helium and hydrogen. Again, stars, so far, are the only method which creates these heavier atoms in the processes of fusion and the subsequent supernova. As a chemist, an idea of life that consists of only hydrogen and helium would seem near impossible, but personally I believe that over...
MrSmudger687 8 months ago
@InnocenceExperience I am religious but I wonder why Dawkins finds fine-tuning compelling. Why not just say the constants have to be that way? Do we have any evidence that gravity or electromagnetism could have had different strengths?
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 I'm not at the cutting edge of physics but I don't think there is any indication that they could have been different. They just are as they are and it seems sort of arbitrary- we don't know of any fundamental or deeper reason why they should be as they are. At the same time, they are perfect for the evolution of life- that seems very coincidental. Maybe they had to be as they are for some reason...but since we don't know, its a possibility that God did it.
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 2) I don't know if you know this but this kind of argument has been characterised as a 'God of the gaps' type of argument, meaning there is a gap in scientific knowledge (why the constants are so) and God is being used to explain what we don't know- to fill the gaps. Father Coyne obviously doesn't find this an acceptable proof for God. Then again, I would say that if there is a higher intelligence that rigged the constants, there *would* be a gap there for materialist scientists.
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 if it answers your question better, (as far as I know) we don't have evidence that they could be different but we don't have any evidence that they couldn't be different either or that they have to be as they are. Its quite conceivable that they could be different- there doesn't seem to be any reason why they have to be as they are. maybe there is but we don't know it. its an open question- we just don't know and are left to speculate.
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@InnocenceExperience While I don't buy the argument, it isn't a God-of-the-Gaps argument. God-of-gaps says "we don't know, so God did it." But the fine tuning argument would say the fine tuning is based on chance, necessity, or design. It would then reject chance and necessity, saying that the result is therefore designed.
"or do you assert that life will always arise no matter what the constants are?" No, with different constants the universe would collapse or be all helium or hydrogen.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
Comment removed
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 the last part I was asking somebody else but thanks for your input (not being sarcastic). I don't know if we can say that for sure though- a different set of constants might involve possibilities we can't imagine. (??).
So a God of the gaps argument literally takes the form, we don't know, THEREFORE God did it/must have done it?? wow, that's obviously a fallacy....
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 Couldn't a God who designed the constants be called a 'God of the gaps' even if it isn't strictly a God of the gaps argument. It is a God existing in the gaps, being sustained because of the gaps, and even the argument depends on lack of a plausible scientific explanation a gap in our knowledge.
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 1) In the wikipedia presentation of a God of the gaps argument, it says: 'There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore the cause must be supernatural.'. I just wanted to share the point with you that I have a problem with this kind of use of 'supernatural'. I think its used rhetorically and ignorantly to discredit or demean non materialistic explanations. The fact is that if there is a higher intelligence that orders the universe....
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 2)....or consciousness/awareness is an ultimate reality and not just contingent on material processes, then this 'spiritual' reality of awareness and higher intelligence is as natural as anything else. To put it in a theistic way, if God exists by necessity and is fundamentally the reality, then that is completely natural, as natural as you could get.
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@InnocenceExperience
I suppose it depends how one defines natural. If you define natural as space, time, matter, and energy, then even some things science has discovered, which lie beyond those things, are supernatural. OK, if you want to define natural in the way you named I'd agree that God is natural. However, he is not a material thing, or a thing in time, or an amount of energy, and does not "occupy" space, but sustains all those things in being and exists in and through all of them.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 I think of natural as not artificial, or manufactured or contrived- occurring naturally.
Do you believe that God possesses awareness? that this awareness is that which is without spatial limits or a particle of substance, and that this ultimate reality of God is the source of the universe and all living things? Or do u believe that God has created limited beings that are apart from the reality of God and forever limited, to spend eternity as egocentric beings in heaven or hell?
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@InnocenceExperience You asked if I believe A or B. I believe both, with the exception of the egocentric part. To be in heaven is to be saved, and that includes salvation from the selfishness of the ego.
I believe that God is intelligent, and exists in and through all things. God is what Aquinas called ipsum esse subsistens, i.e. being itself. I am not being itself, but share in being itself. So I am separated from God yet sustained by God.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 I recommend you read Meister Eckhart and Thomas Merton, if you haven't. Best, IE
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
I wish that all people with such passionate and polar world views could discuss, share, and explain their ideas and beliefs as patiently and openly like these two guys.
OverdriveRevival 8 months ago 10
Comment removed
ovinophile 8 months ago
hehë_ï_féËl_sØ_löñèlÿ_tödÀÿ
AngelyyFelicaaa954 8 months ago
I'll give him credit for calling out and dismissing the God of the Gaps argument. It's such a convenient "proof" for theists, but Coyne won't take the bait (at least in this case). His prime mover is just another GotG, but people tend to give it more credit because it's rooted in more traditional philosophy. I'd say he's batting about a .300 so far. Impressive for a man with a white collar.
dorsk188 8 months ago
It's like if they have the same point of view, but one simple difference in the oppinion about how the things started, together with the way they were raised made one to be a father and the other to be an active atheist, thats kind of funny.
Gussssssssss 9 months ago
Everything that the Father said up until 1:16 was just... Yeah, why can't we have religious people believing that rather than the bullshit they spew most of the time?
2adGnosis 9 months ago
Jesus is to the Jews as Joseph Smith is to the Christians.
treysharkk 10 months ago
@treysharkk Mormons are Christian. Most protestants don't see Joseph Smith as a prophet. Jews do see Jesus as a prophet. Any one know any different?
Gkorn17 9 months ago
'The God of philosophy is not satisfying'
and then Coyne, an otherwise brilliant man, goes on to give the anthropomorphic 'God', 'a God who loves, a God who gets angry'
Just because something is not satisfying is no reason to give it a make-over to satisfy us
[cont]
PorkFrog 10 months ago
@PorkFrog It's not about giving a "make-over", it's about satisfying a need for fundamental truth and meaning, that "creates" the loving god, a point of view which is neither verifieable nor falsifiable, but it is a fundamental part of our reasoning, so therefore it remains true to ourselves.
dujl 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dujl 'it's about satisfying a need for fundamental truth and meaning, that "creates" the loving god,''
wait-'a need for fundamental truth' 'creates the loving God'
truth does not develop out of need-myth develops out of need
'true to ourselves.'
is truth relative? Do we each have our own truth according to our needs? Or does truth stand apart from our individual existence?
---
'Loving God' does not & never will jive with 'omnipotent God', for obvious reasons
PorkFrog 9 months ago
cont
The danger of an anthropomorphic 'God' is, if he is loving or more importantly angry, its because of something YOU did, and religions use that to assert authority
The bottom line to all religion, and almost all "God talk', is authority, even when its couched pleasantly and deferentially, like this marvelous Coyne fellow.
Do we want to be autonomous, or listen to other people tell us how to be because they know 'God' better than we can? If they can know, why can't we know for ourselves?
PorkFrog 10 months ago
Father George Coyne is bloody marvelous!
MrAdamc666 10 months ago
i am open to idea of an exterior force (call it god if u want) affecting the parameters, but i will not call it definite. I take issue with claims of a divinity which cares about what you eat, who you love, how you pray, what you wear etc. Those are enitrely man made constructions to control their respective populations
nimble1111x 10 months ago
i have to repeat myself, but this guy is just genious... all religious people should hear this imo
sample2501 10 months ago
Don't know how this priest being as smart as he is can still truly believe in god. He can debunk the bible in all aspects with his knowledge of science, and he knows the bible is just interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of 'god' over thousands of years.. yet still devoted his life to being a virgin? priest. Either these guys get super fat paychecks or there is some 'under the table' bonus's to this career choice that i don't think i want to know about...
infected69 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@infected69 "Don't know how this priest being as smart as he is can still truly believe in god. "
You shouldn't be surprised. Plenty of geniuses belong to all different religious traditions.
"He can debunk the bible in all aspects with his knowledge of science"
As he says, there's no science in scripture. Science didn't exist then. The Bible has different genres than science, and describes existence in a different way.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
I suspect that George has been battling with his own faith and belief in god for most of his life, he seems too intelligent to be completely convinced that god actually exists.
sleepypoodle 10 months ago
Deism is God setting existence into motion but then letting the world create it's own future that is the free ill of the Bible, but A catholic Diest, hmm.... different. Interesting fact: Americas forefathers were Deist.
Vallcon 11 months ago
What is the problem with religion? IT IS FULL OF INFINITE LOOPS!!
anoo83 11 months ago
atleast this guy understands science unlike kent hovind
bellyzbad 11 months ago
As an atheist, I can accept a model where a supernatural force outside the realm of our understanding set the universe and its laws into motion. If you want to call it God and leave it at that, then that would be OK. But then they bring in all that heaven and angels and prayer crap. That's where it falls apart.
ovinophile 11 months ago 49
@ovinophile Sir, that was the more intelligent and admirable comment i have ever read, thanks :)
KevinVonKluger 11 months ago
@ovinophile Im am the strongest believing christian i've met (my dads a once pastor) and that is what i believe.
Vallcon 11 months ago
@ovinophile I can't accept that, because it creates more problems than it solves. The whole point of that model is to have a first cause, but you then must explain how that "force" began and so on. Unless you want to create an infinite number of "forces" or gods which created each other and then the universe, it is pointless. Much easier to say that there was no god to begin with.
FDSCEV 11 months ago
@FDSCEV That sounds too much like giving up. The question of how our universe came to exist is there whether you care to address it or not. It suffices to say there are forces behind the nature of existence we do not yet (and may never) understand. You can call that abstract idea whatever you wish for now. Just don't tell me you have all the answers and they're in a book written thousands of years ago.
ovinophile 11 months ago
@ovinophile I have no such book, and i was thinking you were the one 'giving up'. Your word "supernatural" means something outside of nature. I was merely asking you to substantiate your claim that something supernatural "set up the universe", I see no need for it. Saying there is a need is a concession likely to be lapped up by deists and theists alike.
FDSCEV 10 months ago
@ovinophile
Yes, but you might as well call the universe itself a god and call it a day. If Multi-universe theory becomes a fact in the future then do we have one god for each or one god for all? lol
LambdaQuarks 10 months ago
@ovinophile Some would argue that even heaven and the angels do not have a literal interpretation. Heaven, for example, could be, instead of a place like commonly assumed, more like a state.
I am an atheist, by the way. I do love reading Joseph Campbell, though, and his ideas regarding religion are the ones that make the most sense to me.
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@ovinophile
You should not call yourself an atheist person, you should call youself - "i don't care" person
DariusDamalakas 10 months ago
@ovinophile
angels and prayer "crap" are symbolic means used to express the often inexpressible, and are most frequently attacked by those most ignorant of the religious tradition. When you say "fall apart", do you mean it contradicts the religious/scientific doctrines or simply that you don't understand it beyond a pure surface-level interpretation?
MrBeeflomein 8 months ago
@MrBeeflomein
I would argue that most believers take the concepts of angels and prayer quite literally. "Symbolic means used to express the inexpressible"? Forgive me, but that sounds like BS 101. By "fall apart" I simply mean it becomes too difficult for me to take it seriously once these fairy tale ideas are introduced.
Anyway, don't get too worked up over it. That's just my take, and everyone is still entitled to believe what they want regardless.
ovinophile 8 months ago
@ovinophile
I'm just curious because you're demonstrating a very limited understanding of scripture. The model devoid of angels and prayer is a model devoid of the religious history and the history of linguistics. I will concede to you the point that there are many who take scripture literally, but that's just the unfortunate reality of human stupidity. What you seem to be against is religious rituals, which I, as a non-religious person, cannot comment on.
MrBeeflomein 8 months ago
@ovinophile So are you theoretically a Deist?
GayTempest 8 months ago
@GayTempest Good point. I don't think I'm a deist, but I'm open to anything. A supreme being, the Matrix, whatever - as long as there's scientific evidence. Some people become frightened when they question existence and the seeming insignificance of it all. So I say you can abstract the mysteries of the universe into an idea called God if it puts your mind at ease, but don't tell me he's a magical man in the sky. Personally, I'd prefer we keep searching for the answers... if there are any.
ovinophile 8 months ago
@ovinophile
You can accept deism, in other words.
OllieScambaiter 8 months ago
@ovinophile The great majority of atheists agree with you. A deistic view is much more plausible then a theistic view. Most would say such a being is not necessary, but possibly existing and impossible to test. That's the agnostic atheist POV that most atheists hold.
Atheism is in fact not adeism. It only claims that there is not reasonable proof supporting the idea that a theistic god exists who answers prayers, reveals himself to humans, etc.
I recommend the r/atheism faq on reddit.
spinkham 7 months ago in playlist The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews - Richard
@ovinophile They bring in heaven and angels which are actually extraterrestrials. Notice how every religion around the world talks about coming from the stars, and space brothers, or people depending from space. And there's no way they all thought that up independently. And prayer, just like self affirmation, etc, has been proven to change the mind, which can change reality - just like a sham operation and the placebo effect. I think you may be missing the overlap with what you already believein
wygram 5 months ago
@ovinophile Then you are not an Atheist, you are Agnostic.
CaptHandsome42 4 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
@ovinophile Yes, that right. But i think youre not an atheist, youre an agnostic like me.
KevinVonKluger 4 months ago
@ovinophile yep agree
everybodysinshowbiz 4 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
OMG OMG! He's talking about the MULTIVERSE!!!
DannyPhantomBeast 11 months ago
Concerning the anthropic principle:
Science does make the claim that if any of countless constants were tweaked slightly, humans might not or could not exist; however, there is also a theory that suggests, due to the relativity of time, the very particle/quantum physics experiments which verify that the universe is perfect for humanity may have in fact caused the universe to be such that those experiments could be performed. In short, that we created ourselves.
I like that thought.
coryskawaffle 11 months ago
@coryskawaffle Sounds more like poetry than science to me. But I like poetry. lol (Also, I wouldn't say the universe is "perfect" for humanity. There is a mountain of evidence to the countrary, even in the thin layer of atmosophere in which we live. If you count the rest of the universe, one might as well say the universe was perfectly made to see us die, or never exist, or soon die out.)
greyeyed123 11 months ago
Concerning the anthropic principle:
Science does make the claim that if any of countless constants were tweaked slightly, humans might not or could not exist; however, there is also a theory that suggests, due tot he relativity of time, the very particle/quantum physics experiments which verify that the universe is perfect for humanity may have in fact caused the universe to be such that those experiments could be performed. In short, that we created ourselves.
I like that thought.
coryskawaffle 11 months ago
Try this: if god authored the Logical Laws, or gave them, or if god is not contingent on anything (including the Laws) that means he exists outside of the Logical Laws. That means god can be X and not be X at the same time. It means god can make X equals Y and X does not equal Y true at the same time. It means that god does not equal god. You've just proved that a nonexistent god authored the Logical Laws...which means there was no god, and the Logical Laws still stand.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
@greyeyed123 Of course, he's also proven that thor was actually a green tiger-monkey hybrid from the planet zebes.
coryskawaffle 11 months ago
The laws are causally effete. They don't cause anything. But contingent reality must have had a beginning, so the laws are a lame candidate for their cause and the necessarily existing ground of contingency.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable You still haven't hit on the standard apolegetic yet. Here's the problem: reality in some form always existed, as you agreed. "Causing" therefore, is not a problem. Moreover, the Laws are uncaused. They are necessary, hence they are the essence. They apply to everything, including themselves.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
@greyeyed123 There must be an uncaused cause, though, if something has always existed.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable Not an uncaused cause, in the way you imply. You are again making the Newtonian Absolute time mistake. That's off the table now. There is no absolute time. Reality always existed in some form. No cause required.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
Different religious people believe in different things. There's no consistency. At least he believes evolution is true, she doesn't even believe in that /watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
MurkMenthaa 1 year ago
This guy just said his God is not a designer. Now he is saying that his God is continuously creating the universe. Is there any logic in this?
What conceit it is for a person to claim to know what God is thinking. Any why 'He'? Of what use does 'God" have for sexual organs? This old man's thoughts seem to be muddled and foolish, so unlike to objective clarity of a first class scientist such as Dawkins.
1fotcn 1 year ago
@1fotcn I think he meant that God does not directly design the universe (hence God not being a designer). God is continuously creating the universe by letting the universe takes its own course (through evolution and other natural processes). And Coyne called God a he or she in the previous video (at the end). I think it is just easier not to assume God is a man, but just to call it he. Coyne is a very bright and respectable person.
JMVOX 1 year ago
This guy just said his God is not a designer. Now he is saying that his God is continuously creating the universe. Is there any logic in this?
1fotcn 1 year ago
Father Coyne is by far the wisest catholic priest I have ever heard. But stating that you don't want the god of the philosophers because you desire a god of love is nothing more than supposing a personal choice - you cannot get to choose the type of god you follow. Also - you cannot ever have a prime mover - because the question is always 'who moved the prime mover'.
mgollogly1 1 year ago
@mgollogly1 You know. That's why it is called the prime mover. Certainly, if there is truly a God, it is more than likely that we cannot understand him at all, let alone comprehend how he does stuff. Plus, if he truly is an omnipotent God, (and by the definition of omnipotent), he could do WHATEVER he would like to do, even if we lack the ability to understand how he did it.
GothicalSOberhauser 1 year ago
@mgollogly1 "because the question is always 'who moved the prime mover'."
The question is self defeating. "Prime" means "first." So asking what is before the first mover is like asking what is south of the south pole.
Jugglable 1 year ago
dang father coyne is pretty cool
DeutschAutos 1 year ago 9
It's good to see Fr. George and Richard have a charitable debate. There has to be a prime mover.
Catholicdadof4 1 year ago
As for the multiverse theory & his take on it.. I'd argue that we CAN know of these places. Not simply through mathmatics & physics research, but also because they HAVE to be within our reach. Through wormholes, dimensional rifts (which some say could be what black holes are... holes punched into the fabric of space/time) or whatever. I don't think anything is beyond our eventual ability to reach. We are a wily and brilliant group of evolved apes. If gods out there, we will find it.
CrossTheGrigori 1 year ago 2
I like how he says god wouldn't want to interfere. That means he's powerless. He exists only within the mind. Physics dispells an interfering god because he would have to violate everything that is within the realm of reason. The realm of the mind is still open to some speculation. I study neuroscience (& QP) so I know how our brains work fairly well. It's all laid out & scientific.. but the soul/higher mind is still up for grabs. We haven't disproven the soul yet, so he can play with it for now
CrossTheGrigori 1 year ago
6:21 God and Satan visit them!
Nepalimetalhead 1 year ago
it's amazing what such an intelligent mind can convince itself of. all due respect of course. i like him. which is rare among people who present this position.
jokesmalone 1 year ago
If you think science can explain everything you are stupid. Wtf do you think philosophy is you dipshits.
soldatheero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes "there must be someone who started this process"
visionsTube 1 year ago
comical in light of the net 0 energy of the universe...
manonthemount 1 year ago