D'Souza is misusing the word "infinitesimal" (he either doesn't know what it means, doesn't care, or doesn't understand what the scientists are saying), and he is exploiting the unfortunate ambiguity of the phrase "physical law", which is used to mean both "a pattern which nature never breaks" and "a well-tested and trusted theory, like gravity". He argues, in effect, that any unexpected event is a miracle. And he's considered one of the best theist apologists?
very true, God is deceptive and misleading. He tells his followers to study his creation, and yet he screws stuff up so you can not reach valid conclusions. After all, he made a young earth with the appearance of age.
HyrulianWarlord, there is no contradiction here. He is making it clear that the beliefs that Science has (such as the existence of laws that govern the physics of the entire Universe) are based entirely on Christian metaphysics. There's no logical necessity, nor rational argument, that requires things to behave the same way throughout the cosmos, but Science presumes that because it was designed by Christian thinkers who believed in a rational Lawgiver (only He Himself being exempt when needed).
yes, we do not know that on a distant star light does not travel differently, however, YOU FUCKING MORON, we DO NOT CLAIM THAT IT DOES.
What we DO claim is restricted to what we DO observe and since we do not observe what light might be doing on a distant fucking star then we do not claim anything about the light on that distant fucking star.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Dinesh is excellent at exploting general scientific terminology in order to draw in fairly uneducated (in science, maybe otherwise also) religious believers into thinking that they support his ideas just because he can use them within his argument. Even if his use of these said ideas aren't correct, or that he doesn't properly apply these terms and concepts, the fact that he uses them is enough for the laymen listener. Most don't acknowledge the counter argument past his point.
Not to brag, but even I could debate this guy (Dinesh D'Souza), seriously, the fuck makes him so impressive, the fact that he can quote mine fancy authors?
His original argument was that if certian laws were suspended, then miracles could indeed happen (which is right). The question is...do miracles happen because of chance (that is they are built in to the system) or do they happen because of intention (someone made them happen). You confuse his hypothetical rhetoric with assertion of facts.
It doesnt sound like he is contradicting himself, but rather that you are taking his comment out of context. Like most youtube posters, you fail to see his point. He is asking hitchens what his explanation is for living in such a "fine tuned" universe based on the fact that scientists say, "life cant exist w/o specific universal parameters". Basically an argument of chance versus design (neither side proven right). Hes not contradicting himself at all.
Theists are terrified of death and the unknown. To them the unknown is proof of a god. They want life to go on after death but don't remember where they were before they were born. They glorify barbaric scriptures like Abraham's test of faith and ignore the obvious human author. Their explanations must confirm dogma even if far fetched, not question god and they must know their way is the true way out of many ways. I can live with arrogant but true yet cannot live with delusional falsehoods.
Another example of theists attempting to take scientific theory and make it work for in this case Christian argument, which does not actually succeed. As it never has. Even if you manage to insert a successful 'fine tuner' then as Hitchens would put it, you still have your work ahead of you to establish that your preferred deity is that tuner and then actually prove you can discern its purpose. Just another failed attempt to insert theism where it doesn't work.
I don't see an essential contradition here. Arguing that the 'rules' can be suspended under certain conditions does not argue that they are generally altered. The laws themselves have to exist in some general, base state to then be altered. Life as we know it, would not have been possible had the general, base states been altered. Contingent variances while related, are not contradictory.
There is no contradiction in the acceptance of miracles and the reality of a fine-tuned universe. Christian Theism embraces an omnipotent God who controls the universe by "the word of His power," that is, God stands outside of time and controls all events in the material universe. The universe is fine-tuned because God has created it, and all the while He retains the power to intervene supernaturally as He sees fit. Glory to God and Jesus Christ
@bengphoenix And yet "he" hasn't and probably wont, ever. In order for there to be a miracle, certain laws or a law would have to be changed, OTHERWISE! it would just be natural and not the work of a SUPERnatural god, he did contradict himself, he is a linguistic argutare who has very little knowledge of physics, the work of Einstein and Newton.
@OhmgrownCron Who says that these "laws" are really laws? Are they infallible? Have scientists tested all possible scenarios in the physical world? No, science works on the basis of assumption: a hypothesis is formed and subsequent tests result. No scientific law can be proven to be infallible, therefor they are not "laws" in the absolute sense. Only God, who is eternally unchangable, has a claim on absolutes. Anything developed by men is temporal and subjective.All things are subject to God
@bengphoenix Your right in that these, "laws," are not proof. However We know very well that man created god, so your argument is flawed, unless of course you can show evidence of, "god," which you or anyone else has not been able to do since it's creation. In science we atleast know 99% enough to say that there is, evolution, gravity, etc. Your argument still doesn't change the fact that, Dinesh, contradicted himself.
@OhmgrownCron You know very well that man created god? Well, if you're talking about false gods, then yes, man did create gods. It's quite different when you're refering to the LORD God. He was before all things and all things live, move, and have their being in Him. God created all things, including you, and He sustains you at every moment. You are blind to this truth because you will not submit to the Lordship of Christ, and therefor God has allowed your mind to be darkened with foolishness
@bengphoenix Still waiting for evidence for this, "God," you speak so highly of, as if you know him as some sort of close relative. How do you know, these, "false gods," are, "false," and not the god you speak of? Don't tell me that God created me, my parents did and I give them credit for raising me to think for myself instead of brainwashing me to believe not only withought evidence, but inspite of contradicting evidence! You call me a fool, what about Carl Sagan, Hawking, Dawkins, Einstein?
@OhmgrownCron Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.
Its not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of common sense. These guys were brilliant, but they (without God) cannot give a reasonable explanation for "why" they engage in scientific pursuits. What difference does it make? They are trying to disprove the very Thing by which they are enabled to investigate. No God=no purpose
@bengphoenix We do have reasons for engaging in scientific pursuits, we love science and we want to understand the natural world, science gives us the ability to do that. Were not trying to disprove god. How can you disprove something exists, or vice versa!? It's impossible and no scientist would ever claim otherwise. Your ignorance is insufferable, the quote you took from the bible, is an insult to the Enlightenment and scientists who work hard to better our lives.
@OhmgrownCron Ok, I cant let this stand. You use terms like "reason," and "love," but how do you account for these things? How can science prove that something is reasonable or lovely? Reason implies that there are things such as truth and logic, which are, once again, not things which can be discovered by science. Science is a tool by which to measure the material world, and nothing more. Science begins with, BEGINS WITH, the belief that the natural world has meaning and therefor can be studied
@bengphoenix Lol I have to ask, did you even read my post thoroughly? I never said science can prove something is lovely, love is based on subjective opinions on things in life. In my post I said, science gives us the ability to study the natural world... And science does not begin with the belief that this world has meaning. Science begins with ignorance. We don't know something - we use science tries to understand what that is. Most scientists agree, we are meaningless in this world.
@OhmgrownCron If you really thought that we were meaningless, I mean, if you truly believed that, then you would not even take the time to write a response. Moreover, you wouldn't bother to do anything whatsoever. Why? Because it doesn't mean anything. But thats not the way you operate. You actually go about your life doing things as though they have meaning. This is so because you are created in the image of God and cannot escape the fat that the world has meaning. Repent and believe the gospel
@bengphoenix Why do I go about as if there is no meaning in the universe? Because eventually our sun will swell thousands of times larger and engulf our planet killing anything and everything. Why do I live my life the way I am? Because I CAN, because I am alive, I am lucky, of the millions that could be in my place right now instead of me, I am here and feel fortunate to be able to speak and express me self. No I will not repent and I do not share the same aragont stance on life as you.
@OhmgrownCron Who cares that the sun is swelling? It doesn't mean anything right? Arrogance is associated with those who believe they have something in themselves to boast about. Christianity is the farthest thing from this type of attitude. What you hate is the truth of God, the truth which says that you are in the wrong and God is in the right. The truth is that you are the creation and He is the Creator; He speaks, you ought to obey. The ultimate arrogance is denying Jesus Christ
@bengphoenix I care that the sun will destroy us or anything for that matter. Even though I won't be around to see it, I hope humanity survives long enough to bear witness. "Arrogance is associated with those who believe they have something in themselves to boast about," or in presumptuous claims or assumptions. Which is exactly what Chritianity is! "He speaks, you ought to obey." That is the prime example of Totalitarianism.
@bengphoenix The ultimate arrogance, is assuming YOU were put in this world, with YOU in mind. That everything was created for YOU, that the sun, the stars and the planets all revolve around YOU. This is the mind of the religious, this is arrogance. Go ahead, write as many crappy arguments as you can, I'll knock em all down.
@bengphoenix sorry that was a missclick, i meant to reply to this post "If you really thought that we were meaningless, I mean, if you truly believed that, then you would not even take the time to write a response. Moreover, you wouldn't bother to do anything whatsoever. Why? Because it doesn't mean anything. But thats not the way you operate. You actually go about your life doing things as though they have meaning. This is so because you are created in the image of God and
@gigabowser8000 and its obvious that someone who accepts the meaninglessness and insignificance of human life can live a happy and fullfilling one, the human brain evolved to enjoy certain colours, certain aesthetic pleasures like music or the face of a beautiful woman to make sure that life is at least bearable and we survive to reproduce. the chances of life emerging on a planet, even one in the goldie lox zone like our own, are extremly remote. and the chances of intelligent life, such as
@gigabowser8000 homo sapiens, are even more remote. this would suggest at the very least, a serious insignificance of human life. the question of a meaningful human species is completely subjective, but i think the argument will always end up in favour of the one who doesnt look to god as an answere.
@gigabowser8000 Yeah, didn't see your post. Can you explain to me what you mean by "happy" and "fulfilling" concerning your human experience? By what standard do you measure the worth of your life? You are saying both at the same time that life as a whole (or, the universe) is meaningless, and that your life can be meaningful so as to be fulfilling. Do you not see the blatant contradiction in this reasoning? It makes no sense to say something is both meaningful and meaningless at the same time.
@bengphoenix of course it makes sense to say something is both meaningful and meaningless at the same time.
for example, one human can say that his/her own life is meaningful, because they dedicate a great deal of their time on this planet to helping others, and taking care of their imediate ecosystem.
another human could just as easily argue that their life is meaningless because the whole of human existence is founded on a series of cosmological contingencies.
@gigabowser8000 I'm encouraged to read of your understanding of an altruistic lifestyle. There is no greater thing in this world than for one to live selflessly and responsibly in their present situation. Your worldview, however, still does not make sense. You are claiming to be nothing more than a cosmilogical accident, a purely physical specimen whcih mas randomly formed without purpose. First off, this is a lye from Satan. Second off, when you disregard any objective meaning to the universe
@gigabowser8000 ..then you make nonsense of your subjective experience. It is simply incompatible to claim that the human creature is nothing more than atoms acting in a blind mechanical fashion, yet this lump of matter somehow ascribes some sort of moral value to itself (how it distinguishes itself from all the other matter is a mystery as well) . If there never was any meaning to begin with, then there is no objective meaning. Meaning is not something that blind matter is capable of producing
@bengphoenix do you know nothing of evolutionary biology? first of all, yes, humans are nothing more than atoms acting in a seemingly "blind mechanical fashion". this fashion sticks those atoms together to form molecuels, cells etc. we are equipped with a sense of morality because natural selection demanded it from us. if you humans couldnt recognise and value the importance of life, then we wouldnt have this far in the first place. human morality is a completely biological phenomen.
@gigabowser8000 Ah, the magic of "natural selection;" a force so powerful so as to cause lumps of purposeless matter to take on personal identity and moral responsibility. This is sad, truly sad. I dont have time to unravel the mess which the world has put you in, nor to dispute the absurdity of evolution (not that Im an expert). I'll just close with one more proclamation of truth: Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. You need to Repent and believe the gospel.
@bengphoenix natural selection is not a force. you're thinking of electro magnetism, the force that forms the bonds of atoms. obviously you could never dispute evolution or natural selection for that matter because you would need an army of experienced scientists working round the clock to find a better theory. there is no argument anymore evolution is fact. you keep coming at me with arguments that have been debunked years ago. im not surpised at all that you're backing down.
@gigabowser8000 That was a joke, of course. Actually all one needs is a little common sense to dispute evolution. Living matter has never been observed to arise from non-living matter. Never. Its not even possible to produce this effect in a lab under the most optimal conditions. Likewise, never has science observed macro evolution. You're just assuming a phenomenon which has never been scientifically observed. You accept these claims by faith, for there is no other way to hold to this belief.
@bengphoenix wow you are severely uneducated. i would suggest looking up a little something called the human genome project. while you're at it start reading up on electromagnetism and how atoms and smaller particles come together to form bonds. it is entirely possible for living matter to arise from non living matter because all forms of matter are made of the same fundamental particles. you really dont know anything, do you?
@gigabowser8000 The human genome project provides evidence of non-living matter becoming living matter? That's a new insight. Or does it show so conclusively that people were at one time chimpanzees of some sort? No, it does not show either of these falsehoods. This project seeks to map and understand the DNA already existent within the human body. It has nothing to say on how it got there, save for the speculative claims of evolutionary biology. Escape from this indoctrination
@bengphoenix once again you're wrong. the human genome project doesnt provide evidence for humans evolving from chimanzee's becase it never happened. humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor called Australopithecus. i didnt say that the human genome project provides evidence for non living matter forming living matter. if you payed attention in grade 10 physics you would know.
@gigabowser8000 And did someone observe this species transformation? No, I don't think so. And the fossil records of this transformation are located, where? Oh, yeah, none of those either. There are some dubious bones and fragments here and there. Many attempts to re-create a transitionary species have been debunked as false and dishonest. None to date are accepted as a reliable fossil record. If you want to join in this self-defeating endeavor, go ahead. Just dont call evolution "fact."
if everything is so well-tuned how come more than half the water on earth is undrinkable, half the drinking water dose not reach most of the Earth, large parts of the earth is to hot or to cold; gamma ray burst, supernovas, asteroids, solar flares, tsunamis ans so forth... the hell, this is the worst place to live ever! anything can basically whip us out any day.
Dinesh frequently dodges questions and makes contradictory statements.
In one debate he was asked soemthing along the lines of, "What do you think the purpose of the universe is?"
His reply: "I wasn't implying that there must be purpose, but simply that the universe had to have had a cause."
This, after having talked numerous times, including in that specific debate, about the "fine-tuning" of the universal constants which "prove" that the universe was created for the PURPOSE of life.
D'Souza is definitely a believer in a 'God of the gaps'... all too typical of intellectual theists. Isn't supernatural faith supposed to be non-reliant upon natural circumstances? Why is D'Souza trying to use nature as a means for believing in the supernatural? I think he's shuffling himself into a corner.
D'Souza never makes a necessary connection between having fine-tuned constants of nature and inferring a 'fine-tuner'. This is merely a linguistic trick... the convenient ability to argue based on adding the suffix 'er' to the word 'tune', and thus trying to imply that there must be a being that is 'fine-tuning'. Why would the constants require 'someone' 'holding them together'?
This universe is NOT perfectly tuned to us. We are tuned to it.
This is because if it were otherwise we would not be here to notice. He is poorly quoting Hawking. Think of it like this. If there were an infinite number of universes all with different core values for gravity, magnetism, etc. WE would still only ever possibly be aware of this one where we exist.
He said the laws of the universe were finely tuned to create what we live in today; why would that be untrue if miracles were possible? The assumption is that a miracle is the doing of the divine, aka the creator of those laws. So why would this creator not be able to alter the laws for a purpose of its own.
It is popular science that says we would cease to exist. Who knows if it is a true assumption? A miracle only takes a second and deals only with a minute fraction of space. It therefore would not effect this assumption, even if it were true, which i don't know or care. Do miracles happen? Absolutely. Through 1) love 2) faith in the heart, vs. in the mind 3) speaking with the mouth. I know because after believing the bible I prayed, believed and saw many miracles. You can't take it from me.
the contradiction was in one second saying the only chance of miracles would be if the laws of the universe could stop (be suspended). Then he turns and says that the universe is fine tuned which proves god's existence because science says is the laws of nature stop being suspended we would all vanish.
It's not a contradiction. What Dinesh said was that scientists take science on faith, and then that life would not be possible without the universe's very specific parameters. What this means is simply that Dinesh also takes science on faith, but that he finds that acceptable whereas atheists do not. His flaw is more subtle. An atheist who argues that you should never assume anything, is a fool. What's illogical about faith in god is that's a highly superfluous assumption in particular.
@eggory There is no logical explanation for the existance of God through todays science. It is a matter of faith. You believe it to access it. Science does not have the capacity to believe in God because they base all of their thinking on what theysee in this realm. If you can't believe it study bible prophecy. Todays Islam is in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Rev. The Catholic church sitting on many nations is in Rev 17,18. Turkey joining the EU is in Daniel 7. Israel as a nation in 1948, bible codes,
I'm a doubter, but I see no contradiction here. By this theory, God sets up a finely crafted set of physical laws and constants ideal for sustaining life, which apply 99.99999 percent of the time. Then, he modifies or breaks them whenever he desires, to create an effect that they would not allow, and then puts them back as they were. Their being suspended infrequently and locally does not alter the universe to make it hostile to life. Maybe nonsense, but not illogical.
@gmsherry1953 You are close to faith. Jesus had to die to show us how to beat death. He rose again in fullfilment of Prophecy. Alive he disappeared into a cloud and sent his Ghost back here so we could have the power to do anything he could. The key is receiving the Holy Ghost and power. Then all you have to do is communicate with Him and believe what He speaks to you and you will see any miracle you ask for. This key is the believing. I have had many miracles this way. Most do not understand.
@cwhjr1 God is imaginary. You just believe this because you have been indoctrinated, had you been born in India you would be Hindu, in Saudi Arabia you'd be Muslim, if in Germany 50% you'd be an atheist.
My point is you have been brainwashed, you can deny this fact, but it doesn't stop from being true.
@esiosan You can deny the prophecys but it wont stop them from continuing to manifest. You have faith. You BELIEVE I am wrong. I am not indocrinated. I am educated. I don't belong to any denomination. I belong to Christ who proves himself every time a Muslim says All Jews must die or a Catholic prays to Mary, or the Us head tells another lie, or Rockerfella tells someone else he wants to be king or another antichrist surfices, or the wicked of the Earth do something else stupid, Bible Prophecy!
→Wars, rumors of wars, famines, epidemics,and other human catastrophes. These precede recorded history and is simply stating the obvious (duh), History REPEATS itself.
→"Earthquakes & other natural disasters"; these occur on Earth for billions of years; It's called PLATE TECTONICS, not prophecy! But you can't accept reality.
→/watch?v=jtJLuY3tovM Letter to a Christian Nation (Audiobook). Enjoy!
i don't think there's a contradiction here. dinesh is saying that physical laws are not universal or absolute, not that there are no physical laws. he's still an absolute moron though.
Another example is apologetics often insist Einstein was a theist. It's clear cherry picking from his quotations whilst ignoring the stuff he said they don't like. Jews try to claim him as one of them probably more than christians. Einstein made it explicitly clear that he didn't believe in a "personal god" as hitchens points out. And what would it matter what Einstein's religous views were anyway? So why keep up the charade? Dishonesty gets you nowhere in the long run...
Yeah i totally agree. I think apologetics (or anybody for that matter) cherry pick which parts of scientific knowledge they want to build an argument on and anything that contradicts their argument they say "we don't actually know that for CERTAIN".
It's clear hypocricy but that's just what happens in debates. People want to win and that's all. Like a defence lawyer or prosecution lawyer sort of...
D'souza!, you are talking about Dawkins shouldn't leave the lab. How about you, you are talking about physics!! which you know nothing about it! hypocrisy
D'Souza always makes the argument that if you change some parts of the universe we wouldn't exist and that proves god is real. No it doesn't. Honestly that argument boils down to "3+3=6, and if you change just one of those numbers it does not equal 6, so god exists." I know what source he is using for that argument and it has been proven wrong for over 10 years because the scientist was using a formula that imported values from our world. Its completely misleading and false.
That would mean that the 'creator' is confined to making a universe within the parameters of certain laws. I thought he was 'all powerful'? Can't he make a universe anyway he wants?
Dinesh seems to be missing the entire point of miracles.
He seems to be equating a scientific exception (which is still scientific) as being, or allowing, a miracle. No: it's not a miracle; its a scientific exception.
a Miracle would take place in complete DEFIANCE of scientific principles such as gravity, Newton's Law's, time travel, extra. Such laws would be suspended completely without explanation, including a "scientific exception".
He misquotes Einstein's beliefs, and defines miracles as being related to "scientific exceptions" as he calls them, which would not make them miracles at all.
Dinesh seems neither brilliant, logical, or even rational in his arguments here.
I am sorry that you see a contradiction instead of an example posed in a question. Time has proven that we are all guessing... For us that are Creationist ( Christians ) Our faith is based totally on a designer not a theory from a Human Source.
LOL he totally bastardises Hume. "Hume was a skeptic of science, therefore miracles are possible". what a fucking idiot, Hume would have bitten his head off. usually dont like hitchens at all but hes a genius compared ot this guy.
D´souza probably is the best in the business at arguing for religion, and he´s still a total wankjob thickheaded braindamaged tosspot of the n´th degree.
This universe is fine tuned to our life form and physical laws?
No,that's the wrong conclusion and is based on the all to human bias that we are the central reason for the universe or even the multiverse to exsist.
This life form and it accompanying and ever expanding descriptions of the natural universe (or laws of physics if you like) have all been molded by this universes particular tuning.
@visigothic67 Evolutionary or not my good man, the UNIVERSE wherein as you suggested we 'arose' - where did that come from? The universe itself!
Before every beginning there is nothing. Before i wrote this comment there was of course no comment. Before time there was no time, nor matter. To suggest the universe pre-existed is nonsensical.
An eternally 'Fine-Tuner' not withheld by time or space is, if i may say, the most logical pattern of thought, the most probable outcome. lets be logical.
@SteepleJackVIDS Your point is taken,but your argument is a theological shell game.
You posit that since it's illogical for there to be no extra-universal agent to begin it,it therefor follows that such an agent persists to fine tune it after the fact. This is a fine way to judo flip science and reason with its weakness at positing a 'before' the big bang,But all you actually do is move the absurdly unlikely from the creation event into the here and now.
@visigothic67 Evolutionary or not my good man, the UNIVERSE wherein as you suggested we 'arose' - where did that come from? The universe itself!
Before every beginning there is nothing. Before i wrote this comment there was of course no comment. Before time there was no time, nor matter. To suggest the universe pre-existed is nonsensical.
An eternally 'Fine-Tuner' not withheld by time or space is, if i may say, the most logical pattern of thought, the most probable outcome. lets be logical.
I think you completely misunderstood Dinesh's point. His point was not: Scientific laws do not exist. If that were his point, he would be contradicting himself. His point was that the existence of scientific laws is an assumption drawn by rational observation. Scientists like to believe that science is the only decoder of True Reality, but they are working on one general assumption that laws of the universe are everywhere consistent. This assumption may be correct but it has not been proven.
Dinesh CLEARLY hasn't done ANY research on the physical laws and possibility of life.
Moron doesn't even realize the other types of atomic compilations and fundamental-force-manipulations, and types of lifeforms emerging therein that are possible; which have been documented by doctoral physics students in more than one thesis.
It is a contradiction. You see I believe D'Souza uses tactics of rhetoric so any argument is not laterally consistent but merely formulates each argument independantly. It is a poct hoc formulation of ideas to support unfounded premisses. I've seen him debate and make the claim the existence of God is unknowable by the human mind because God can never be sensed. If thats the case then even if God exists, the idea of God is just an idea, just like Santa. Rhetoric always leads to more problems.
Here is the ultimate problem with intelligent design being considered science... with science, you take observable phenomenon and try to determine why something happens. With intelligent design, you say, "Ok I have this idea that I'd like to justify, what can we use to do that?" Dinesh, like ALL creationists, is willing to misuse and misinterpret whatever he has to so that he can hold on to his faith and still call it scientific in some way. It's a travesty and quite annoying.
Forset: Maybe your comment is accurate observing the mirror but looking at the world doesn't seem sloppy at all, look at some space pics.
Afterlifeless: No contradiction at all. Your statement is based on scientific law like God is limited to them. Like if he couldn't change one lets say for a miracle and establish another to balance it out. If you understood the term "GOD" you would understand LIMITLESS possibilities. Scientists still don't have answers to everything,whats so impossible
Forset: Maybe your comment is accuarte observing the mirror but looking at the world doesn't seem sloppy at all, look at some space pics.
Afterlifeless: No contradiction at all. Your statement is soley based on scientific law like God is limited to them. Like if he could't change one lets say for a miracle and establish another to balance it out. If you understood the term "GOD" you would understand LIMITLESS possibilities. Scientists still don't have answers to everything,whats so imossible
So if one was to jump off a building, am I assuming he/she will fall? Is it just guess work? The fine tune argument is flawed. We only have one universe and can't say what would happen without gravity and etc but Neil Armstrong did pretty fine without gravity. If the universe was fine tuned for life, which is backwards btw, why can't we live on Mars right now? I might was well say my ears are fine tuned for ear plugs if one wants to use the fine tuned argument.
Newton's law had its limits. Einstein's general relativity was found. Now, we are looking to Beyond Einstein assuming that Einstein theory has its limits. We are looking for laws not miracles.
People, people. Listen to your own comments. Where is the rational debate here. All I am reading is biased, even prejudiced, comments. These speakers are both intelligent and well sopken. Both represent their respective view points well. Maybe you should all take off the blinders and try and listen to both arguements with an open mind. And since when does YouTube allow comments with rude derogatory swear words? How can anyone take someone like that seriously? Really
According to Dinesh, god fine tuned laws of the universe in a specific way without which the universe can not exist nor work. However god can make exceptions and make changes in that laws when he wants to do a miracle, so in that cases, the Universe can work and exist even with modified laws of Phisics... ¬¬°
Funiest is his "football game" argument "who killed more, Comunists (that is the same of "atheists" to him) or christians?"
@2edsajdmsa Dinesh is a solid debater because he achieves what he sets out to achieve. Namely--winning over all the idiots. I doubt he really cares that his arguments are absurd, because it isn't really a battle of logic, it's a battle of public relations. Unfortunately for him, Hitchens is actually a much better debater, but against lesser opponents D'Souza is quite skillful at muddling the minds of the throngs of sheep into stupefied obedience.
what a prick this dinesh guy is. he creates arguments out of nothing, nit picks the smallest faults with atheistic thinking whilst ignoring the stupidity of his own positions.
i think before every debate dinesh should outline what exactly are his moral principles are, what parts of the bible he cherry picked to follow, and what exactly he things god is and whether he thinks god is material or immaterial. i say this because he seems to change them every debate. hitchens points out a flaw and then he says "well i dont believe that".
I think it's funny how all the Dinesh haters can only make fun of Dinesh but not argue or offer any rebutle's agianst Dinesh. EPIC FAIL for Athiest and Agnostics everywhere. No wonder Dinesh doens't have to change his aguments, He doens't need to.
@Jmsadv i have rebutted many of his fallacies on many dinesh videos, check it out. from his parent analogy to his papa new guinea analogy to his god is immaterial explanation. dinesh is really debater when you actually listen to what he says.
@Jmsadv Yeah I hate Dinesh, the same reason I hate liars and propogandists. His claim of "Hitler wast an atheist" (which he is not) and "being an atheist can make you like Stalin" is ridulous. His "atheist death vs christian deaths" doesn't take into account that comparing atheist and christian deaths will not give the picture you will get with atheist vs theist deaths.
They are both wrong. Einstien was a Pantheist. He used God as a metaphor but said that he did not believe in a personal god, even in a Deists God like the "Blind Clock maker"...
Dinesh is the best theist debator I've seen, buy that contradiction is evident. It seems to me he is pulling quite far into trip hitchens up. He knows Christopher is not a physcist.
But what you CAN do is perform other experiments which involve light and see if the notion that the speed of light travels at any other speed fits with your new experiment. There is more than one way to skin the perverbial chicken. The thing that science does that is it checks its theories many different ways.
I suppose to simplify the issue of deism vs. theism and attempt to lay it to rest, it can properly be said - and you can check all the sources you want on this on - that deism is a form of theism, just like pantheism, panentheism, monotheism and polytheism. Theism, broadly and validly speaking is simply the belief in the existence of a God or divine being. Hitchens was just trying to confuse the matter.
@HybridD91 That is true, but they do believe in a spiritual side to existence - something more than just the physical. They do believe in divinity - and differently, depending upon the specific religion or individual concerned. Hitchens as an atheist stand opposed to any and all forms of spiritual existence and divinity. Everything is physical matter. Nothing more, nothing less. That is my simple point and the point Dinesh was trying to illustrate.
@HybridD91 That be it deism, monotheism or any other form of 'theism', all of them hold to the existence of something more than the physical - and in that they are all by definition opposed to the atheist statement that no such spiritual realm exists. That's all.
This is the only point of discussion here, the point Dinesh was trying to make, and the one which I believe Hitchens was attempting to distract us from. That fact seems obvious to me. Theists and Deists may disagree on what is or can be known about God, but they both agree a divine being exists and that is exactly opposite and far away from atheism as possible. In truth, only two points exist in that context - God exists, or God doesn't - we should not confuse the issue at hand.
Let's face facts here, if we want to talk of contrasts the one Dinesh was trying to illustrate was the distinction between understanding the universe in the context of there being a God or divine being, or understanding the universe as existing without one. In that regards both Deism and Theism stand shoulder to shoulder opposed to atheism - that one can certainly say a divine being exists and started everything and not that everything started without anything.
One may use it when speaking of contrasting theologies, as Hitchens, pointlessly, brought it up, or one may use it simply as the antonym to atheist, that is, simply as someone who believe in the existence of a divine being. This would be true of Einstein - he was someone who believed in the existence of a divine being and that is the whole point Dinesh was attempting to make and which Hitchens was trying to avoid by saying Deism was far off Theism.
I am not disagreeing that Einstein was a deist. What I am attempting to clarify is two things. First, that bringing up the whole deist/theist distinction is meaningless in the context of the point they were discussing, it is nothing but a smokescreen and adds no value to the discussion. Second, that the term theist may, completely justifiably, be used in two senses.
Instead, Hitchens goes on to say that to be a deist is as far away from being a theist as possible. That is grossly incorrect. The furthest point is atheism, not deism. Not only does he bring up a moot point but he goes on to at best, make an error, and at worst, lie. Anyone care to discuss that?
@PCrePs I have to disagree. I think this notion of a scale is false. Ive never seen it. Different forms of theology exist but you can't measure them on a scale. Hitchens is eing dramatic. Besides, as I mentioned below, theism can be used specifically and generally. In a general sense theism is simply the opposite to atheism. In context, I think it's clear that this is how Dinesh is using the term. Bringing the whole thing up is a smoke screen.
@GalantKoh Regardless of how specific or general you think the term was, there is no way you can justify a claim that Einstein was a Theist. Not only did he himself, very clearly, dispute that very claim, but the fact he did not believe in a God which intervenes in the natural world, and takes an interest in human affairs rejects any Theistic worldview. At best he could be called a Deist, but since I've never read any of his writing that suggests he believes a first cause to be necessary,
@GalantKoh he very much appears to be an Atheist. The fact he states he believes in Spinoza's God would normally lead one to believe he was a Pantheist.
This being the case, for Dinesh to use the term theist in a general sense is, I think, acceptable or forgivable, especially when the clear context renders the technical difference immaterial. Hitchens surely knows this, but nevertheless, he jumps on this point. Why? As far as this clip shows Hitchens fails to answer Dinesh's argument.
The only difference between a Theist and a Deist is that of specific divine revelation or intervention. Both absolutely believe in the existence of a divine being, a creator. I suspect that Dinesh was, here, using 'theist' in its general sense (as opposed to atheist - without belief in a divine being or God) and not the technical sense. Note that there is no such term as adeist. An atheist rejects deism just as he or she rejects theism. In that regard the theist and the deist are equal.
Interestingly, these very moments seem to me to highlight a definite dodge by Hitchens of Dinesh's point. You see at that moment in the discussion the fact of whether Einstein was a Theist or a Deist was immaterial. Technically Dinesh was wrong, but in this context it's an extremely minor point and perhaps even no real fault at all.
Now, point 2 - why is it that few people are acknowledging Hitchen's dodge or questioning the inclusion of it in this video? The dodge I am suggesting is Hitchen's bringing up Einstein's Deism. Sir, if the purpose of this video is to honestly question the apparent contradiction by Dinesh, why include that footage? It adds nothing to the discussion. It seems only to serve to discredit Dinesh or make fun of him.
D'Souza is a half wit.
wilhelmfurtwangler 1 month ago
Dinesh looks like Heinrich Himmler with a tan.
adambomb30 1 month ago
the old chestnut of a "finetuned" universe. Any experiment with a sample size of 1 is meaningless.
realraven2000 2 months ago
D'Souza is misusing the word "infinitesimal" (he either doesn't know what it means, doesn't care, or doesn't understand what the scientists are saying), and he is exploiting the unfortunate ambiguity of the phrase "physical law", which is used to mean both "a pattern which nature never breaks" and "a well-tested and trusted theory, like gravity". He argues, in effect, that any unexpected event is a miracle. And he's considered one of the best theist apologists?
VidkunQL 2 months ago
very true, God is deceptive and misleading. He tells his followers to study his creation, and yet he screws stuff up so you can not reach valid conclusions. After all, he made a young earth with the appearance of age.
SqueakerAlpha 2 months ago
Another christian wilfully messing with the minds of the uneducated and mentally ill.
doktorotter 3 months ago
HyrulianWarlord, there is no contradiction here. He is making it clear that the beliefs that Science has (such as the existence of laws that govern the physics of the entire Universe) are based entirely on Christian metaphysics. There's no logical necessity, nor rational argument, that requires things to behave the same way throughout the cosmos, but Science presumes that because it was designed by Christian thinkers who believed in a rational Lawgiver (only He Himself being exempt when needed).
Mentat1231 3 months ago
D'Souza's arguments are a perfect example of the old adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
yes, we do not know that on a distant star light does not travel differently, however, YOU FUCKING MORON, we DO NOT CLAIM THAT IT DOES.
What we DO claim is restricted to what we DO observe and since we do not observe what light might be doing on a distant fucking star then we do not claim anything about the light on that distant fucking star.
stojadinovicp 3 months ago 5
@stojadinovicp All you needed there was "YOU FUCKING MORON".
PoundFFFFFF 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
he's contradicting himself lol what a fool lol hahaha wow this guy sucks lol
Atheist603 4 months ago
Dinesh is excellent at exploting general scientific terminology in order to draw in fairly uneducated (in science, maybe otherwise also) religious believers into thinking that they support his ideas just because he can use them within his argument. Even if his use of these said ideas aren't correct, or that he doesn't properly apply these terms and concepts, the fact that he uses them is enough for the laymen listener. Most don't acknowledge the counter argument past his point.
SinceretheGhost 4 months ago
Not to brag, but even I could debate this guy (Dinesh D'Souza), seriously, the fuck makes him so impressive, the fact that he can quote mine fancy authors?
MarkArandjus 4 months ago
just to correct the orthograph possible is the correct orthograph not posible
mystisme 4 months ago
"posible"?
194jms 4 months ago
If the laws were different, we would not be here.
Exactly.
It rained today, outside, in the road, there is a hole EXACTLY the same shape as the puddle of water in it.
The hole must have been designed to hold that particular puddle.
Iamtopcoach 4 months ago 8
3:23 Electro weak force? WTF is that?
Nuclear weak force............fuckwod.
stratocaster1986able 5 months ago
cont.
His original argument was that if certian laws were suspended, then miracles could indeed happen (which is right). The question is...do miracles happen because of chance (that is they are built in to the system) or do they happen because of intention (someone made them happen). You confuse his hypothetical rhetoric with assertion of facts.
vidfreak56 5 months ago
It doesnt sound like he is contradicting himself, but rather that you are taking his comment out of context. Like most youtube posters, you fail to see his point. He is asking hitchens what his explanation is for living in such a "fine tuned" universe based on the fact that scientists say, "life cant exist w/o specific universal parameters". Basically an argument of chance versus design (neither side proven right). Hes not contradicting himself at all.
vidfreak56 5 months ago
Theists are terrified of death and the unknown. To them the unknown is proof of a god. They want life to go on after death but don't remember where they were before they were born. They glorify barbaric scriptures like Abraham's test of faith and ignore the obvious human author. Their explanations must confirm dogma even if far fetched, not question god and they must know their way is the true way out of many ways. I can live with arrogant but true yet cannot live with delusional falsehoods.
tsunami770 6 months ago
Comment removed
tsunami770 6 months ago
Dinesh isn't intelligent. He's just a good speaker and a good plagiarist.
RaynorGo 7 months ago
Another example of theists attempting to take scientific theory and make it work for in this case Christian argument, which does not actually succeed. As it never has. Even if you manage to insert a successful 'fine tuner' then as Hitchens would put it, you still have your work ahead of you to establish that your preferred deity is that tuner and then actually prove you can discern its purpose. Just another failed attempt to insert theism where it doesn't work.
achromat666 7 months ago
I don't see an essential contradition here. Arguing that the 'rules' can be suspended under certain conditions does not argue that they are generally altered. The laws themselves have to exist in some general, base state to then be altered. Life as we know it, would not have been possible had the general, base states been altered. Contingent variances while related, are not contradictory.
MrWildbill20056 8 months ago
There is no contradiction in the acceptance of miracles and the reality of a fine-tuned universe. Christian Theism embraces an omnipotent God who controls the universe by "the word of His power," that is, God stands outside of time and controls all events in the material universe. The universe is fine-tuned because God has created it, and all the while He retains the power to intervene supernaturally as He sees fit. Glory to God and Jesus Christ
bengphoenix 8 months ago
@bengphoenix And you know that how? Jesus told you?
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus Yup. He is Lord!
bengphoenix 8 months ago
@bengphoenix that answers all subsequent questions!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@bengphoenix And yet "he" hasn't and probably wont, ever. In order for there to be a miracle, certain laws or a law would have to be changed, OTHERWISE! it would just be natural and not the work of a SUPERnatural god, he did contradict himself, he is a linguistic argutare who has very little knowledge of physics, the work of Einstein and Newton.
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
@OhmgrownCron Who says that these "laws" are really laws? Are they infallible? Have scientists tested all possible scenarios in the physical world? No, science works on the basis of assumption: a hypothesis is formed and subsequent tests result. No scientific law can be proven to be infallible, therefor they are not "laws" in the absolute sense. Only God, who is eternally unchangable, has a claim on absolutes. Anything developed by men is temporal and subjective.All things are subject to God
bengphoenix 7 months ago
@bengphoenix Your right in that these, "laws," are not proof. However We know very well that man created god, so your argument is flawed, unless of course you can show evidence of, "god," which you or anyone else has not been able to do since it's creation. In science we atleast know 99% enough to say that there is, evolution, gravity, etc. Your argument still doesn't change the fact that, Dinesh, contradicted himself.
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
@OhmgrownCron You know very well that man created god? Well, if you're talking about false gods, then yes, man did create gods. It's quite different when you're refering to the LORD God. He was before all things and all things live, move, and have their being in Him. God created all things, including you, and He sustains you at every moment. You are blind to this truth because you will not submit to the Lordship of Christ, and therefor God has allowed your mind to be darkened with foolishness
bengphoenix 7 months ago
@bengphoenix Still waiting for evidence for this, "God," you speak so highly of, as if you know him as some sort of close relative. How do you know, these, "false gods," are, "false," and not the god you speak of? Don't tell me that God created me, my parents did and I give them credit for raising me to think for myself instead of brainwashing me to believe not only withought evidence, but inspite of contradicting evidence! You call me a fool, what about Carl Sagan, Hawking, Dawkins, Einstein?
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
@OhmgrownCron Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.
Its not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of common sense. These guys were brilliant, but they (without God) cannot give a reasonable explanation for "why" they engage in scientific pursuits. What difference does it make? They are trying to disprove the very Thing by which they are enabled to investigate. No God=no purpose
bengphoenix 7 months ago
@bengphoenix We do have reasons for engaging in scientific pursuits, we love science and we want to understand the natural world, science gives us the ability to do that. Were not trying to disprove god. How can you disprove something exists, or vice versa!? It's impossible and no scientist would ever claim otherwise. Your ignorance is insufferable, the quote you took from the bible, is an insult to the Enlightenment and scientists who work hard to better our lives.
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
@OhmgrownCron Ok, I cant let this stand. You use terms like "reason," and "love," but how do you account for these things? How can science prove that something is reasonable or lovely? Reason implies that there are things such as truth and logic, which are, once again, not things which can be discovered by science. Science is a tool by which to measure the material world, and nothing more. Science begins with, BEGINS WITH, the belief that the natural world has meaning and therefor can be studied
bengphoenix 7 months ago
@bengphoenix Lol I have to ask, did you even read my post thoroughly? I never said science can prove something is lovely, love is based on subjective opinions on things in life. In my post I said, science gives us the ability to study the natural world... And science does not begin with the belief that this world has meaning. Science begins with ignorance. We don't know something - we use science tries to understand what that is. Most scientists agree, we are meaningless in this world.
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
@OhmgrownCron If you really thought that we were meaningless, I mean, if you truly believed that, then you would not even take the time to write a response. Moreover, you wouldn't bother to do anything whatsoever. Why? Because it doesn't mean anything. But thats not the way you operate. You actually go about your life doing things as though they have meaning. This is so because you are created in the image of God and cannot escape the fat that the world has meaning. Repent and believe the gospel
bengphoenix 7 months ago
@bengphoenix Why do I go about as if there is no meaning in the universe? Because eventually our sun will swell thousands of times larger and engulf our planet killing anything and everything. Why do I live my life the way I am? Because I CAN, because I am alive, I am lucky, of the millions that could be in my place right now instead of me, I am here and feel fortunate to be able to speak and express me self. No I will not repent and I do not share the same aragont stance on life as you.
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
@OhmgrownCron Who cares that the sun is swelling? It doesn't mean anything right? Arrogance is associated with those who believe they have something in themselves to boast about. Christianity is the farthest thing from this type of attitude. What you hate is the truth of God, the truth which says that you are in the wrong and God is in the right. The truth is that you are the creation and He is the Creator; He speaks, you ought to obey. The ultimate arrogance is denying Jesus Christ
bengphoenix 7 months ago
@bengphoenix I care that the sun will destroy us or anything for that matter. Even though I won't be around to see it, I hope humanity survives long enough to bear witness. "Arrogance is associated with those who believe they have something in themselves to boast about," or in presumptuous claims or assumptions. Which is exactly what Chritianity is! "He speaks, you ought to obey." That is the prime example of Totalitarianism.
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
@bengphoenix The ultimate arrogance, is assuming YOU were put in this world, with YOU in mind. That everything was created for YOU, that the sun, the stars and the planets all revolve around YOU. This is the mind of the religious, this is arrogance. Go ahead, write as many crappy arguments as you can, I'll knock em all down.
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
@bengphoenix what a stupid thing to say
gigabowser8000 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 thoughtful of you to say. Which part, may I ask?
bengphoenix 6 months ago
@bengphoenix sorry that was a missclick, i meant to reply to this post "If you really thought that we were meaningless, I mean, if you truly believed that, then you would not even take the time to write a response. Moreover, you wouldn't bother to do anything whatsoever. Why? Because it doesn't mean anything. But thats not the way you operate. You actually go about your life doing things as though they have meaning. This is so because you are created in the image of God and
gigabowser8000 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 and its obvious that someone who accepts the meaninglessness and insignificance of human life can live a happy and fullfilling one, the human brain evolved to enjoy certain colours, certain aesthetic pleasures like music or the face of a beautiful woman to make sure that life is at least bearable and we survive to reproduce. the chances of life emerging on a planet, even one in the goldie lox zone like our own, are extremly remote. and the chances of intelligent life, such as
gigabowser8000 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 homo sapiens, are even more remote. this would suggest at the very least, a serious insignificance of human life. the question of a meaningful human species is completely subjective, but i think the argument will always end up in favour of the one who doesnt look to god as an answere.
gigabowser8000 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 i apologize for my poor grammar and punctuation, very lazy when i post on youtube
gigabowser8000 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 I doubt you've considered these things seriously. God bless
bengphoenix 6 months ago
@bengphoenix could you elaborate? or actually read the rest of my posts wich i dont think you did
gigabowser8000 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 Yeah, didn't see your post. Can you explain to me what you mean by "happy" and "fulfilling" concerning your human experience? By what standard do you measure the worth of your life? You are saying both at the same time that life as a whole (or, the universe) is meaningless, and that your life can be meaningful so as to be fulfilling. Do you not see the blatant contradiction in this reasoning? It makes no sense to say something is both meaningful and meaningless at the same time.
bengphoenix 6 months ago
@bengphoenix of course it makes sense to say something is both meaningful and meaningless at the same time.
for example, one human can say that his/her own life is meaningful, because they dedicate a great deal of their time on this planet to helping others, and taking care of their imediate ecosystem.
another human could just as easily argue that their life is meaningless because the whole of human existence is founded on a series of cosmological contingencies.
how does this not make sense?
gigabowser8000 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 I'm encouraged to read of your understanding of an altruistic lifestyle. There is no greater thing in this world than for one to live selflessly and responsibly in their present situation. Your worldview, however, still does not make sense. You are claiming to be nothing more than a cosmilogical accident, a purely physical specimen whcih mas randomly formed without purpose. First off, this is a lye from Satan. Second off, when you disregard any objective meaning to the universe
bengphoenix 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 ..then you make nonsense of your subjective experience. It is simply incompatible to claim that the human creature is nothing more than atoms acting in a blind mechanical fashion, yet this lump of matter somehow ascribes some sort of moral value to itself (how it distinguishes itself from all the other matter is a mystery as well) . If there never was any meaning to begin with, then there is no objective meaning. Meaning is not something that blind matter is capable of producing
bengphoenix 6 months ago
@bengphoenix do you know nothing of evolutionary biology? first of all, yes, humans are nothing more than atoms acting in a seemingly "blind mechanical fashion". this fashion sticks those atoms together to form molecuels, cells etc. we are equipped with a sense of morality because natural selection demanded it from us. if you humans couldnt recognise and value the importance of life, then we wouldnt have this far in the first place. human morality is a completely biological phenomen.
gigabowser8000 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 phenomenon
gigabowser8000 6 months ago
@gigabowser8000 Ah, the magic of "natural selection;" a force so powerful so as to cause lumps of purposeless matter to take on personal identity and moral responsibility. This is sad, truly sad. I dont have time to unravel the mess which the world has put you in, nor to dispute the absurdity of evolution (not that Im an expert). I'll just close with one more proclamation of truth: Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. You need to Repent and believe the gospel.
bengphoenix 5 months ago
@bengphoenix natural selection is not a force. you're thinking of electro magnetism, the force that forms the bonds of atoms. obviously you could never dispute evolution or natural selection for that matter because you would need an army of experienced scientists working round the clock to find a better theory. there is no argument anymore evolution is fact. you keep coming at me with arguments that have been debunked years ago. im not surpised at all that you're backing down.
gigabowser8000 5 months ago
@gigabowser8000 That was a joke, of course. Actually all one needs is a little common sense to dispute evolution. Living matter has never been observed to arise from non-living matter. Never. Its not even possible to produce this effect in a lab under the most optimal conditions. Likewise, never has science observed macro evolution. You're just assuming a phenomenon which has never been scientifically observed. You accept these claims by faith, for there is no other way to hold to this belief.
bengphoenix 5 months ago
@bengphoenix wow you are severely uneducated. i would suggest looking up a little something called the human genome project. while you're at it start reading up on electromagnetism and how atoms and smaller particles come together to form bonds. it is entirely possible for living matter to arise from non living matter because all forms of matter are made of the same fundamental particles. you really dont know anything, do you?
gigabowser8000 5 months ago
@gigabowser8000 The human genome project provides evidence of non-living matter becoming living matter? That's a new insight. Or does it show so conclusively that people were at one time chimpanzees of some sort? No, it does not show either of these falsehoods. This project seeks to map and understand the DNA already existent within the human body. It has nothing to say on how it got there, save for the speculative claims of evolutionary biology. Escape from this indoctrination
bengphoenix 5 months ago
@bengphoenix once again you're wrong. the human genome project doesnt provide evidence for humans evolving from chimanzee's becase it never happened. humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor called Australopithecus. i didnt say that the human genome project provides evidence for non living matter forming living matter. if you payed attention in grade 10 physics you would know.
gigabowser8000 5 months ago
@gigabowser8000 And did someone observe this species transformation? No, I don't think so. And the fossil records of this transformation are located, where? Oh, yeah, none of those either. There are some dubious bones and fragments here and there. Many attempts to re-create a transitionary species have been debunked as false and dishonest. None to date are accepted as a reliable fossil record. If you want to join in this self-defeating endeavor, go ahead. Just dont call evolution "fact."
bengphoenix 5 months ago
@bengphoenix Can you please pay attention in 'class' ?
Don't you creationists ever learn ?
You will never find a fossil that the first half are fish, and the next part are lizard, if that's what you think.
You creationists NEVER understand that.
Or you think the ancient species of any living thing changed to another specie over night, you are so funny when believing such nonsense. :)
Have you ever seen mudscippers ? Now that's a transitional 'fossil' in the living.
BelieveNoGod 5 months ago
in lack of a better word, amen to that. or better `yet, Ramen!
Ryagful 8 months ago
if everything is so well-tuned how come more than half the water on earth is undrinkable, half the drinking water dose not reach most of the Earth, large parts of the earth is to hot or to cold; gamma ray burst, supernovas, asteroids, solar flares, tsunamis ans so forth... the hell, this is the worst place to live ever! anything can basically whip us out any day.
Ryagful 8 months ago
Dinesh frequently dodges questions and makes contradictory statements.
In one debate he was asked soemthing along the lines of, "What do you think the purpose of the universe is?"
His reply: "I wasn't implying that there must be purpose, but simply that the universe had to have had a cause."
This, after having talked numerous times, including in that specific debate, about the "fine-tuning" of the universal constants which "prove" that the universe was created for the PURPOSE of life.
Walabinx 8 months ago
That science is falsifiable is not proof of a divine creator (who happened to be a carpenter some 2000 years ago born of a virgin).
666arzin 9 months ago
Science assumes. So, do you -KNOW- the Bible is TRUTH?
felipealvarez1982 9 months ago
Dinesh is one big contradiction.
ponysmallhorse 9 months ago
D'Souza is definitely a believer in a 'God of the gaps'... all too typical of intellectual theists. Isn't supernatural faith supposed to be non-reliant upon natural circumstances? Why is D'Souza trying to use nature as a means for believing in the supernatural? I think he's shuffling himself into a corner.
TheColossus1987 10 months ago
D'Souza never makes a necessary connection between having fine-tuned constants of nature and inferring a 'fine-tuner'. This is merely a linguistic trick... the convenient ability to argue based on adding the suffix 'er' to the word 'tune', and thus trying to imply that there must be a being that is 'fine-tuning'. Why would the constants require 'someone' 'holding them together'?
TheColossus1987 10 months ago
This universe is NOT perfectly tuned to us. We are tuned to it.
This is because if it were otherwise we would not be here to notice. He is poorly quoting Hawking. Think of it like this. If there were an infinite number of universes all with different core values for gravity, magnetism, etc. WE would still only ever possibly be aware of this one where we exist.
No god involved or needed.
GoodManInCNY 10 months ago
I don't see that as being a contradiction.
He said the laws of the universe were finely tuned to create what we live in today; why would that be untrue if miracles were possible? The assumption is that a miracle is the doing of the divine, aka the creator of those laws. So why would this creator not be able to alter the laws for a purpose of its own.
sivvvers 10 months ago
Sems he is grasping for straws when they are put next to each other like this
AJenbo 10 months ago
It is popular science that says we would cease to exist. Who knows if it is a true assumption? A miracle only takes a second and deals only with a minute fraction of space. It therefore would not effect this assumption, even if it were true, which i don't know or care. Do miracles happen? Absolutely. Through 1) love 2) faith in the heart, vs. in the mind 3) speaking with the mouth. I know because after believing the bible I prayed, believed and saw many miracles. You can't take it from me.
cwhjr1 11 months ago
the contradiction was in one second saying the only chance of miracles would be if the laws of the universe could stop (be suspended). Then he turns and says that the universe is fine tuned which proves god's existence because science says is the laws of nature stop being suspended we would all vanish.
dibaterman 11 months ago
It's not a contradiction. What Dinesh said was that scientists take science on faith, and then that life would not be possible without the universe's very specific parameters. What this means is simply that Dinesh also takes science on faith, but that he finds that acceptable whereas atheists do not. His flaw is more subtle. An atheist who argues that you should never assume anything, is a fool. What's illogical about faith in god is that's a highly superfluous assumption in particular.
eggory 1 year ago
@eggory There is no logical explanation for the existance of God through todays science. It is a matter of faith. You believe it to access it. Science does not have the capacity to believe in God because they base all of their thinking on what theysee in this realm. If you can't believe it study bible prophecy. Todays Islam is in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Rev. The Catholic church sitting on many nations is in Rev 17,18. Turkey joining the EU is in Daniel 7. Israel as a nation in 1948, bible codes,
cwhjr1 11 months ago
I'm a doubter, but I see no contradiction here. By this theory, God sets up a finely crafted set of physical laws and constants ideal for sustaining life, which apply 99.99999 percent of the time. Then, he modifies or breaks them whenever he desires, to create an effect that they would not allow, and then puts them back as they were. Their being suspended infrequently and locally does not alter the universe to make it hostile to life. Maybe nonsense, but not illogical.
gmsherry1953 1 year ago
@gmsherry1953 You are close to faith. Jesus had to die to show us how to beat death. He rose again in fullfilment of Prophecy. Alive he disappeared into a cloud and sent his Ghost back here so we could have the power to do anything he could. The key is receiving the Holy Ghost and power. Then all you have to do is communicate with Him and believe what He speaks to you and you will see any miracle you ask for. This key is the believing. I have had many miracles this way. Most do not understand.
cwhjr1 11 months ago
@cwhjr1 God hates amputees.
iamfrankleonard 11 months ago 10
@iamfrankleonard he sure does... they are the root of all evil
petelovesrat 7 months ago
@cwhjr1 God is imaginary. You just believe this because you have been indoctrinated, had you been born in India you would be Hindu, in Saudi Arabia you'd be Muslim, if in Germany 50% you'd be an atheist.
My point is you have been brainwashed, you can deny this fact, but it doesn't stop from being true.
esiosan 10 months ago
@esiosan You can deny the prophecys but it wont stop them from continuing to manifest. You have faith. You BELIEVE I am wrong. I am not indocrinated. I am educated. I don't belong to any denomination. I belong to Christ who proves himself every time a Muslim says All Jews must die or a Catholic prays to Mary, or the Us head tells another lie, or Rockerfella tells someone else he wants to be king or another antichrist surfices, or the wicked of the Earth do something else stupid, Bible Prophecy!
cwhjr1 10 months ago
@cwhjr1 Prophecies? LOL, be reasonable!
Let's look at Jesus' "prophecies":
→Wars, rumors of wars, famines, epidemics,and other human catastrophes. These precede recorded history and is simply stating the obvious (duh), History REPEATS itself.
→"Earthquakes & other natural disasters"; these occur on Earth for billions of years; It's called PLATE TECTONICS, not prophecy! But you can't accept reality.
→/watch?v=jtJLuY3tovM Letter to a Christian Nation (Audiobook). Enjoy!
Peace.
esiosan 10 months ago
Dinesh might be not verse in Science and Hitchens more still the loser of this debate is simply the one who doesnt understand more.... Hitchens :)
TheCreativemind40 1 year ago
Yes dimesh is an idiot, even though I am a theist Dinesh is a dumb ass.
shubroto81 1 year ago 9
i don't think there's a contradiction here. dinesh is saying that physical laws are not universal or absolute, not that there are no physical laws. he's still an absolute moron though.
checkthebasement 1 year ago
Another example is apologetics often insist Einstein was a theist. It's clear cherry picking from his quotations whilst ignoring the stuff he said they don't like. Jews try to claim him as one of them probably more than christians. Einstein made it explicitly clear that he didn't believe in a "personal god" as hitchens points out. And what would it matter what Einstein's religous views were anyway? So why keep up the charade? Dishonesty gets you nowhere in the long run...
andyjs2008 1 year ago
Yeah i totally agree. I think apologetics (or anybody for that matter) cherry pick which parts of scientific knowledge they want to build an argument on and anything that contradicts their argument they say "we don't actually know that for CERTAIN".
It's clear hypocricy but that's just what happens in debates. People want to win and that's all. Like a defence lawyer or prosecution lawyer sort of...
andyjs2008 1 year ago
Sagan's answer to Dinesh from Chapter 15 of Demon Haunted World - 'Newton's sleep':
But the order of the Universe is not an
assumption; it's an observed fact. We detect the light from distant
quasars only because the laws of electromagnetism are the same
ten billion light years away as here. The spectra of those quasars
are recognizable only because the same chemical elements are
present there as here, and because the same laws of quantum
mechanics apply.
zapopaul 1 year ago
@zapopaul Sagan's answer: second part: The motion of galaxies around one another
follows familiar Newtonian gravity. Gravitational lenses and
binary pulsar spin-downs reveal general relativity in the depths of
space. We could have lived in a Universe with different laws in
every province, but we do not. This fact cannot but elicit feelings
of reverence and awe.
zapopaul 1 year ago
@tonyteb please read my comment carefully and understand why I said that. btw I am a physicist.
Mthoery 1 year ago
if god is real does that mean he could not suspend 'laws' for him to do miricales
tonyteb 1 year ago
there's a second contradiction in this video... He violates Hume's 'ought from is' argument that he had earlier claimed allegiance to.
PaGaNM0nK 1 year ago
D'souza!, you are talking about Dawkins shouldn't leave the lab. How about you, you are talking about physics!! which you know nothing about it! hypocrisy
Mthoery 1 year ago
@Mthoery no you know about physics right
tonyteb 1 year ago
D'Souza always makes the argument that if you change some parts of the universe we wouldn't exist and that proves god is real. No it doesn't. Honestly that argument boils down to "3+3=6, and if you change just one of those numbers it does not equal 6, so god exists." I know what source he is using for that argument and it has been proven wrong for over 10 years because the scientist was using a formula that imported values from our world. Its completely misleading and false.
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
Wow Dinesh is way off the mark at the start here
Sirstingray 1 year ago
That would mean that the 'creator' is confined to making a universe within the parameters of certain laws. I thought he was 'all powerful'? Can't he make a universe anyway he wants?
kusalaviro 1 year ago
The last point this guy makes is a complete tautology.
SFT24 1 year ago
Dinesh seems to be missing the entire point of miracles.
He seems to be equating a scientific exception (which is still scientific) as being, or allowing, a miracle. No: it's not a miracle; its a scientific exception.
a Miracle would take place in complete DEFIANCE of scientific principles such as gravity, Newton's Law's, time travel, extra. Such laws would be suspended completely without explanation, including a "scientific exception".
He should have been called on that.
JonDavidson 1 year ago
Dinesh is just brilliant, logical, rational ...
ElenDiana1 1 year ago
@ElenDiana1, are you being facetious?
He misquotes Einstein's beliefs, and defines miracles as being related to "scientific exceptions" as he calls them, which would not make them miracles at all.
Dinesh seems neither brilliant, logical, or even rational in his arguments here.
He's actually rather disappointing...
JonDavidson 1 year ago
I am sorry that you see a contradiction instead of an example posed in a question. Time has proven that we are all guessing... For us that are Creationist ( Christians ) Our faith is based totally on a designer not a theory from a Human Source.
ieternal7 1 year ago
LOL he totally bastardises Hume. "Hume was a skeptic of science, therefore miracles are possible". what a fucking idiot, Hume would have bitten his head off. usually dont like hitchens at all but hes a genius compared ot this guy.
jerk4990 1 year ago
Comment removed
jerk4990 1 year ago
D´souza probably is the best in the business at arguing for religion, and he´s still a total wankjob thickheaded braindamaged tosspot of the n´th degree.
yatter1 1 year ago
Uploader is mistaken
dylankellyyyy 1 year ago
The 'fine tuned universe' theory is flawed.
This universe is fine tuned to our life form and physical laws?
No,that's the wrong conclusion and is based on the all to human bias that we are the central reason for the universe or even the multiverse to exsist.
This life form and it accompanying and ever expanding descriptions of the natural universe (or laws of physics if you like) have all been molded by this universes particular tuning.
visigothic67 1 year ago
@visigothic67 Ask the fine tuners one question, if the universe is fine tuned for human life, why aren't we living on the moon? XD
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 My point might have snapped off during packaging,I do tend to waffle.
I'll distill it.
Asking the fine tuner is impossible as there is no fine tuner,Its the universe that has fine tuned its self to the conditions and.
And life has fine tuned its self to the universe it arose within.
Its evolutionary my good man.
visigothic67 1 year ago
@visigothic67 Evolutionary or not my good man, the UNIVERSE wherein as you suggested we 'arose' - where did that come from? The universe itself!
Before every beginning there is nothing. Before i wrote this comment there was of course no comment. Before time there was no time, nor matter. To suggest the universe pre-existed is nonsensical.
An eternally 'Fine-Tuner' not withheld by time or space is, if i may say, the most logical pattern of thought, the most probable outcome. lets be logical.
SteepleJackVIDS 1 year ago
@SteepleJackVIDS Your point is taken,but your argument is a theological shell game.
You posit that since it's illogical for there to be no extra-universal agent to begin it,it therefor follows that such an agent persists to fine tune it after the fact. This is a fine way to judo flip science and reason with its weakness at positing a 'before' the big bang,But all you actually do is move the absurdly unlikely from the creation event into the here and now.
Wheres god now?Which shell?
visigothic67 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@visigothic67 Evolutionary or not my good man, the UNIVERSE wherein as you suggested we 'arose' - where did that come from? The universe itself!
Before every beginning there is nothing. Before i wrote this comment there was of course no comment. Before time there was no time, nor matter. To suggest the universe pre-existed is nonsensical.
An eternally 'Fine-Tuner' not withheld by time or space is, if i may say, the most logical pattern of thought, the most probable outcome. lets be logical.
SteepleJackVIDS 1 year ago
I think you completely misunderstood Dinesh's point. His point was not: Scientific laws do not exist. If that were his point, he would be contradicting himself. His point was that the existence of scientific laws is an assumption drawn by rational observation. Scientists like to believe that science is the only decoder of True Reality, but they are working on one general assumption that laws of the universe are everywhere consistent. This assumption may be correct but it has not been proven.
ic2705 1 year ago
@ic2705 He clearly stated scientific laws do not exist.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Dinesh CLEARLY hasn't done ANY research on the physical laws and possibility of life.
Moron doesn't even realize the other types of atomic compilations and fundamental-force-manipulations, and types of lifeforms emerging therein that are possible; which have been documented by doctoral physics students in more than one thesis.
TAz69x 1 year ago
Anyone else wish their keyboard had a button that could send a boxing glove straight to Dinesh's face too?!...
TAz69x 1 year ago
It is a contradiction. You see I believe D'Souza uses tactics of rhetoric so any argument is not laterally consistent but merely formulates each argument independantly. It is a poct hoc formulation of ideas to support unfounded premisses. I've seen him debate and make the claim the existence of God is unknowable by the human mind because God can never be sensed. If thats the case then even if God exists, the idea of God is just an idea, just like Santa. Rhetoric always leads to more problems.
Norm1011616 1 year ago
Here is the ultimate problem with intelligent design being considered science... with science, you take observable phenomenon and try to determine why something happens. With intelligent design, you say, "Ok I have this idea that I'd like to justify, what can we use to do that?" Dinesh, like ALL creationists, is willing to misuse and misinterpret whatever he has to so that he can hold on to his faith and still call it scientific in some way. It's a travesty and quite annoying.
msteele79 1 year ago
Those are ridiculous points...stupid Dinesh.
statickk14 1 year ago
Forset: Maybe your comment is accurate observing the mirror but looking at the world doesn't seem sloppy at all, look at some space pics.
Afterlifeless: No contradiction at all. Your statement is based on scientific law like God is limited to them. Like if he couldn't change one lets say for a miracle and establish another to balance it out. If you understood the term "GOD" you would understand LIMITLESS possibilities. Scientists still don't have answers to everything,whats so impossible
TheDU777 1 year ago
Forset: Maybe your comment is accuarte observing the mirror but looking at the world doesn't seem sloppy at all, look at some space pics.
Afterlifeless: No contradiction at all. Your statement is soley based on scientific law like God is limited to them. Like if he could't change one lets say for a miracle and establish another to balance it out. If you understood the term "GOD" you would understand LIMITLESS possibilities. Scientists still don't have answers to everything,whats so imossible
TheDU777 1 year ago
So if one was to jump off a building, am I assuming he/she will fall? Is it just guess work? The fine tune argument is flawed. We only have one universe and can't say what would happen without gravity and etc but Neil Armstrong did pretty fine without gravity. If the universe was fine tuned for life, which is backwards btw, why can't we live on Mars right now? I might was well say my ears are fine tuned for ear plugs if one wants to use the fine tuned argument.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Newton's law had its limits. Einstein's general relativity was found. Now, we are looking to Beyond Einstein assuming that Einstein theory has its limits. We are looking for laws not miracles.
chopin7tristesse 1 year ago
People, people. Listen to your own comments. Where is the rational debate here. All I am reading is biased, even prejudiced, comments. These speakers are both intelligent and well sopken. Both represent their respective view points well. Maybe you should all take off the blinders and try and listen to both arguements with an open mind. And since when does YouTube allow comments with rude derogatory swear words? How can anyone take someone like that seriously? Really
peipappy1 1 year ago
Dinesh sounds alot like brian greene in this debate, the curious less version...
36squared 1 year ago
Totally contradiction.
According to Dinesh, god fine tuned laws of the universe in a specific way without which the universe can not exist nor work. However god can make exceptions and make changes in that laws when he wants to do a miracle, so in that cases, the Universe can work and exist even with modified laws of Phisics... ¬¬°
Funiest is his "football game" argument "who killed more, Comunists (that is the same of "atheists" to him) or christians?"
afterlifeless1 1 year ago
How is Dinesh a solid debator? He makes age old non arguments, our world is perfect, it must have a designer.... Good debater? please.
2edsajdmsa 1 year ago
@2edsajdmsa Dinesh is a solid debater because he achieves what he sets out to achieve. Namely--winning over all the idiots. I doubt he really cares that his arguments are absurd, because it isn't really a battle of logic, it's a battle of public relations. Unfortunately for him, Hitchens is actually a much better debater, but against lesser opponents D'Souza is quite skillful at muddling the minds of the throngs of sheep into stupefied obedience.
Zeuts85 1 year ago
@Zeuts85 I'd be terribly embarrassed if I "lost" a debate to Dinesh.
2edsajdmsa 1 year ago
what a prick this dinesh guy is. he creates arguments out of nothing, nit picks the smallest faults with atheistic thinking whilst ignoring the stupidity of his own positions.
up2trix 1 year ago
i think before every debate dinesh should outline what exactly are his moral principles are, what parts of the bible he cherry picked to follow, and what exactly he things god is and whether he thinks god is material or immaterial. i say this because he seems to change them every debate. hitchens points out a flaw and then he says "well i dont believe that".
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
dinesh sounds good, and if you're not a thinking person, youll fall right into his trap.
vhanhanzz 1 year ago
I think it's funny how all the Dinesh haters can only make fun of Dinesh but not argue or offer any rebutle's agianst Dinesh. EPIC FAIL for Athiest and Agnostics everywhere. No wonder Dinesh doens't have to change his aguments, He doens't need to.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv i have rebutted many of his fallacies on many dinesh videos, check it out. from his parent analogy to his papa new guinea analogy to his god is immaterial explanation. dinesh is really debater when you actually listen to what he says.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@Jmsadv Yeah I hate Dinesh, the same reason I hate liars and propogandists. His claim of "Hitler wast an atheist" (which he is not) and "being an atheist can make you like Stalin" is ridulous. His "atheist death vs christian deaths" doesn't take into account that comparing atheist and christian deaths will not give the picture you will get with atheist vs theist deaths.
TurboDally 1 year ago
dinesh isn't a physicist either. he projects his human consciousness on the universe and believes himself to be the center of it, that's all
FOIIAD 1 year ago
They are both wrong. Einstien was a Pantheist. He used God as a metaphor but said that he did not believe in a personal god, even in a Deists God like the "Blind Clock maker"...
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
Dinesh is the best theist debator I've seen, buy that contradiction is evident. It seems to me he is pulling quite far into trip hitchens up. He knows Christopher is not a physcist.
UtopiaMinor666 1 year ago
YES dinesh is an idiot
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
But what you CAN do is perform other experiments which involve light and see if the notion that the speed of light travels at any other speed fits with your new experiment. There is more than one way to skin the perverbial chicken. The thing that science does that is it checks its theories many different ways.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
I suppose to simplify the issue of deism vs. theism and attempt to lay it to rest, it can properly be said - and you can check all the sources you want on this on - that deism is a form of theism, just like pantheism, panentheism, monotheism and polytheism. Theism, broadly and validly speaking is simply the belief in the existence of a God or divine being. Hitchens was just trying to confuse the matter.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
@GalantKoh Pantheists do not believe in "God" or "gods" of any kind. By "God" I mean the one similar to the Judeo Christian god, a personal god.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 That is true, but they do believe in a spiritual side to existence - something more than just the physical. They do believe in divinity - and differently, depending upon the specific religion or individual concerned. Hitchens as an atheist stand opposed to any and all forms of spiritual existence and divinity. Everything is physical matter. Nothing more, nothing less. That is my simple point and the point Dinesh was trying to illustrate.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
@HybridD91 That be it deism, monotheism or any other form of 'theism', all of them hold to the existence of something more than the physical - and in that they are all by definition opposed to the atheist statement that no such spiritual realm exists. That's all.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
This is the only point of discussion here, the point Dinesh was trying to make, and the one which I believe Hitchens was attempting to distract us from. That fact seems obvious to me. Theists and Deists may disagree on what is or can be known about God, but they both agree a divine being exists and that is exactly opposite and far away from atheism as possible. In truth, only two points exist in that context - God exists, or God doesn't - we should not confuse the issue at hand.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
Let's face facts here, if we want to talk of contrasts the one Dinesh was trying to illustrate was the distinction between understanding the universe in the context of there being a God or divine being, or understanding the universe as existing without one. In that regards both Deism and Theism stand shoulder to shoulder opposed to atheism - that one can certainly say a divine being exists and started everything and not that everything started without anything.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
One may use it when speaking of contrasting theologies, as Hitchens, pointlessly, brought it up, or one may use it simply as the antonym to atheist, that is, simply as someone who believe in the existence of a divine being. This would be true of Einstein - he was someone who believed in the existence of a divine being and that is the whole point Dinesh was attempting to make and which Hitchens was trying to avoid by saying Deism was far off Theism.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
I am not disagreeing that Einstein was a deist. What I am attempting to clarify is two things. First, that bringing up the whole deist/theist distinction is meaningless in the context of the point they were discussing, it is nothing but a smokescreen and adds no value to the discussion. Second, that the term theist may, completely justifiably, be used in two senses.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
Instead, Hitchens goes on to say that to be a deist is as far away from being a theist as possible. That is grossly incorrect. The furthest point is atheism, not deism. Not only does he bring up a moot point but he goes on to at best, make an error, and at worst, lie. Anyone care to discuss that?
GalantKoh 1 year ago
@GalantKoh Deism is about the furthest point from Theism you can sit on the scale of believing there is a God. Atheism throws that entire scale away.
PCrePs 1 year ago
@PCrePs I have to disagree. I think this notion of a scale is false. Ive never seen it. Different forms of theology exist but you can't measure them on a scale. Hitchens is eing dramatic. Besides, as I mentioned below, theism can be used specifically and generally. In a general sense theism is simply the opposite to atheism. In context, I think it's clear that this is how Dinesh is using the term. Bringing the whole thing up is a smoke screen.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
@GalantKoh Regardless of how specific or general you think the term was, there is no way you can justify a claim that Einstein was a Theist. Not only did he himself, very clearly, dispute that very claim, but the fact he did not believe in a God which intervenes in the natural world, and takes an interest in human affairs rejects any Theistic worldview. At best he could be called a Deist, but since I've never read any of his writing that suggests he believes a first cause to be necessary,
PCrePs 1 year ago
@GalantKoh he very much appears to be an Atheist. The fact he states he believes in Spinoza's God would normally lead one to believe he was a Pantheist.
PCrePs 1 year ago
This being the case, for Dinesh to use the term theist in a general sense is, I think, acceptable or forgivable, especially when the clear context renders the technical difference immaterial. Hitchens surely knows this, but nevertheless, he jumps on this point. Why? As far as this clip shows Hitchens fails to answer Dinesh's argument.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
The only difference between a Theist and a Deist is that of specific divine revelation or intervention. Both absolutely believe in the existence of a divine being, a creator. I suspect that Dinesh was, here, using 'theist' in its general sense (as opposed to atheist - without belief in a divine being or God) and not the technical sense. Note that there is no such term as adeist. An atheist rejects deism just as he or she rejects theism. In that regard the theist and the deist are equal.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
Interestingly, these very moments seem to me to highlight a definite dodge by Hitchens of Dinesh's point. You see at that moment in the discussion the fact of whether Einstein was a Theist or a Deist was immaterial. Technically Dinesh was wrong, but in this context it's an extremely minor point and perhaps even no real fault at all.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
Now, point 2 - why is it that few people are acknowledging Hitchen's dodge or questioning the inclusion of it in this video? The dodge I am suggesting is Hitchen's bringing up Einstein's Deism. Sir, if the purpose of this video is to honestly question the apparent contradiction by Dinesh, why include that footage? It adds nothing to the discussion. It seems only to serve to discredit Dinesh or make fun of him.
GalantKoh 1 year ago
You may disagree with his assertion but it must nevertheless be agreed that there is no contradiction.
GalantKoh 1 year ago