YouTube Christopher Hitchens Closing Remarks Dembski Debate

[naybobdenod]

Christophers legacy is beyond reproach.

[chernestoguevera]

thank you for putting this up, its fitting as his final remarks to the youth of the world, shows him at his best, philosophical, passionate, and compassionate, bye Hitch

[benmols]

You're better off now Hitch: Not in heaven. You lived a full honest life, more honest and worthwhile than any dishonest religious person. True inspiration.

[druiz77]

@Krydan2167 So if one shouldn't trust ones own mind why do you say all of this as if you trusted this information with your life!? Lol too funny!

[logfio]

Not enough views :(

[eltigre1201]

This man deserves a Novel Peace Prize !!!!! thumbs up if you agree

[grozde]

@eltigre1201

Yes, for his support for the wars in the Middle East, I guess?

Man, some of Mr. Hitchens's fans are just a quarter of step from deifying him!

Please, you give us atheist a bad name!

[eltigre1201]

@grozde i give atheist atheist a bad name sure i agree !!!! ill leave you to give them a good name

[grozde]

@eltigre1201

Great!

Thank you!

[snipersas]

@eltigre1201 no, he supported the iraq war. not a bad guy though

[Muthsera80]

@eltigre1201

Impossible now, it can't be given postmortem. 

[ooshgasm]

@top5alltime hmm or maybe the church isn't actually as evil as Hitchens claims? Many people question their own beliefs and maybe the organisers of this event genuinely wanted the students to see both sides of the matter and make the decision for themself. The church has done a lot of terrible things but don't assume every action it takes is an insidious plan or a moronic bacfire.

[yuothineyesasian]

@ooshgasm

Doubtful since they've put a copyright block on it (obviously they haven't found this video),the generous Prestonwood Christians are now charging for Hitchens’ atheist view.

[T0PSLAYER117]

I need to pay closer attention to when debates are happening in Texas, I totally would have shown up to see this live.

[cperez1000]

fucking inspiring

[xMorphling]

The whistling man at the end was just converted to Atheism by Hitchens.

[BlameRepublicans]

@xMorphling lol that was my mom.

[IlovemyGlock21]

/watch?v=lgIcJb8i4m8

[RaggedM88]

I watched this speech many time now. He really destroyed Dembski with this comment and in such an intellectual and graceful way. It's safe to say Prestonwood will not repeat the mistake of inviting Hitchens again.

[TheGreatReprobate]

and so what if the B Theory is correct? we still get to have the only conversation worth having.. how to build the 'just city' and enjoy this glimpse of the yardstick you call an illusion. It's only your emotional need to feel important and special - for reward in another existence perhaps - that makes Theory B unthinkable to you. Whether time is a yard stick or a meatball, it's indifferent to you and there's no reason to think otherwise.

[johnclavis]

This shit makes me cry every time I listen to it. Thank goodness for Christopher Hitchens.

[mhgolgothica]

here here. well said.

[MShane011]

A man balding from chemotherapy, facing his own imminent death speaking with such confidence and rejecting the "poisoned chalice" of Christianity's "wish fulfillment" - that you die but you don't really die. Truly inspiring.

[Territomauvais]

Thanks for the upload but this is the Prestonwood edited version where the clapping for Hitch is muted or the volume is turned on. Just sayin'

[rogan71]

It's an insult the brilliance of this man that he has to debate some of the weakest minds in human history...Dembski just dug a hole and shat his pants.

...Still Hitchen's closing remarks here are awe inspiring

[SanEverett]

The respect that Christians give to those like 'Christopher' at these events speaks loudly.

[fatmeteor]

@SanEverett Apart from the fact that most Christians speak very loudly most of the time, if they disrespected him they would get both barrels, he really opens up when there is some disrespectful opposition.

[SanEverett]

@fatmeteor I've never heard Christopher complain of any disrespect from Christians he has debated with. But from any christians...Sure... But atheists do the same...

[Dpesh7]

@SanEverett well its about time. Only took a couple thousand years.

[susanyana]

@Dpesh7 well said you!

[stanx123]

What is good? What is beautiful? What is noble?

Hitch is.

[leethal59]

truly beautiful and inspiring.

I love philosophy for this reason.

[top5alltime]

I am not sure why Prestonwood Church would have someone like Christopher Hitchens debate in front of their students? I think the students were probably sitting there questioning all the crap they have been "taught". Do you really think Prestonwood knew what they were in for when they invited Christopher to debate?

[Clifton100]

@top5alltime Their foolish mistake is our reward.

[Krydan2167]

@top5alltime Sure Churches invite him all the time: Because he never addresses the science arguments or the fine tuning of the universe etc.. They spend the next year going through and tearing down his weak arguments. If you listen to these whole debates, like against John Lennox, or William Craig, he obviously doesn't answer any of the questions asked of him. He acts like he doesn't even hear the points they raise. You as a fan don't notice that, they do!

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 Hitchens arguments are strong, but you're correct that he doesn't talk science. I believe his stance is that an unfalsifiable argument is a bad argument. Take that, and pretty much every scientific argument for god crumbles. 

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg Well the Kalaam or the "initial cause" is a very strong argument. The multi-verse theory only attempts to solve the problem of the physical constants after the initial cause. But the constants at the initial first cause is something like 1 to 10^150 . Now for every universe that exist that doesn't meet this fine tuning at the initial cause, either implodes or explodes in the fraction of a second. The ones that do meet that initial fine tuning out of the 10^150 cont....

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 The Kalam requires that you accept the A Theory of time, which I think most philosophers reject. Kalam also assumes that science won't eventually discover what happened before the big bang and that we won't eventually find out what happened before that and so on. That's sort of risky.

As for design, that's what I meant by unfalsifiable. If you say there's design, there's no way to prove there is or there isn't. It's not a good argument because it couldn't possibly be verified.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg Well the standard big bang model say that space and time has a beginning that began with a singularity some 14.5 billion years ago. If something existed or there was an initial cause, then it can be said that that cause exist outside of space and time. To believe anything exist outside what we observe is metaphysical and can not be observed, including time or positive and negative gravitational fluctuations. It transcends space and time as we know it. Continue

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg But a natural cause can not account for the fine tuning in the initial cause let alone all the other finely tuned laws that make up what we can observe. So trying to use science to prove atheism or a purely natural cause has the same problems as does a theistic view. But when we observe laws working independently and some collectively we say the best inference is that it is designed. That is the way scientist infer things to fill in the gaps of their theories. Continue..

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg We're called "the God of the gaps" when we claim the best explanation for a finely tuned system is design. If it looks designed, the best inference is that it is designed! Hawkins in his book "The Grand Design" claims that reality is model based, Therefore the YEC view if it answers the same big questions is no less real then big bang cosmology" He says the model is what best explains our differing perception, but that none is more real than the other; it's all an illusion!

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg His "Hawkins" is arguing an anti-realism philosophy, right after he makes the bold statement that philosophy is dead. He can not prove multiple universes, string theory etc..It's as Roger Penrose says; it's not even a theory, but more like wishful thinking. My whole point is this: Those who try to use science to argue against God, has no more proof than those arguing for God. But what we observe is a profoundly finely tuned world that is best explained by God, rather than luck!

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg Hitchens might say: Well the odds are better because for the fine tuning of gravity, electromagnetic etc in trillions of possible universes it makes it more probable that one would meet that fine tuning requirements. Well, first trillion of universes would have to meet the initial cause! So what kind of system is spitting out quadrillions of initial causes to get the trillions of multiple universes? In other words: Who big banged the big banger?

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 Ha, that sounds more like a Dawkins response to me.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg Most Science fiction writers favor the B Theory of time. Not sure how many philosophers or scientist hold to it. In a sense if you believe the B theory of time, then you too believe in life after death. If the past present and future exist simultaneously, then you've not been born, you exist now and are already dead in the future at the same time. Our universe has already met it's heat death but because of an eternal infinite past it will never be realized.

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 I never mentioned Hawking, but are you sure when you say that science will never confirm the B Theory? And I believe what you call design could occur naturally by pure chance. In fact, we may eventually discover that it couldn't have happened any other way. Both the cosmological and design arguments rest on the ever-shifting body of scientific knowledge. If I'm going to be convinced by an argument, I prefer its premises be grounded in certainty. Get where I'm coming from?

[DancingTableLeg]

@DancingTableLeg And I'm pretty sure B Theory is the one most people prefer between A and B. That is, if my survey info is accurate.

[DancingTableLeg]

@DancingTableLeg Sorry. By people, I meant philosophers.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg The probability of the cosmological constant alone is like throwing a dart for 20,000 lite years in space and hitting a 1 target on earth. That is not accounting for the 20 something other constance that make a life providing universe even remotely probable. But there can never be100% certainty, especially if time itself can not be understood with any certainty. The B theory is laughable to me. That means all biological life existed before it evolved. Get where I am coming from?

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 All you just said is that the probability is really small. Yet that's a naturalistic explanation. Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean you can just discard it. And as I said, there are theories that the cosmological constant HAD to be what it is for any universe to be created. And if some theories are true and there are infinite universes, then the probabitility becomes actually quite big.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg The probability of the cosmological initial condition is something like 1 to 10^120 there is like 10^65 atoms in the observable universe. So the probability is ridiculously small just for the initial condition. It's like finding 2 marked atoms in the observable universe. And even if they could prove a multiverse you'd have the problem of what kind if system could create 10^500 universes as proposed by Hawkins, and is it finely tuned. SO you've only moved the problem back 1 step

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 And to certainty, we can know for certain lots of things. When the slightest discovery could completely destroy Kalam, I see no need to extrapolate meaning from the argument. It has been bashed in the philosophical community anyways.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg What discovery would that be? String theory M theory or any multi-verse theory just moves the probability and the problems back one step.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg The big bang didn't happen 14.5 billion years ago, it is simultaneously happing with the present state and with future heat death. I wasn't born in the 60's, I'm born, die, and lived simultaneously in an infinite timeless warp. I just hope the me in the future slept/sleeps/is sleeping late tomorrow because I'm getting a bit dizzy trying to figure out if I am typing this/typed it/or going to type it or is it all happening at the same time...I'm so confused!

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 Have you studied B Theory? There's a reason the majority of philosophy professors embrace it. I'd read up on it if I were you, because it sounds like you are indeed confused.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg I have studied B Theory: I made a simple argument for why I think it is foolishness. The theory says: The past and the future is as real as the present. The past still exist, and the future already exist. The theory says that the passage of time is an illusion of our minds. One theory suggest that an advanced race in the future traveled back in time and created itself aka US! You think I am making this stuff up, but that is what some actually believe! Look it up!

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 You've offered nothing to suggest B Theory isn't true. You simultaneously confess that it confuses you and say that you understand it. Are you privy to some information the majority of professional philosophers are not? And by saying it's all a mass hallucination, you even contradict yourself. Philosophically, if everything is an illusion, then NOTHING is an illusion. Calling something an illusion presupposes a hidden reality. I'm afraid you are no philosopher, my fine fellow.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg I understand the premise, it confuses me by the illogical implications it it were true. I am saying if it were true, then life existed before it evolved. I am saying what Hawkins says: Young earth creationism is no less real than Big Bang cosmology. You'll have to take the contradiction up with folks like Hawkins who says that our perception of reality is mere illusory. It's their contradiction not mine! I don't believe in B Theory! Continue...

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg B Theory says the past is as real as the present is as real as the future. The Future now exist, the past still exist. 1) Did it all come into existence at once 2) Has everything always existed? Either way life in the future existed before it evolved in the past either eternally or at the moment that time came into existence the path of pass present and future was predetermined and is static. You can do nothing to change what is what was or what will be, it just is! Continue..

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg You have every right to believe that, and I have every right as the great Barney Fife used to say: Your nuts, just plain nuts : )So I don't care how many people hold to a foolish science fiction definition of time. So ask Hawkins what he means by illusion, he obviously believes in a hidden reality. So I am afraid you are arguing against Stephen Hawkins as not being much of a philosopher, because that is his philosophy not mine!

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 Um, you haven't pointed out a single illogical problem with B Theory. Not one. You've admitted that it confuses you. And your description of it ignores many of the proofs that have been formulated to support it. Yes, I do have every right to believe this, just as you have the right to completely misunderstand the theory in an attempt to preserve your worldview. I'm amused you can think yourself smarter than the majority of philosophical scholars. How utterly arrogant. Better repent.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg You keep claiming that most philosophical scholars accept the B Theory of time. Would you like to post a source for where you get that from? I've search and I can't find a poll on it. Again what the premise says doesn't confuse me, some of the theories that come from it is quite laughable and contradictory to any sane person. Like the advanced race in the future going back in time and creating itself. What proofs supports B Theory? Continue.....

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg . Many of these same scientist insist that all life today evolved through a process of gradual change over a long period of TIME. But if TIME is static and it came into existence at the big bang or it is infinite, then life in the future existed before it evolved in the past. Life just came into being the same time as Time came into existence: Thus, evolution is just an illusion. To Dawkin's the fissile record looks evolved, but it hasn't really evolved! So is evolution false?

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg Now are you going to cling to your so called science to believe in evolution; or your philosophical theory of time? The B Theory basically says that time is like a yards stick and is static, the passage of time is illusory, the future and the past are as real as the present. We came into existence at the same time as dinosaurs just at a different spot on the yard stick. So the earth may not be 14.5 billion years old, the yard stick could have came into existence 6000 years ago!

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg So the age of the universe could just be the appearance of billions of years, but could be trillions of years, or just 2 days old and every experience we think we've lived is just an implanted illusion. Now, again you can believe in that kind of world if you wish to. But It's anti-reality premise has serious implications for strongly held beliefs even in science. I personally think they are tripping on Shrooms!

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 Evolution and B Theory are perfectly compatible, as are other scientific ideas. Are you going to take me up on the Skype offer so we can discuss it in detail?

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg My daughter sleeps in the room next to where my computer room is. So talking late at night is difficult. But here is the question: If when time came into existence, at some point on the static yard stick of time life came into existence and by passed evolution. So evolution is not necessary to have occurred. If I exist here in 2011 and I exist now and about to be born in 1967 then I have existed somewhere on the yards stick of time since the beginning of time, or time immortal.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg You say that such a concept of time is consistent with evolution: Please explain how If I've existed somewhere on the time line eternally or since time began why evolution is necessary? I existed in 1967 at the same time the first molecule existed just on different spots on the static ruler of time. The internet existed in 2011 before Al Gore invented in the 1980's : ) In fact when I post this reply it has been posted every second since the beginning of time.

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 Your entire reply presupposes A Theory. Evolution has occurred and indeed, it is happening, too. The universe just IS, and how we experience it happens in what we like to call order. Brush up on your quantum mechanics. I will assume you aren't interested in constructive debate if you again refuse to Skype.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg It hasn't occurred if you accept the B Theory of time. Life in 2011 has always existed from the moment that time came into existence. The b theory says that 6 billion years BC is as real as 2023 which is as real as the present. So this is 10^170 times I've sent you this question and you still haven't answer it. How is evolution necessary if 2011 was just as real 6 billion years ago? The B Theory is based on the assumption that time is a 4th dimension. Continue

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg String theory says there is 11 dimensions! Why not 10 or 12 dimensions? Because the equations only works if there is 11 in string theory. So they assume the other dimensions to get the answer they hope for. I won't say there are not other dimensions, or even other universes; but don't call it science! I told you I have a young daughter at home, and I am only available late nights, and not interested in talking why she's trying to sleep. You can send a private message at length

[TheGreatReprobate]

@Krydan2167 and after reading all of your posts it always brings me back to the same place when arguing with your kind - 'I don't know' is an acceptable answer. The Greeks had no knowledge of genetics or cosmology. It would have been correct for them to say "i don't know'. It is you who claim absolute certainty and knowledge, and you can't demonstrate a shred of it. You are the one with all your work ahead of you. I will have another Guiness - you can ponder whether you have prayed enough today.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg The problem so far is you haven't answered any questions about B Theory, and I don't think you understand the implications of it. If Hawkins is right, then evolution and everything we observe is illusory. We can only build models based on that illusory perception. He states that the young earth creationist model is no less real than the big bang model. Read "The Grand Design" and you'll see I am not making this stuff up. You can believe such science fiction, I choose not to!

[TheGreatReprobate]

@Krydan2167 If you really think a 'big bang cosmologist' who has devoted his life's work to the subject believes that young earth creationism is just as valid then I must assume that you misinterpreted Hawkin's somewhere.

I didn't have to click on your profile to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the video presented would be of the 'Christian' variety. The amount of mental masturbation your willing to commit publicly would demand your assumptions be based in faith.

[Krydan2167]

@TheGreatReprobate Well read "The Grand Design" pay real close attention to page 52. Hawkins is a anti-realist who believes that our perceptions and observation is all an illusion. He specifically compares the YEC view, with big bang cosmology and says that the Big Bang is a better mode for explaining distant light from stars, but neither can be said to be more or less true. So take that up with Hawkins. I suggest you read his book before sticking your foot further in your mouth!

[mrface19]

@Krydan2167 ... who's Hawkins?



[Krydan2167]

@mrface19 So you can't defend his anti-realism position so you opt to point out I misspelled his name? Typical of somebody who doesn't have the guts to address the issue. Childish, just like Hawkin"G"s who waisted 30 years arguing that information was lost in black holes, then when he finally did admit he was wrong, he did so by coming out with a wild theory that the information still exist in one of his imaginary universes! I don't care how he spells his name, it's irrelevant; as is he!

[mrface19]

@Krydan2167 Ok, little miss touchy. It wasn't a belittlement, I genuinely wondered who you were talking about and whether there was somebody called Hawkins that I needed to know about.

Chill the fuck out. Besides, if Stephen Hawkings is irrelevant, I can guarantee that you are beyond irrelevant.

[Krydan2167]

@mrface19 If you know enough to defend him as being relative , then you should know he wrote "The Grand Design" A book most physicist regard as a grand joke! The truth is, Hawkings is not so popular with most other physicist: he's popular to the general public because of all the media fanfare. He's famous the same way Charlie Sheen is famous, for making crazy outrageous statements without a shred of evidence to back up his claims. And with the language, who is being little Miss Touchy?

[mrface19]

@Krydan2167 Haha... I love people like you.

[Krydan2167]

@mrface19 You mean people who actually believes in reality? How do you know you love people like me? Can you be certain that you don't really love people like me in one of Hawkings imaginary universes, and just think you love people like me in this universe? It is extremely possible that your hatred for people like was sucked down a black hole in this universe but still exist in parallel universe 17842; if so, then you just think you love people like me, but it's all an illusion!

[mrface19]

@Krydan2167 People like you that kick off over the smallest things... on YouTube.

[Krydan2167]

@mrface19 Whether such things as reality, absolute truths, objective moral values, or free will truly exist or not is the crux of the debate that this topic is about. There is no reason to believe that one can or should trust ones own mind if it is merely a product of a series of random and purposeless adaptations to help "you" better survive in a group. Sorry to hear that whether life has true meaning is such a small matter to you.... even on YouTube!

[mrface19]

@Krydan2167 Christ, I asked you a simple question and am now receiving a torrent of words that I have little interest in at this moment in time. Maybe one day, but not today. Kindly shut up. Thanks.

[Krydan2167]

@mrface19 You was the one who responded to my post first. Perhaps I mistook your question:But, If you don't want responses back, then don't comment in the first place, and don't feel like you have to keep responding to my responses. And as for "This Moment in time" According to Hawking's that is an illusion as well : )

Natural unguided Random Mutations, I just answered your simple question ; )

[TheGreatReprobate]

@Krydan2167 And speaking of 'necessary'.. what certainly isn't necessary is an all-powerful 'divine' being whose invocation explains nothing. Even if everything you state is accepted as true, the Jesus myth becomes no more necessary of plausible. "God did it" isn't an answer or explanation - evolution is an explanation for the biodiversity we observe. Even if proven false tomorrow, your alternatives explain nothing and are thus unnecessary/absurd in an even higher degree.

[Krydan2167]

@TheGreatReprobate And how do you fill in all the gaps in Biology? "Natural selection did it" The Gaps in cosmology "It was just the luck of the cards or you event 10^500 new universes to explain away the probability problem or an initial cause" And according to the B Theory of time held by Hawkins; life existed in the future before it evolved in the past"

[DancingTableLeg]

@Krydan2167 If you want to discuss this in depth, let's meet on Skype or something. I feel like we'll understand each other better if we talk live.

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg Even Hawkins in his book "The God Design" say's that are reality is model driven. Any model rather it be YEC or the Big Bang theory if both explain the big questions one model is no more real than the other model because our perception of reality is but an illusion. I don't believe you've fully grasp what they are saying. In a nutshell life and everything in it is an illusion what we observe is not what it actually is, we can never truly know the truth, we can only build models

[Krydan2167]

@DancingTableLeg We can only build models for our personal perception of the truth. Aka there are no foundational truths, moral values, right or wrong, good or bad, arrow of time etc... it's all one big mass hallucination.

If you wish to accept their warped understanding of reality, you are free to do so. I on the other hand chose not to.

[Hayleyfire929]

@top5alltime It was supposed to be setup for Hitchens to lose or otherwise suffer a phyrric victory as a "sparring practise" for the kids. Unfortunately for them, Hitchens annihilated Dembski without mercy, so they've since been trying to get the videos off of YouTube before it spreads. Of course, fundamentalist Christians don't understand technology ;)

[BlameRepublicans]

@Hayleyfire929 ha-ha!

[BlameRepublicans]

@top5alltime I think they invited him to show case the fact that Hitchens is ying of cancer. A subtle scare tactic by the holy rollers.

[Iambecome]

Brilliant, such an engaging man.

[Clifton100]

@Iambecome true that, true that