@TheGreatRL I thought too that the so called 'bio major' as he claims to be had a very shallow understanding of how to formulate his point which fails terribly because he lacks understanding of the proper use of words.
@xRocketNumber9x Does he also collect foreskins? do I have to give 10% of my wage to this Batman dude? O.o be careful with that guy @oldpiq..he's a blasphemer.
who are your parents ? they was just a way for you to get here . so it took sperm to make you but who put life in that sperm ? isnt it like frankenstein ! you have the body but you need something to bring that body to life . so your parents gave you the body threw sperm . but were did the life come from ? so i think it,s finaly time to shut you down we ben at it to long . can science take a dead body and bring it back to life .NO .so were dose the life source come from . by !
Professor Dawkins is a very, very patient man. I'm sure he could have turned his hand to a great many things but he has chosen to travel the world attempting to enlighten the blinkered. There can be no more difficult task upon this earth peopled as it is largely with still primitive minds. None of us will live to see the next phase of humanity but the era that comes will know no religion, no gods, no wars, no predation. In the current eon the above seems impossible.
@passwordpleaz A study was released recently that predicted religion will be almost extinct in some 7 countries within 9 years (ones I can remember are Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Netherlands), so it might not be completely out of the picture for a religion free country. But with the status of the US and middle-east, a religion free world is indeed sadly far far away...
What was the last guy talking about? "God said"...to whom? He never took the trouble of whispering anything in my ear and I don't know of anyone else he's done the favour for either. Dawkins got that one spot on.."well isn't that just too easy?"
I run into a lot of creationists, particularly here on YouTube, who are prepared to twist evidence and reason into the same kind of epistomological trainwreck as that first siily kid was. It seems to be in their training. or programming, as an attempt to bring any scientific enquiry to some kind of ridiculous stalemate with blind faith, which helps them to feel more validated, or even more emotionally comfortable???!!!
Imagine student having a ball attached to the ceiling with some kind of rope invisible from position of Dawkins and Dawkins saying he knows that the ball will fall. Dawkins doesn't know, he only thinks he knows.
@janhanjanhan Interesting analogy, but it doesn't apply because religious people don't know why the ball doesn't fall either. Taking your analogy, Dawkins might not know why the ball is not falling, and when he asks the student why it is not falling the student would say "it is god's will, he is holding the ball", guessing. And if later Dawkins managed to notice the rope and say "Hey, it's not god, it is an invisible rope" the religious person would reply "That's how god does it"... convenient.
if everything need to have a cause well god has to have a cause to existe since everything need a cause to be in existance and further more if their were nothing before the big bang well god is nothing
@TheGoodColonel Liberty University is a Christian University... and by the nature of his questions, he's sounds like a Christian Biology student... which would explain his confusion.
Darwin makes a very good point about God being complicated. And it is very complicated to understand how complex creatures were here in a few days of creation.
Having faith and keeping faith in God is very hard these days. It is impossible for human to understand God. Because God is outside time, matter and space. He is infinite. How can we understand something that is infinite? We can not.
@Jazzel93 How do you know God is any of these things? And why could the exact same arguments not apply to an infinite universe, or universes, which are also outside time, matter and space, and which we don't understand. I don't believe in magic and that miracles happen, I believe in the laws of physics. If God existed, why does he simply not put an end to all of this debate and show himself?
Consciousness is just a by-product of uniquely structured chemistry. We have the rare opportunity of enjoying it. Time should not be wasted dallying in superstitions and embracing irrational laws that paralyze life. Google Doe’s Account.
If one believed that god created the universe, then what created god?And what created the thing that created god, and so on and so on. This implies that there is a a chain of infinite measurement. Of beings creating beings who create beings over an infinite stretch of time. This concept itself suggests that the universe never began it just always has been existing. To assume that god created the universe is a contradicting paradox in itself.
@BeauJames59 if a ball falls to the ground every time and has always done it for 999999999999 years, then yes.. there is logical reason to believe it will in the future too.
@xxRockst4r All you have is an expectation. Think about it. You have no "reason" to believe, you have an expectation based on an assumption that the future will be like the past. Interesting stuff to get your brain around. Google "David Hume" and "causation" if it interests you...
@BeauJames59 no, because the ball has never, even once did anything else than fall to the ground and we have mathematics and physics to explain how it is impossible for the same ball in the same conditions to do something else than fall to the ground, that's not an expectation, that's a good reason to know, not believe, that the ball will fall to the ground.
@BeauJames59 Yeah sure, causality isn't fixed, but do you really live your life assuming everything will not do as you expect? That must be pretty stressful. THERE'S A CHANCE GETTING OUT OF BED WILL END THE UNIVERSE.
@emikochan13 ..BUZZER Sounding.. Time Out! Hello, didn't say I assumed there was no continuing causation, simply that I have no plausible reason to believe it. Reminds me of "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat", which has stories of folks with a memory loss so great, every time they met the Dr, it was like meeting a new person....(different, but that's what it reminded me of)
@BeauJames59 Sorry, I didn't actually mean to post something so confrontational, Silly caps, I was meaning to say both points of view are valid, though no causality is inherently difficult to prove, since the laws of nature are pretty solid under normal observable circumstances (outside quantum physics and near the speed of light if i remember correctly)
@emikochan13 I didn't take it too harshly, though the interwebs remind me that in these little typed spaces no one can see your face, your tone, your intent too well, that's why peeps are so rude....ME INCLUDED at times....
Look up the Hume and causation stuff, once you get your mind around it, it's pretty bizarre...we pretty much assume the future will be like the past, but it's hard to PROVE it.....
@emikochan13 hmm, I'm a Debussy fan, which lead to Maurice Maeterlinck, who wrote "Pelleas and Melissande", a drama Debussy turned into an Opera. Reading his biography, I thought, "Maeterlinck is a fatalist, and he ACTS on that belief" (smile)
@emikochan13 I'll never forget a professor setting up this question once in philosophy class so well, that so MUCH of what we believe will happen is based on assumptions for which we have no proof, that I half expected when he DID end up clapping his hands as part of the illustration, lightning would appear!
## Dawkins - like many Christians, it has to be said - has made a very basic, very small & very important mistake. He is confusing what is meant by God as cause, with what causality means within the universe. They are completely different. And then he insists that his reductionist mistake is an accuirate observation. He is insisting that his parody of the Christian position is the Christian position.
Since you have no 'explanation' for this creator of life...then not only easier... and simpler... and requiring 'no' evocation of magic... but also 'explainable' since there are actual explanations... and tests, observations etc that anyone can carry out to find out the 'acurracy' of the explanation!
Old stories on the other hand don't even qualify as 'explanation' ... so as far as explanations go... well.. actual 'verifiable' explanation wins over wild guess!
My 'reasoning' to explain it... is a lot simpler than yours...
If I see a dead bird in my garden I could assume that it got into a fight with another bird and lost the battle after a mid air dogfight over a worm or another bug....
I could go on to assume that this 'sounds' plausible' and its more than likely how all birds end up dead!
Then again I might just say... 'Here's a dead bird, Its definitely dead better put it in the trash!' And not simply make up such a story!
What you are saying is.. 'first assume god exists... now make another assumption that this God could use evolution as a means of creature diversifying'
Well that's two massively hypothetical 'maybes'. I'm sure if there were a God it could have come up with a better way of animals diversifying. I certainly could and I'm no God!
But I don't have to! All I need do is observe the evolution in action and remove the God and all of a sudden I don't need hypotheticals!
@getabible Regardless of whether one adopts a God or not... it is an absolute (universal absolute) that nobody on this planet knows everything... that's a fact... and proven to be so (see Heisenbergs uncertainty principle)
It is certainly NOT possible that all the knowledge of the universe is contained in a book a few thousand pages... when information NOT in that book exists... that is also a fact. Ergo.. I'm observably NOT wrong!
And as I said... only a fool would believe otherwise!
@getabible you haven't actually been listening to anyone offering you evidence is my guess... and that is a 'guess'
The fact is science will NEVER have all the answers... if it did... it would have stopped by now! since its still going you can assume it has NOT answerd all questions.
When someone DOES have the answers... or when the actual answer is available to you for research... then only a fool ignores it... and insists that an older unproven idea is more likely without reading anything.
All you can do is sit here blindly, demonstrating your 'faith'. Its an instant tie, noone will bust you on your faith or try to change you. If faith is enough then we can't touch you. But if your looking for fact or history in your religion, then you're fucked.
@Sounznice - what are you going to say if you die, and goto heaven and find out that the egyptians had it right, and not the christians?
There are literally 1000's of belif systems throughout history, each showing a formation of flaws, each attempting to explain what is around us without using rationality.
What are you going to do when you die and find out that Muslims are right and you're wrong?
What are you going to do when you die and you find out that the Pagans are right, and your wrong?
Sounznice you are suck a troll buddy. Your information is blatantly false. Notice how the majority here is disagreeing with you? They're doing that for a reason. And its not because they're all wrong and you're right. No son, its not that at all.
Well if the guy in the video (the second asker) can make up his own rules of God, so can I. From now on, God wants us to stop trying to suck up to him and to get on with our lives.
SounzNice: I don't think that he never steps out of the "convention box", as you say. But if you accept a timeless nature for God, why not accept the same timeless nature for the universe itself? Believing in God as a creator outside of time doesn't solve any problem.
Dawkins makes the mistake of saying a fully complex God came into existance at "the" beginning. What if "the" (or our) beginning happened eons and eons after God's beginning? What if God is outside of time? He never steps out of the "convention box." To say our reality is "the" reality shows his own FAITH - a trait he despises. Dawkins, as bright as he is, still has much to learn, yet he states assumptions as fact -yet another flaw. Other than that, he gives great speeches and makes good sense.
@SounzNice There are some astounding 'what ifs' there... and its not God alluding to them... its YOU!
To compound your what if's... what if the universe is software on a computer in someones lab! What if you are in fact the only being in the universe and it is YOUR creation...
If we go down the 'what if' route then reason is abandoned in favor of 'maybe'... its when the 'maybe' becomes 'definitely' with no evidence but rather insistence that the 'what if' is true, that makes a religion!
@SounzNice The beginning of the universe thing had a precursor... it was the orbit of the sun V's the earth orbiting the sun! In there science stayed quiet until it had evidence and then showed conclusively that the later was the case. However there were now so many 'what if's' in religion that had moved on to 'definitely' that even in the face of 'conclusive' proof... they still denied the validity of the science!
That's where a philosophy based on unreasoned argument gets you.... nowhere!
Fair enough... give me an example of this 'pulling information from their ass'
I always ensure that I'm clear on what the other person is saying.... 'pulling information' out of nowhere would indeed be incorrect... I'm sure than you have an example of where evolution theory does this...
That's not really specific is it... it would be very unlikley that any book or theory would have EVERYTHING wrong with it... I'd have to assume you haven't read what it is you puport to disagree with...
So in the absence of any actual objection what is it you think you can accomplish by NOT reading something yet disagreeing with it!
Isn't that a little academically ignorant? Darwin said there are turtles in the Galapagos... you think there are not?
It's all bunk. It remains popular because it feels good to believe there are no future consequences to our behavior in this life. Learn more and you will realize it it is all bunk. Fact is after the chess game is done, all the kings and pawns get put back into the same box. Start behaving better .. and thinking better.
Y'know if a failure to apply cause and effect... future consequences of actions were what atheistic philosophy led to then the prisons would be full of athiests...
The fact is that atheists are about 20 times less likely to end up coinviceted of a crime... that's based on the prison population in comparison to the total population.
behaving better? How would you know anything about my behavior?
As far as 'read' more goes.. I've read a book or more a week for over 25 years!
I think you need to sit down and question where it is you are getting your information from... In case you hadn't noticed... in case you missed it... most atheists tend to be academically minded...
They also tend to be brighter... and you no doubt have personal experience of that.
So if I were you... I question the information I have...and its source... and look for other sources!
Lastly but by no means least... evolutionary biology remains popular... becasue it has proven itself over the course of more than a century and a half... it has given rise to countless cures in medicine and new sources of food and agricultural technology.... You can't deny that food production has gone up... where do you think all that came from? Yep that's right... evolutionary biology and the new strains of wheat, corn, rice etc.
@SounzNice And since you have an issue with the now long dead Mr. Darwin... I'm sure you've actaully read his books and have a problem with somthing he asserted... please... point it out! Odds are a lot of what he said was either incorrect, left hanging for later research or since proven to be incorrect... the book is over 150 years old after all!
@getabible God's word is claimed to be written in over 40+ religious books so give me evidence that your man written words which are open interpretation and disfigured by translation is correct and you may just have a valid argument.
Atheists don't talk like they know all the answers, at least not the intelligent ones. Also, I think you should watch this video again, Dawkins really does make a very good point. And I could have worked out the answer as well, I was merely demonstrating a point.
Just because Atheists do not have an answer that they have evidence for does not make some cocked up answer from religion any more likely. Its rather like asking someone what 23498627 times 7627383728 equals and because they can't give you an answer, you answer 4 and suddenly that is correct.
You pretend your creationist argument isn't the most old and tired argument of religious philosophy. I used to believe it too. Just because we don't understand what created the universe that the god of Abraham certainly was the cause. I'm not asserting anything but skepticism of your assumption. Does petitio principii mean anything to you?
Extrodinary claims require what? Just because YOU or (any human alive) don't understand something, or don't have enough imagination to postulate something good, it doesn't mean you can just say "GODDIDIT" or even "WE'LLNEVEREVERKNOW".
Dawkins assumes that you realise he means that God is relatively extremely complex compared to anything in the universe. Otherwise he wouldn't be complex enough to create the universe and everything in it.
As since creationists say that something as complicated as the universe or life must have been created, then so must God. So who created God? Theists would respond "you didn't answer the question" and I would say neither did you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You're falling into the same trap Dawkins falls into. If you read my previous comments, you'll see where I noted that God, by definition, cannot be quantified or meaningfully related to anything within our realm of experience. Thus it is a logical absurdity to assign God with any level of complexity.
That's not even an argument. You might as well say you can't tell what color unicorns are with science, so they must only exist outside of corporeal reality. And this is evidence that they must exist and be also very colorful.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is nothing in the natural realm to suggest that unicorns exist. On the other hand, the very existence of a natural, contingent Universe necessitates the existence of a first cause able to transcend the physical laws and forces of the natural environ--most importantly, the law of causality.
Regurgitating Dawkins' tired (and logically absurd) analogies probably isn't the best way to win an argument. Also, if my argument wasn't an argument, then why are you arguing with it?
Have you been reading St. Thomas Aquinas? Although the leap he makes is absurd, you should read Kant's antinomies of pure reason. He discusses five questions including the "first cause" or "beginning of time." Kant shows that neither side of these questions has a logically supported answer.
Your assumption of a first cause is not based in reality. We perceive things as finite, but that does not imply a first or finite anything. The correct answer is we don't know.
Knowledge requires shared experience either through information or observation. If there is no shared experience, god comes only from faith. We don't know anything about god. People simply believe god exists.
Any logical argument that begins with something requires religious faith is a flawed argument. Either you know god exists or you believe god exists. If you knew, you could prove it or share this knowledge with others.
Faith can never be used to legitimately criticize science.
The immediate atheist response to a statement like this is usually to make jokes about fairies and flying spaghetti monsters but their inability to acknowledge this as even a possibility makes any intellectual investigation they do pointless. They're forced into a position of coming up with alternate explanations for what Christians know is truth.
For fun discussion without the usual Atheist/Christian ranting, check out my channel.
It's probably reasonable to say that the average atheist is more intelligent than the average Christian because as a group they value the intellect more than most people do.
When it comes to having an awareness of God they're at a disadvantage because of their total focus on that one aspect of what it means to be human. Intuiting something isn't really their forte.
Check out my channel for rant-free Atheist/Christian discussion.
In short, I would argue that our existence--the Universe's existence--not only implies the existence of a supernatural creative agent (whether you want to call it "God" or not); it necessecitates it. Energy and matter are conserved; they are neither created nor destroyed. Obviously, matter and energy exist, and they certainly aren't eternal. They were therefore created by something not subject to their laws, i.e., something capable of superceding (super) nature (natural).
@Snarky15 that would be a great argument if it didn't ignore all the other properties of this universe...that are only contained within this universe...and rely on the properties you mentioned to exist themselves...
Causation is one such property... and it requires space...and time in which to operate. It also came into being AFTER the start of the universe... so the question 'what was the CAUSE' of the universe?' is truly meaningless.
Neither causes nor effects can happen without causation!
In fact, I would argue that it's impossible. An event so far outside the realm of human experience (such as the spontaneous existence of matter at a point in time when, before, time, space, and matter did not exist) is a serious obstacle to such a broad (and in my opinion, overreaching) application of naturalistic methodology. Our experiences shape the way we view the natural environ and the laws and forces which it is subject to. Informally, this is the process of science.
Yeah, I've never really been satisfied with how that question turned out. But hey, being a sophomore biology major, I was a little nervous. Anyone would be, right?
Regardless, it should be obvious to any critically thinking person that Dawkins dodged my question big-time. There's nothing wrong with that; it was a very hard question to answer, especially considering the difficulties one runs into when trying to understand supernatural phenomena within a naturalistic construct.
Some evidence is obvious intellectual stuff such as the the universe itself being created from nothingness, the infinitesimal mathematical probability of the laws of physics being set during the Big Bang to allow life to exist, the life of the historical Jesus as recorded by first century biographers, and the God impulse that's implanted in every human being. The most compelling evidence is the personal connection many Christians have made with God..but that's for us to know and you to find out.
Does anyone know what that person in the crowd says in regards to the first questioner stating that he attends Liberty University and is a Bio. major? I can't hear it properly!
i am baffled by your ignorance.let me guess,you did good at school.and it was a public school.did you learn to walk in a straight line and raise your hand before asking a question?now go pray to darwin.
I did average at school. It was Catholic school. Dunno 'bout the straight line. Raised my hand now and then. Never prayed to Darwin but if there was really a god then I'd probably thank him for creating a genius like Mr Darwin.
I'll assume by what's implied in your grammar (and I know, I shouldn't bring that up on the internet, but this is just egregious), and what's stated in the illogical side of the argument you're on, that you did badly in whatever form of school you went to - which doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I can assure you - and that you've never read a book long enough to know the real meaning of the word 'ignorance.' And I know, you've read the bible, yadda yadda, so have I. I meant War & Peace.
well lett mi saye pissh off...your right my lack of good grammar must mean i am a retard..but at least i am a free thinker.unlike all you athiest's,i am an agnostic..which means i look for the truth..everyone else just already think they know what the truth is..soooo..go pray to darwin,bitch.
Equivalent to saying: 'Yes, hello, my name is Ryan Thomas, I've read the bible over a thousand times front-to-back, therefor qualifying me as a biologist. I have a few questions."
Quite comical. On a side note, Dawkins totally slaughtered those Jesusfreaks.
Hehe, that's pretty funny. I'm curious, what qualifies you to question my educational background? If you're not sure, then perhaps I can help you figure out the answer ;-)
And FYI, sadly, I've only read the Bible about 4 or 5 times through. It's a pretty good book though. You should definitely check it out!
Dawkins didn't argue against a super natural cause in his response. He is simply saying complex god(s) cannot be the ultimate answer because we are trying to explain complexity. It is "obvious to any critically thinking person" that to postulate god(s) as the 1st cause is a contradiction. You still need to explain god's complexity. It is not self-evident that god(s) solves the problem; it just starts over. It makes no difference if you say god is "super natural," because it's complex.
Complexity is a relative attribute; we only qualify something as "complex" in the context of something else. For example, Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest genome of any organism we are aware of. It is possibly the simplest (i.e., least complex) form of life. But is it simple compared to, say, the glass slide its being viewed on? Absolutely not! Therefore, a particular assessment of complexity can only derive meaning from a given point of reference.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(continued)
This obviously presents a problem when assigning a relative quality to something that, by definition, cannot be quantified or related to anything within our realm of experience. To call God complex, therefore, is a meaningless derivation.
The Universes existence necessitates a supernatural cause, which by definition cannot be understood or explained within the confines of naturalistic ideology.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(continued)
To assert that God needs a first cause is to erroneously ignore the super-natural quality that this being necessarily had to possess in order to BE the first cause (that is, the quality of self-existence outside of time), and that *is* a contradiction.
I find both science and religion hard to understand. I try to understand both. So far I have to admit that I don't see any real conflicts between the two. Perhaps if I study some more I will see the conflict. My feeling is that some people insist that there is a conflict when in truth there is none. I guess the mind sees what it wants to see. If you want to see harmony you will and if you want to see conflict you will see that.
i want ppl to believe what they want to believe in.if god brings you comfort then thats great but too much blood is shed over religion which cant even be explained.organised religion is stupid.god didnt make bombs n guns we did.science creates and saves lives...religion takes it
That's stunning. I'm just overwhelmed by your knowledge of the world today. /There's no conflict between religion and science,/ unless, of course, it's the conflict between, oh, biology and religion, chemistry and religion, physics and religion, that lovely branch of science dealing with the creation of the world and religion, which all get dumped, very mistakenly, under the term 'evolution.' In truth, the majority of what religion has a problem with has nothing to do with evolution at all.
Oh - and since religion is championing the cause of Global Warming and the depletion of the Earth's resources being a liberal lie, I feel compelled to add ecology and religion as well.
ARCHEOLOGY AND RELIGION - I almost forgot it, ah, silly me.
Dinosaurs walked around with humans, and all that. Historians, which are not really scientists, have been known to hang their heads and weep when faced with such blatantly ignorant points of view.
The first guy asking Dawkins, studies biology at a university? He doesn't seem to know really elementary terminology in science theory, such as induction and empirical method. And also tries to stump dawkins with scientifically naive questions.
He's making a point but still doesnt satisfy the question the kid asked. i think what dawkins would say by better expression is that although there may be a higher being which spawned the universe and life, it would NOT be a 'god' so to speak. we may worship it as a god-like entity, (ants worshipping humans?) but it would have to be more complicated than whatever it spawned, (a universal law) and it would have to have come about from a simple beginning also. and so on in a paradox...
There is no distinction between the two. Faith is that which you have no evidence for, such as a supernatural force. To be more accurate, there is no such thing as reasonable faith, as it could not be justified as reasonable for believing in something which has no evidence. One exists as a concept, while the other is simply a fallacy.
To you faith is blindly believing without evidence. The Christian concept of faith is different. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT YET seen. Faith is the way to look into the supernatural. It is God'sway to seeing. It is based on what God's says. You take by faith what God says, but you don't stop there. Having exercise faith, you wlll expect to see the evidence that God promises to give when faith is exercised. Do you understand what I'm saying?
"To you faith is blindly believing without evidence. The Christian concept of faith is different. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT YET seen."
You have admitted yourself that my statement that faith is believing without evidence is true. There is no way to look into the supernatural as the supernatural does not exist. You take faith on what god says? There is no such thing as a god, and if there is he sure hasn't said anything. I understand perfectly.
You said there is no way to look into the supernatural by presupposing that the supernatural does not exist. I said faith is the initial step into the uncertain. It does not stop there. If the supernatural is real, that initial step will lead to something.
The supernatural does not exist according to definition. The supernatural is not real, therefore that initial step never has and never will lead anyone anywhere.
The supernatural describes something existing or occuring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man. So how does this rule out the existence of the supernatural (by definition)?
not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.
The supernatural is something that does not exist in this universe. There has never been any indication that such a thing is even possible. Now, we cannot be 100% certain about this, as with anything, but it is fruitless to speculate about the supernatural as it is impossible to detect it... as it does not exist... so to discuss it as anything but fantasy would be inane.
There are at least 50 constants of nature. If any one of these 50 constants were to be larger or smaller by a billionth of a percentage point, there will be no life in the universe. The fact that earth is fine tuned for life is not by chance. Evidence such as this is one of the reasons Antony Flew, leading defender of Atheism for 60 yrs abandoned atheism to become a believer not so long ago.
So are you saying the universe or earth is fine tuned? It would be helpful if you made the distinction. Regardless, neither statement would be true. If you were to say that this universe is fine tuned, then other universes would not be. What does that prove? The fact that we may be in an improbable situation does not mean that it could not happen naturally. If this was a harsher universe, we would not be here discussing this. :)
The universe is fine tuned. If other universes exist and only this universe is fine tuned, then it would be greater evidence for the supernatural. Why, out of many universes, should this one be buzzing with life? If there is only one constant, there is no evidence. But 50 constants. For them to happen naturally ,or randomly, is to me highly improbable.
You have no evidence that this universe is "fine tuned". None whatsoever. If there are other universes, and it turns out that this one is one of the few that can support life, then that in no way is evidence of a creator. Life would come about in a universe that can support life. It's a rather obvious concept. As I see it, life would most likely form in almost any universe, but would have to be rather different in order to survive. (i.e. silicon instead of carbon based)
The solar system has 9 planets, for now. The earth is the only one that supports life for all we know at this point. Does that mean that the earth was created by a supernatural power? No. Why would it? The earth simply has a few factors such as its distance from the sun, its composition, its orbit, its rotation, that are a happy medium for life to form. Given more/enough time, it is likely that life will form on other planets too, such as on the less harsh planets Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
Now it's your turn to provide evidence for these other universes. "Duh. There's no god but other universes exist." The physical laws and the earth are both fine-tuned for complex life. The level of fine-tuning for the laws of physics trillions to one. "there's no indication the supernatural is possible" Well, what's the evidence that it's impossible? What percentage of what's going on in the physical universe do you think we fully perceive and understand?
If I shuffled a deck of cards and dealt us both five cards, (as in poker) the odds of you getting dealt a royal flush is 1 in 649,739. Now, if I got dealt a seemingly random hand, such as the 5 of hearts, 8 of clubs, 2 of spades, king of diamonds, and the ace of clubs, do you know the odds of that?
The number of ways you can choose 5 cards from a deck of 52 is 52C5 = 2598960
So the odds of the random hand is 1 in 2598960
but there a 4 different royal flushes to choose from so the odds of getting a royal flush, to me, should be 1 in 649740 (I get this using a different approach as well).
I cannot understand the 649739, but it says that on some websites and 649740 on others.
Sorry about that, I was bored and I realise it has no bearing on your fine argument.
LMAO "Do you draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith?"
"No."
TheBoredProle 6 months ago
"Matter can;t create itself."
Matter pops into existence all the time.
revjimbob 7 months ago
7:06 Did he say "Creatures"?
FeLiNe418 7 months ago
@FeLiNe418 yes... why?
billyboblingwa1 5 months ago
@FeLiNe418 Yeees?
WolfySnackrib666 5 months ago
Was that first kid joking about being a bio major at liberty university?
TheGreatRL 9 months ago in playlist Creationism
@TheGreatRL I thought too that the so called 'bio major' as he claims to be had a very shallow understanding of how to formulate his point which fails terribly because he lacks understanding of the proper use of words.
WolfySnackrib666 5 months ago
1. Batman fulfilled over 200 Comic book prophecies.
2. Batman makes 30 "I AM" statements. (ex: I am Batman)
3. There are 17 non-comic book sources that prove Batman walked on Earth. (many of them in movie form)
I hope you all accept Batman into your hearts. I don't want you to spend eternity in Arkham Asylum.
xRocketNumber9x 10 months ago 35
@xRocketNumber9x Does he also collect foreskins? do I have to give 10% of my wage to this Batman dude? O.o
intestinomedicino 10 months ago
@xRocketNumber9x Does he also collect foreskins? do I have to give 10% of my wage to this Batman dude? O.o be careful with that guy @oldpiq..he's a blasphemer.
intestinomedicino 10 months ago
I am god! i have made a youtube account! if you all do not subscribe i will kill and torture, your entire civilization.... AGAIN!
JoelB3783 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
who are your parents ? they was just a way for you to get here . so it took sperm to make you but who put life in that sperm ? isnt it like frankenstein ! you have the body but you need something to bring that body to life . so your parents gave you the body threw sperm . but were did the life come from ? so i think it,s finaly time to shut you down we ben at it to long . can science take a dead body and bring it back to life .NO .so were dose the life source come from . by !
thinkalott33 11 months ago
Professor Dawkins is a very, very patient man. I'm sure he could have turned his hand to a great many things but he has chosen to travel the world attempting to enlighten the blinkered. There can be no more difficult task upon this earth peopled as it is largely with still primitive minds. None of us will live to see the next phase of humanity but the era that comes will know no religion, no gods, no wars, no predation. In the current eon the above seems impossible.
passwordpleaz 11 months ago 2
@passwordpleaz A study was released recently that predicted religion will be almost extinct in some 7 countries within 9 years (ones I can remember are Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Netherlands), so it might not be completely out of the picture for a religion free country. But with the status of the US and middle-east, a religion free world is indeed sadly far far away...
Krazed2Kraze 11 months ago
in the beginning, man created god
GreatNorthWeb 1 year ago
What was the last guy talking about? "God said"...to whom? He never took the trouble of whispering anything in my ear and I don't know of anyone else he's done the favour for either. Dawkins got that one spot on.."well isn't that just too easy?"
AnnaSofiaR 1 year ago
I run into a lot of creationists, particularly here on YouTube, who are prepared to twist evidence and reason into the same kind of epistomological trainwreck as that first siily kid was. It seems to be in their training. or programming, as an attempt to bring any scientific enquiry to some kind of ridiculous stalemate with blind faith, which helps them to feel more validated, or even more emotionally comfortable???!!!
Talk about extreme denial!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago 13
Imagine student having a ball attached to the ceiling with some kind of rope invisible from position of Dawkins and Dawkins saying he knows that the ball will fall. Dawkins doesn't know, he only thinks he knows.
janhanjanhan 1 year ago
@janhanjanhan Interesting analogy, but it doesn't apply because religious people don't know why the ball doesn't fall either. Taking your analogy, Dawkins might not know why the ball is not falling, and when he asks the student why it is not falling the student would say "it is god's will, he is holding the ball", guessing. And if later Dawkins managed to notice the rope and say "Hey, it's not god, it is an invisible rope" the religious person would reply "That's how god does it"... convenient.
justatallguy 10 months ago
I am "A" God...
japeye62 1 year ago
if everything need to have a cause well god has to have a cause to existe since everything need a cause to be in existance and further more if their were nothing before the big bang well god is nothing
mystisme 1 year ago
Bat man revealed himself to me aswell. Batman is the new Christ. I read his comic and I can actually go and meet that author.
699backstab 1 year ago
It's funny how when he's done making a point, he has to move around and get a drink or something, 'cause he's got extra energy.
PACKyourSHITfolks420 1 year ago
I am the JUJU OF THE MOUNTAIN!!!!
Search "richard dawkins robert ford" in youtube and hear the real truth!! Your life won't be the same after that!
russellroom 1 year ago
That biology student doesn't even have a begnning of understanding of the very basics of philosophy... It's sad.
TheGoodColonel 1 year ago
@TheGoodColonel Liberty University is a Christian University... and by the nature of his questions, he's sounds like a Christian Biology student... which would explain his confusion.
AscendingParadigm 1 year ago
@AscendingParadigm He might find out about axioms one of these days. Hopefully.
SuperFantasticFox 1 year ago
Darwin makes a very good point about God being complicated. And it is very complicated to understand how complex creatures were here in a few days of creation.
Having faith and keeping faith in God is very hard these days. It is impossible for human to understand God. Because God is outside time, matter and space. He is infinite. How can we understand something that is infinite? We can not.
Jazzel93 1 year ago
@Jazzel93 How do you know God is any of these things? And why could the exact same arguments not apply to an infinite universe, or universes, which are also outside time, matter and space, and which we don't understand. I don't believe in magic and that miracles happen, I believe in the laws of physics. If God existed, why does he simply not put an end to all of this debate and show himself?
THthefirst 1 year ago
Haha liberty university what a joke
tlages 1 year ago
smart student
ExNihiloJimmy 1 year ago
Oh how Richard has changed since these first answers to questions about Cosmology. I wonder what he thinks about this video now?
aerycksmusic 1 year ago
Consciousness is just a by-product of uniquely structured chemistry. We have the rare opportunity of enjoying it. Time should not be wasted dallying in superstitions and embracing irrational laws that paralyze life. Google Doe’s Account.
techbesst 1 year ago
If one believed that god created the universe, then what created god?And what created the thing that created god, and so on and so on. This implies that there is a a chain of infinite measurement. Of beings creating beings who create beings over an infinite stretch of time. This concept itself suggests that the universe never began it just always has been existing. To assume that god created the universe is a contradicting paradox in itself.
Rikisven 1 year ago
Time out Richard! Somebody needs to read Hume on causation. There is no logical reason to believe the future is going to be like the past.
BeauJames59 1 year ago
@BeauJames59 if a ball falls to the ground every time and has always done it for 999999999999 years, then yes.. there is logical reason to believe it will in the future too.
xxRockst4r 1 year ago
@xxRockst4r All you have is an expectation. Think about it. You have no "reason" to believe, you have an expectation based on an assumption that the future will be like the past. Interesting stuff to get your brain around. Google "David Hume" and "causation" if it interests you...
BeauJames59 1 year ago
@BeauJames59 no, because the ball has never, even once did anything else than fall to the ground and we have mathematics and physics to explain how it is impossible for the same ball in the same conditions to do something else than fall to the ground, that's not an expectation, that's a good reason to know, not believe, that the ball will fall to the ground.
xxRockst4r 1 year ago
@BeauJames59 Yeah sure, causality isn't fixed, but do you really live your life assuming everything will not do as you expect? That must be pretty stressful. THERE'S A CHANCE GETTING OUT OF BED WILL END THE UNIVERSE.
emikochan13 1 year ago
@emikochan13 ..BUZZER Sounding.. Time Out! Hello, didn't say I assumed there was no continuing causation, simply that I have no plausible reason to believe it. Reminds me of "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat", which has stories of folks with a memory loss so great, every time they met the Dr, it was like meeting a new person....(different, but that's what it reminded me of)
BeauJames59 1 year ago
@BeauJames59 Sorry, I didn't actually mean to post something so confrontational, Silly caps, I was meaning to say both points of view are valid, though no causality is inherently difficult to prove, since the laws of nature are pretty solid under normal observable circumstances (outside quantum physics and near the speed of light if i remember correctly)
I'll have to look up that book you mentioned.. :)
emikochan13 1 year ago
@emikochan13 I didn't take it too harshly, though the interwebs remind me that in these little typed spaces no one can see your face, your tone, your intent too well, that's why peeps are so rude....ME INCLUDED at times....
Look up the Hume and causation stuff, once you get your mind around it, it's pretty bizarre...we pretty much assume the future will be like the past, but it's hard to PROVE it.....
BeauJames59 1 year ago
@BeauJames59 I've looked into it somewhat in the past, mainly in relation to parapsychology (the actual research attempts)
I'm a determinist anyway, so I don't worry about it :)
emikochan13 1 year ago
@emikochan13 hmm, I'm a Debussy fan, which lead to Maurice Maeterlinck, who wrote "Pelleas and Melissande", a drama Debussy turned into an Opera. Reading his biography, I thought, "Maeterlinck is a fatalist, and he ACTS on that belief" (smile)
BeauJames59 1 year ago
@emikochan13 I'll never forget a professor setting up this question once in philosophy class so well, that so MUCH of what we believe will happen is based on assumptions for which we have no proof, that I half expected when he DID end up clapping his hands as part of the illustration, lightning would appear!
BeauJames59 1 year ago
What the biology major guy was referring to as "reasonable faith" is pretty much an educated guess.
Calhor 1 year ago 2
## Dawkins - like many Christians, it has to be said - has made a very basic, very small & very important mistake. He is confusing what is meant by God as cause, with what causality means within the universe. They are completely different. And then he insists that his reductionist mistake is an accuirate observation. He is insisting that his parody of the Christian position is the Christian position.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 year ago
@getabible
Since you have no 'explanation' for this creator of life...then not only easier... and simpler... and requiring 'no' evocation of magic... but also 'explainable' since there are actual explanations... and tests, observations etc that anyone can carry out to find out the 'acurracy' of the explanation!
Old stories on the other hand don't even qualify as 'explanation' ... so as far as explanations go... well.. actual 'verifiable' explanation wins over wild guess!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@getabible
My 'reasoning' to explain it... is a lot simpler than yours...
If I see a dead bird in my garden I could assume that it got into a fight with another bird and lost the battle after a mid air dogfight over a worm or another bug....
I could go on to assume that this 'sounds' plausible' and its more than likely how all birds end up dead!
Then again I might just say... 'Here's a dead bird, Its definitely dead better put it in the trash!' And not simply make up such a story!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@getabible
What you are saying is.. 'first assume god exists... now make another assumption that this God could use evolution as a means of creature diversifying'
Well that's two massively hypothetical 'maybes'. I'm sure if there were a God it could have come up with a better way of animals diversifying. I certainly could and I'm no God!
But I don't have to! All I need do is observe the evolution in action and remove the God and all of a sudden I don't need hypotheticals!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@getabible Regardless of whether one adopts a God or not... it is an absolute (universal absolute) that nobody on this planet knows everything... that's a fact... and proven to be so (see Heisenbergs uncertainty principle)
It is certainly NOT possible that all the knowledge of the universe is contained in a book a few thousand pages... when information NOT in that book exists... that is also a fact. Ergo.. I'm observably NOT wrong!
And as I said... only a fool would believe otherwise!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@getabible you haven't actually been listening to anyone offering you evidence is my guess... and that is a 'guess'
The fact is science will NEVER have all the answers... if it did... it would have stopped by now! since its still going you can assume it has NOT answerd all questions.
When someone DOES have the answers... or when the actual answer is available to you for research... then only a fool ignores it... and insists that an older unproven idea is more likely without reading anything.
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Reasonable faith is blind faith. Creationists thrive on semantics to push their agenda.
Dawkins rules, creationists are fools.
zzytrewq 2 years ago 3
I am on your side... strawmanning your arguements.
anonymousstormchaser 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All you can do is sit here blindly, demonstrating your 'faith'. Its an instant tie, noone will bust you on your faith or try to change you. If faith is enough then we can't touch you. But if your looking for fact or history in your religion, then you're fucked.
mattdkfg 2 years ago
Comment removed
mattdkfg 2 years ago
@Sounznice - what are you going to say if you die, and goto heaven and find out that the egyptians had it right, and not the christians?
There are literally 1000's of belif systems throughout history, each showing a formation of flaws, each attempting to explain what is around us without using rationality.
What are you going to do when you die and find out that Muslims are right and you're wrong?
What are you going to do when you die and you find out that the Pagans are right, and your wrong?
mattdkfg 2 years ago
Sounznice you are suck a troll buddy. Your information is blatantly false. Notice how the majority here is disagreeing with you? They're doing that for a reason. And its not because they're all wrong and you're right. No son, its not that at all.
Fucking troll.
mattdkfg 2 years ago
I am God.
Viconiuz 2 years ago 30
Cool story bro.
hbgoddard 2 years ago
@Viconiuz No. I am.
KeithUnderneath 1 year ago
@Viconiuz, are you Batman?
cperez1000 1 year ago
*drops ball* shit how do i get it off the ceiling
spardaking 2 years ago
Well if the guy in the video (the second asker) can make up his own rules of God, so can I. From now on, God wants us to stop trying to suck up to him and to get on with our lives.
TheGreaterSatan 2 years ago
nice slap
lifemetall 2 years ago
SounzNice: I don't think that he never steps out of the "convention box", as you say. But if you accept a timeless nature for God, why not accept the same timeless nature for the universe itself? Believing in God as a creator outside of time doesn't solve any problem.
Morphetus 2 years ago
"My god doesn't need to be proved because he says so." Typical.
666satanification666 2 years ago 2
Dawkins makes the mistake of saying a fully complex God came into existance at "the" beginning. What if "the" (or our) beginning happened eons and eons after God's beginning? What if God is outside of time? He never steps out of the "convention box." To say our reality is "the" reality shows his own FAITH - a trait he despises. Dawkins, as bright as he is, still has much to learn, yet he states assumptions as fact -yet another flaw. Other than that, he gives great speeches and makes good sense.
SounzNice 2 years ago
@SounzNice There are some astounding 'what ifs' there... and its not God alluding to them... its YOU!
To compound your what if's... what if the universe is software on a computer in someones lab! What if you are in fact the only being in the universe and it is YOUR creation...
If we go down the 'what if' route then reason is abandoned in favor of 'maybe'... its when the 'maybe' becomes 'definitely' with no evidence but rather insistence that the 'what if' is true, that makes a religion!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@SounzNice The beginning of the universe thing had a precursor... it was the orbit of the sun V's the earth orbiting the sun! In there science stayed quiet until it had evidence and then showed conclusively that the later was the case. However there were now so many 'what if's' in religion that had moved on to 'definitely' that even in the face of 'conclusive' proof... they still denied the validity of the science!
That's where a philosophy based on unreasoned argument gets you.... nowhere!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Hey at least I don't pull ideas out of thin air and state them as rock solid fact.
SounzNice 2 years ago
@SounzNice
Really?... you must be reading someone else comments...where exactly did I make a non factual statement?
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@MumblingMickey
who are you? I was talking about dawkins and 90% of other evolutionists.
SounzNice 2 years ago
@SounzNice
Fair enough... give me an example of this 'pulling information from their ass'
I always ensure that I'm clear on what the other person is saying.... 'pulling information' out of nowhere would indeed be incorrect... I'm sure than you have an example of where evolution theory does this...
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
everywhere
SounzNice 2 years ago
@SounzNice
That's not really specific is it... it would be very unlikley that any book or theory would have EVERYTHING wrong with it... I'd have to assume you haven't read what it is you puport to disagree with...
So in the absence of any actual objection what is it you think you can accomplish by NOT reading something yet disagreeing with it!
Isn't that a little academically ignorant? Darwin said there are turtles in the Galapagos... you think there are not?
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
It's all bunk. It remains popular because it feels good to believe there are no future consequences to our behavior in this life. Learn more and you will realize it it is all bunk. Fact is after the chess game is done, all the kings and pawns get put back into the same box. Start behaving better .. and thinking better.
SounzNice 2 years ago
@SounzNice
Y'know if a failure to apply cause and effect... future consequences of actions were what atheistic philosophy led to then the prisons would be full of athiests...
The fact is that atheists are about 20 times less likely to end up coinviceted of a crime... that's based on the prison population in comparison to the total population.
behaving better? How would you know anything about my behavior?
As far as 'read' more goes.. I've read a book or more a week for over 25 years!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@SounzNice
I think you need to sit down and question where it is you are getting your information from... In case you hadn't noticed... in case you missed it... most atheists tend to be academically minded...
They also tend to be brighter... and you no doubt have personal experience of that.
So if I were you... I question the information I have...and its source... and look for other sources!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@SounzNice
Lastly but by no means least... evolutionary biology remains popular... becasue it has proven itself over the course of more than a century and a half... it has given rise to countless cures in medicine and new sources of food and agricultural technology.... You can't deny that food production has gone up... where do you think all that came from? Yep that's right... evolutionary biology and the new strains of wheat, corn, rice etc.
and you never seem to question its origin!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@SounzNice And since you have an issue with the now long dead Mr. Darwin... I'm sure you've actaully read his books and have a problem with somthing he asserted... please... point it out! Odds are a lot of what he said was either incorrect, left hanging for later research or since proven to be incorrect... the book is over 150 years old after all!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Well 6awd pulled himself out of thin air and most people state him to be rock solid fact. NBD man, NBfuckingD.
blackmesa31337 2 years ago
dawkins pisses on any creationist
laswap1 2 years ago 5
How do you know it's God's answe? 2000 years ago, some good fiction writer came up with the best trolling attempt ever.
Yanman88 2 years ago 2
@getabible God's word is claimed to be written in over 40+ religious books so give me evidence that your man written words which are open interpretation and disfigured by translation is correct and you may just have a valid argument.
docterblood 2 years ago
Comment removed
Yanman88 2 years ago
@Yanman88 yay for god the troll
docterblood 2 years ago
Atheists don't talk like they know all the answers, at least not the intelligent ones. Also, I think you should watch this video again, Dawkins really does make a very good point. And I could have worked out the answer as well, I was merely demonstrating a point.
DukeofWellington91 2 years ago
Just because Atheists do not have an answer that they have evidence for does not make some cocked up answer from religion any more likely. Its rather like asking someone what 23498627 times 7627383728 equals and because they can't give you an answer, you answer 4 and suddenly that is correct.
DukeofWellington91 2 years ago 3
You pretend your creationist argument isn't the most old and tired argument of religious philosophy. I used to believe it too. Just because we don't understand what created the universe that the god of Abraham certainly was the cause. I'm not asserting anything but skepticism of your assumption. Does petitio principii mean anything to you?
blobvision 2 years ago
Extrodinary claims require what? Just because YOU or (any human alive) don't understand something, or don't have enough imagination to postulate something good, it doesn't mean you can just say "GODDIDIT" or even "WE'LLNEVEREVERKNOW".
jacobromu 2 years ago
it's not faith, it's probability. everything is based on probability.
renxxa3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
god is infinitly simple
Dmactyjc133 2 years ago
Ahh, it's tag-team creationism! ;)
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
@Snarky15
Dawkins assumes that you realise he means that God is relatively extremely complex compared to anything in the universe. Otherwise he wouldn't be complex enough to create the universe and everything in it.
As since creationists say that something as complicated as the universe or life must have been created, then so must God. So who created God? Theists would respond "you didn't answer the question" and I would say neither did you.
Fa6ade 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're falling into the same trap Dawkins falls into. If you read my previous comments, you'll see where I noted that God, by definition, cannot be quantified or meaningfully related to anything within our realm of experience. Thus it is a logical absurdity to assign God with any level of complexity.
Snarky15 2 years ago
That's not even an argument. You might as well say you can't tell what color unicorns are with science, so they must only exist outside of corporeal reality. And this is evidence that they must exist and be also very colorful.
blobvision 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is nothing in the natural realm to suggest that unicorns exist. On the other hand, the very existence of a natural, contingent Universe necessitates the existence of a first cause able to transcend the physical laws and forces of the natural environ--most importantly, the law of causality.
Regurgitating Dawkins' tired (and logically absurd) analogies probably isn't the best way to win an argument. Also, if my argument wasn't an argument, then why are you arguing with it?
:-)
Snarky15 2 years ago
This is more sophism.
Have you been reading St. Thomas Aquinas? Although the leap he makes is absurd, you should read Kant's antinomies of pure reason. He discusses five questions including the "first cause" or "beginning of time." Kant shows that neither side of these questions has a logically supported answer.
Your assumption of a first cause is not based in reality. We perceive things as finite, but that does not imply a first or finite anything. The correct answer is we don't know.
weisschr 2 years ago
Knowledge requires shared experience either through information or observation. If there is no shared experience, god comes only from faith. We don't know anything about god. People simply believe god exists.
Any logical argument that begins with something requires religious faith is a flawed argument. Either you know god exists or you believe god exists. If you knew, you could prove it or share this knowledge with others.
Faith can never be used to legitimately criticize science.
weisschr 2 years ago
Well, I believe Batman created the universe.
If you read some of his comics, you'll find out that he's the truth.
I don't care if you believe in it or not.
Batman revealed himself to me.
I felt Batman.
You, however can pray to your imaginary "God."
Batman loves you.
misterblackdark 2 years ago 84
Hilarious. Epic win.
AbrielMcPierce 2 years ago
@misterblackdark : good one ;)
UltimateRajput 2 years ago
@misterblackdark
brilliant
deanjdk 2 years ago
@misterblackdark LOL'd
eldeberry 1 year ago
@misterblackdark how can u say batman created the universe? it was your ancestor the great ape who u felt lol
prime440 1 year ago
If it's true, how can Batman allow so much pain and injustice in the world?
oldpiq 11 months ago
Comment removed
Snarky15 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is a supernatural aspect to this world."
The immediate atheist response to a statement like this is usually to make jokes about fairies and flying spaghetti monsters but their inability to acknowledge this as even a possibility makes any intellectual investigation they do pointless. They're forced into a position of coming up with alternate explanations for what Christians know is truth.
For fun discussion without the usual Atheist/Christian ranting, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's probably reasonable to say that the average atheist is more intelligent than the average Christian because as a group they value the intellect more than most people do.
When it comes to having an awareness of God they're at a disadvantage because of their total focus on that one aspect of what it means to be human. Intuiting something isn't really their forte.
Check out my channel for rant-free Atheist/Christian discussion.
atheistfriends 2 years ago 3
(continued)
In short, I would argue that our existence--the Universe's existence--not only implies the existence of a supernatural creative agent (whether you want to call it "God" or not); it necessecitates it. Energy and matter are conserved; they are neither created nor destroyed. Obviously, matter and energy exist, and they certainly aren't eternal. They were therefore created by something not subject to their laws, i.e., something capable of superceding (super) nature (natural).
Snarky15 2 years ago
@Snarky15 that would be a great argument if it didn't ignore all the other properties of this universe...that are only contained within this universe...and rely on the properties you mentioned to exist themselves...
Causation is one such property... and it requires space...and time in which to operate. It also came into being AFTER the start of the universe... so the question 'what was the CAUSE' of the universe?' is truly meaningless.
Neither causes nor effects can happen without causation!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
(continued)
In fact, I would argue that it's impossible. An event so far outside the realm of human experience (such as the spontaneous existence of matter at a point in time when, before, time, space, and matter did not exist) is a serious obstacle to such a broad (and in my opinion, overreaching) application of naturalistic methodology. Our experiences shape the way we view the natural environ and the laws and forces which it is subject to. Informally, this is the process of science.
Snarky15 2 years ago
Yeah, I've never really been satisfied with how that question turned out. But hey, being a sophomore biology major, I was a little nervous. Anyone would be, right?
Regardless, it should be obvious to any critically thinking person that Dawkins dodged my question big-time. There's nothing wrong with that; it was a very hard question to answer, especially considering the difficulties one runs into when trying to understand supernatural phenomena within a naturalistic construct.
Snarky15 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some evidence is obvious intellectual stuff such as the the universe itself being created from nothingness, the infinitesimal mathematical probability of the laws of physics being set during the Big Bang to allow life to exist, the life of the historical Jesus as recorded by first century biographers, and the God impulse that's implanted in every human being. The most compelling evidence is the personal connection many Christians have made with God..but that's for us to know and you to find out.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Does anyone know what that person in the crowd says in regards to the first questioner stating that he attends Liberty University and is a Bio. major? I can't hear it properly!
AmorousAnteater 2 years ago
nice comeback..lol..
NotoTruth 2 years ago
Thank you. <3 I do try.
stalkercrow 2 years ago
Long live Richard Dawkins!!! He is the man! ^__^
gir908922 2 years ago 2
Dawkins sums it up well.
invictorium 2 years ago 2
Dawkins ROCKS!!!!
kusalaviro 2 years ago 5
Shit, he's so awesome :D
MightyGoldenBoy 2 years ago 4
Click the thumbs up here if you too are baffled by the stupidity of those christians...
kusalaviro 2 years ago 5
i am baffled by your ignorance.let me guess,you did good at school.and it was a public school.did you learn to walk in a straight line and raise your hand before asking a question?now go pray to darwin.
NotoTruth 2 years ago
I did average at school. It was Catholic school. Dunno 'bout the straight line. Raised my hand now and then. Never prayed to Darwin but if there was really a god then I'd probably thank him for creating a genius like Mr Darwin.
kusalaviro 2 years ago 3
I'll assume by what's implied in your grammar (and I know, I shouldn't bring that up on the internet, but this is just egregious), and what's stated in the illogical side of the argument you're on, that you did badly in whatever form of school you went to - which doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I can assure you - and that you've never read a book long enough to know the real meaning of the word 'ignorance.' And I know, you've read the bible, yadda yadda, so have I. I meant War & Peace.
stalkercrow 2 years ago
well lett mi saye pissh off...your right my lack of good grammar must mean i am a retard..but at least i am a free thinker.unlike all you athiest's,i am an agnostic..which means i look for the truth..everyone else just already think they know what the truth is..soooo..go pray to darwin,bitch.
NotoTruth 2 years ago
A retard could never be a free thinker. They, like you, wouldn't have the capacity to be so.
stalkercrow 2 years ago
"When I drop a ball..."
ROFL
URSExelcior 2 years ago 6
the asker is a bit of a Cartesian isnt he?
AProudAtheist 2 years ago 3
"I'm a biology major at Liberty University." --
Equivalent to saying: 'Yes, hello, my name is Ryan Thomas, I've read the bible over a thousand times front-to-back, therefor qualifying me as a biologist. I have a few questions."
Quite comical. On a side note, Dawkins totally slaughtered those Jesusfreaks.
Poisinn 2 years ago 19
Hehe, that's pretty funny. I'm curious, what qualifies you to question my educational background? If you're not sure, then perhaps I can help you figure out the answer ;-)
And FYI, sadly, I've only read the Bible about 4 or 5 times through. It's a pretty good book though. You should definitely check it out!
Snarky15 2 years ago
Dawkins didn't argue against a super natural cause in his response. He is simply saying complex god(s) cannot be the ultimate answer because we are trying to explain complexity. It is "obvious to any critically thinking person" that to postulate god(s) as the 1st cause is a contradiction. You still need to explain god's complexity. It is not self-evident that god(s) solves the problem; it just starts over. It makes no difference if you say god is "super natural," because it's complex.
KeithTaylor1 2 years ago
Ok, good. Now consider this:
Complexity is a relative attribute; we only qualify something as "complex" in the context of something else. For example, Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest genome of any organism we are aware of. It is possibly the simplest (i.e., least complex) form of life. But is it simple compared to, say, the glass slide its being viewed on? Absolutely not! Therefore, a particular assessment of complexity can only derive meaning from a given point of reference.
Snarky15 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(continued)
This obviously presents a problem when assigning a relative quality to something that, by definition, cannot be quantified or related to anything within our realm of experience. To call God complex, therefore, is a meaningless derivation.
The Universes existence necessitates a supernatural cause, which by definition cannot be understood or explained within the confines of naturalistic ideology.
Snarky15 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(continued)
To assert that God needs a first cause is to erroneously ignore the super-natural quality that this being necessarily had to possess in order to BE the first cause (that is, the quality of self-existence outside of time), and that *is* a contradiction.
Snarky15 2 years ago
Comment removed
KeithTaylor1 2 years ago
I find both science and religion hard to understand. I try to understand both. So far I have to admit that I don't see any real conflicts between the two. Perhaps if I study some more I will see the conflict. My feeling is that some people insist that there is a conflict when in truth there is none. I guess the mind sees what it wants to see. If you want to see harmony you will and if you want to see conflict you will see that.
phlewis86 2 years ago
i want ppl to believe what they want to believe in.if god brings you comfort then thats great but too much blood is shed over religion which cant even be explained.organised religion is stupid.god didnt make bombs n guns we did.science creates and saves lives...religion takes it
gazt1984 2 years ago
there is no conflict between religon and science...but there is between religon and evolution..
NotoTruth 2 years ago
That's stunning. I'm just overwhelmed by your knowledge of the world today. /There's no conflict between religion and science,/ unless, of course, it's the conflict between, oh, biology and religion, chemistry and religion, physics and religion, that lovely branch of science dealing with the creation of the world and religion, which all get dumped, very mistakenly, under the term 'evolution.' In truth, the majority of what religion has a problem with has nothing to do with evolution at all.
stalkercrow 2 years ago
Oh - and since religion is championing the cause of Global Warming and the depletion of the Earth's resources being a liberal lie, I feel compelled to add ecology and religion as well.
stalkercrow 2 years ago
ARCHEOLOGY AND RELIGION - I almost forgot it, ah, silly me.
Dinosaurs walked around with humans, and all that. Historians, which are not really scientists, have been known to hang their heads and weep when faced with such blatantly ignorant points of view.
stalkercrow 2 years ago
The first guy asking Dawkins, studies biology at a university? He doesn't seem to know really elementary terminology in science theory, such as induction and empirical method. And also tries to stump dawkins with scientifically naive questions.
laserbuddha 2 years ago 3
i gotta have faithafaith...baaaaaaby;)
NotoTruth 2 years ago
I gues it would be nice. 8-)
turtleboy84 2 years ago
He's making a point but still doesnt satisfy the question the kid asked. i think what dawkins would say by better expression is that although there may be a higher being which spawned the universe and life, it would NOT be a 'god' so to speak. we may worship it as a god-like entity, (ants worshipping humans?) but it would have to be more complicated than whatever it spawned, (a universal law) and it would have to have come about from a simple beginning also. and so on in a paradox...
fluentinsound 2 years ago
Comment removed
fluentinsound 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is stupid. Haha
He doesn't know the distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith.
3littlepinkpigs 2 years ago
There is no distinction between the two. Faith is that which you have no evidence for, such as a supernatural force. To be more accurate, there is no such thing as reasonable faith, as it could not be justified as reasonable for believing in something which has no evidence. One exists as a concept, while the other is simply a fallacy.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
To you faith is blindly believing without evidence. The Christian concept of faith is different. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT YET seen. Faith is the way to look into the supernatural. It is God'sway to seeing. It is based on what God's says. You take by faith what God says, but you don't stop there. Having exercise faith, you wlll expect to see the evidence that God promises to give when faith is exercised. Do you understand what I'm saying?
3littlepinkpigs 2 years ago
"To you faith is blindly believing without evidence. The Christian concept of faith is different. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT YET seen."
You have admitted yourself that my statement that faith is believing without evidence is true. There is no way to look into the supernatural as the supernatural does not exist. You take faith on what god says? There is no such thing as a god, and if there is he sure hasn't said anything. I understand perfectly.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
You said there is no way to look into the supernatural by presupposing that the supernatural does not exist. I said faith is the initial step into the uncertain. It does not stop there. If the supernatural is real, that initial step will lead to something.
3littlepinkpigs 2 years ago
The supernatural does not exist according to definition. The supernatural is not real, therefore that initial step never has and never will lead anyone anywhere.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
The supernatural describes something existing or occuring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man. So how does this rule out the existence of the supernatural (by definition)?
3littlepinkpigs 2 years ago
not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.
The supernatural is something that does not exist in this universe. There has never been any indication that such a thing is even possible. Now, we cannot be 100% certain about this, as with anything, but it is fruitless to speculate about the supernatural as it is impossible to detect it... as it does not exist... so to discuss it as anything but fantasy would be inane.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
There are at least 50 constants of nature. If any one of these 50 constants were to be larger or smaller by a billionth of a percentage point, there will be no life in the universe. The fact that earth is fine tuned for life is not by chance. Evidence such as this is one of the reasons Antony Flew, leading defender of Atheism for 60 yrs abandoned atheism to become a believer not so long ago.
3littlepinkpigs 2 years ago
So are you saying the universe or earth is fine tuned? It would be helpful if you made the distinction. Regardless, neither statement would be true. If you were to say that this universe is fine tuned, then other universes would not be. What does that prove? The fact that we may be in an improbable situation does not mean that it could not happen naturally. If this was a harsher universe, we would not be here discussing this. :)
anselmo666666 2 years ago
The universe is fine tuned. If other universes exist and only this universe is fine tuned, then it would be greater evidence for the supernatural. Why, out of many universes, should this one be buzzing with life? If there is only one constant, there is no evidence. But 50 constants. For them to happen naturally ,or randomly, is to me highly improbable.
3littlepinkpigs 2 years ago
You have no evidence that this universe is "fine tuned". None whatsoever. If there are other universes, and it turns out that this one is one of the few that can support life, then that in no way is evidence of a creator. Life would come about in a universe that can support life. It's a rather obvious concept. As I see it, life would most likely form in almost any universe, but would have to be rather different in order to survive. (i.e. silicon instead of carbon based)
anselmo666666 2 years ago
The solar system has 9 planets, for now. The earth is the only one that supports life for all we know at this point. Does that mean that the earth was created by a supernatural power? No. Why would it? The earth simply has a few factors such as its distance from the sun, its composition, its orbit, its rotation, that are a happy medium for life to form. Given more/enough time, it is likely that life will form on other planets too, such as on the less harsh planets Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
Now it's your turn to provide evidence for these other universes. "Duh. There's no god but other universes exist." The physical laws and the earth are both fine-tuned for complex life. The level of fine-tuning for the laws of physics trillions to one. "there's no indication the supernatural is possible" Well, what's the evidence that it's impossible? What percentage of what's going on in the physical universe do you think we fully perceive and understand?
donotresussitate 2 years ago
It can also be explained this way:
If I shuffled a deck of cards and dealt us both five cards, (as in poker) the odds of you getting dealt a royal flush is 1 in 649,739. Now, if I got dealt a seemingly random hand, such as the 5 of hearts, 8 of clubs, 2 of spades, king of diamonds, and the ace of clubs, do you know the odds of that?
1 in 649,739.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
Your slightly wrong there.
The number of ways you can choose 5 cards from a deck of 52 is 52C5 = 2598960
So the odds of the random hand is 1 in 2598960
but there a 4 different royal flushes to choose from so the odds of getting a royal flush, to me, should be 1 in 649740 (I get this using a different approach as well).
I cannot understand the 649739, but it says that on some websites and 649740 on others.
Sorry about that, I was bored and I realise it has no bearing on your fine argument.
eazylee369 2 years ago