1:34 When I was in secondary school, my physics teacher would always correct us when we said "degrees Kelvin". If only I could have shown him a video of Steve Weinberg saying it that way...
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Watch Dawkin's face as Weinberg's breaking it down to him... Looks like he just heard about outer space for the first time.....LOL 5:02
Just look at the frigin size of Weinberg's dome. You know how much brain you can stuff in that melon?!?! Jeez... Gotta be some quantum fluctuations goin on in there.
Weinberg is astonishing! His physics gets underneath some of the greatest truths ever searched for. It takes a lot to make Dawkins the student rather than the teacher. This is two men of great minds in a fantastic dialog.
A WONDERFUL discussion! The moment where Weinberg goes "It' s got to be at least... 1 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 thats a little disturbing..." (rubbing his face with the hand) PRICELESS! LOL! I love these guys! LoveLoveLoveLove!
@prabhatpalpal It ought to, cause it makes the terminology uniform. The official explanation why there ain't no degrees on there is you don't attach units to absolute measures, like radians, but only the "0" of the Kelvin scale is absolute: the distance between, the "degree" is the same size as the Celsius, which is arbitrary.
Although I admit that Steven Weinberg is a brilliant physicist, he just cannot explain the wonder of physics in an interesting and in layman's terms that much. I think to attract ordinary people to pay more attention to science, you dont need to go so deep to vacuum energy or dark energy or multiverse or etc. Just to it in a plain simple way like, say, Carl Sagan did. That would prevent the audience from falling asleep :)
For me it doesn't matter the number of universes needed, as long as it is a finite number. If it is infinite (even worse if it is uncountable), the multi-big-bang thing won't work.
It is interesting how when you look at the statistics on any youtube video about science or other intellectual areas the demographics of the most common viewers is male ages 35 to 65. That is every single video i looked at the statistics on. I feel left out; I'm 21 and a junior in college so maybe the demographics of these videos shows why my generation is full of dumbasses who drink way too much
@joehenger Weinberg is such a dick for saying things like the fine tuning argument may not hold true. Where does he get the freak'n nerve, eh? Let's burn his books.
1) It means it was calculated wrong (the theory might be incomplete);
2) One possibility is that something we don't quite know might be cancelling it, resulting the small value observed;
3) Example: 52345766598 - 52345766597 = 1 (the first illustrates the calculated value; the second the shorted wavelengths contribution; and the last one the observed value)
4) Because, in principle, 52345766598 doesn't have anything to do with 52345766597, and yet they are unexpectedly similar values.
If there is, supposedly, infinite amount of Sub Universes, then can there be an infinite amount of dimensions? If yes, then should people be able to learn of every single dimension in order to retrieve usefulness for their species, or knowing just neighboring, connected dimensions will suffice?
@Anastasiaology, I think the Multiverse theory means that we're each trapped in our own sub Universe, with no possibility of communication with the others (by definition: the fact that they can't communicate is an important part of what they mean by sub Universe.)
wrong wrong wrong barilium 8 nucleus plus a helium nucleus in a bound state is merely a cross derivative of 4 carbon based alpha state molecules suspended in a dormant subatomic purgative alpha state. Clearly if you arrange the nuclei of both into one it would merge.
@chebob2009 No, I don't think so. Dawkins is as impressed as the rest of us with the incredible insight Weinberg is giving us to the origins of our universe. Interestingly, it's worth pointing out that Weinberg never hesitates to say where science is just speculating (read still investigating). Compare that with the absolute certainty of our origins of the religious who, when pressed, say I have no evidence, I just have faith, i.e. belief without evidence. I could listen to Weinberg all day!
But does he know this planet has been visited by ETI for a long long time? so smart ye tdoesn't know the most important piece of info to ever face mankind, thats the second astronaut on record stating they saw ufos around the earth often! they all lying are they?
great people , respecttt.......at the same time fucking religious retards do not even understand even one of their words here,,,, fucking religion and fucking religious idiots,, consumers of our air
3. Blasphemies: if anybody will do it, is puniched very soon and anybody is free to try it, even right now! This one can come immediatly or later and it doesn't mean death or going to hospital (but can also happen).
4. In Bible, we find two (2) candidates to be called GOD, but atheists are arguing just with ONE,not with other pretendent.
1. In Bible we find a lot of prophecies which happened and are happening, examples: vatican, midle east, united states etc.
2. If anybody will follow what God asks (ex: praying), everybody will have whatever they want (ask). Note:Praying in a right form,following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible.
religion is not an idea. its a claim supported by gaps. religion helps scientists, they discover new gaps in scientific theories and scientists with intellect explore them.
hmmm unless a big bang is something humans will learn to achieve? in a distant part of the universe where matter is scarce? im just thinking of random ideas. sounds a bit intriguing though for me
You're just putting the word God in there whenever we don't understand something. Like you would have done with lightning a couple thousand years ago.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
of coursse the problem is...no one will ever be able to explain where life and where the universe came from, so of course there will always be faith. Science will fail to deliver the ultmate answers, so what is the point
@lokhtar I think god is an excellent word for a gap. God exists as much as something we don't know exists. Something non-existant we know has to have some explanation can be called god. But it wont respond or be a perosn, but you can chase it and try and achieve finding it. Once you find it, god disappears, and you go chase another god.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
20 years ago Dawkins was claiming scientists had modeled evolution with a computer which he demonstrated, complete with R2D2 sound effects. Of course, his claims are ridiculous in light of what we know today. Dawkins got an advanced degree in biology and went straight into peddling great scientist condescends to masses books. In reality, his only connection to science is that his name rhymes with Hawking. Weinberg, on the other hand, has made a significant contribution to science.
It was perfectly possible for people in the 1990s to model evolution with computers. I'm sure it could have even been done in the '80s as well. Possibly even as early in the 1970's too. People were playing video games widely on computers by the '70s and modeling evolution doesn't require much more than text, which is even less code than what most video games at the time were comprised of. Hardware generated sounds have been around since the 1970s, so that would have been totally possible, too.
And, I'd really have to disagree with you on the whole "condescending" bit. There is a line between explaining/teaching and condescending, and I find that Dawkins is pretty good at staying at the explaining/teaching side more than anything else. It looks to me that he's simply just trying to educate the undereducated masses in the science of Biology. This, I find is a glorious contribution to science, because writing understandable books for the masses is a great way to gain support.
Steering people away from the cancer of religion, faith and other hocus-pocus is indeed a significant contribution to "Science" and "mankind". Steven Weinberg has too. And those two contributions are apples and oranges. They cannot be compared in their direct effects.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Weinberg understands the physics of the early universe and he won his Nobel Prize for his work in particle physics. This is simply a photo-op for Dawkins, who is a con-artist.
You sit there saying that Weinberg is such a brilliant scientist; it's ironic that you throw the accusation of Dawkins being a con artist, when you yourself don't have any evidence. How very very... Very ;) scientific of you...
If you're going to call him a con artist, give me proof. A link, a URL, proof, something? Your word alone is about as useful as a fart.
@karlmahlmann I seriously doubt, that you would be able to find a scientist with more scientific integrity than Dawkins. For example Kenneth Miller (who is an opponent with respect to religious believes) has presented an example of this... serch: Kenneth Miller + Dawkins
"Defaulting to God is always a conversation ender. Where do you go from there? How can you prove or disprove and what even do you base your initial hypothesis on? It ends the inquiry. " <- where do we go from a multiverse? Please don't be ridiculous. Many believers in God keep asking questions and don't end the conversation.
Dawkins personally doesn't believe in God, nor is he completely against you, Jeff, believing in God. Dawkins' point is in frustration not with those who keep asking questions, but the majority who use God as The Final Answer, and thus stop asking questions. Also, these men are aware of the multiverse just being speculation at this point.. but that's precisely what Dawkins' asked for... he wanted Weinberg's speculation.
As to the dark matter comments: i guess the difference is no scientists is going to try to get the world to organize their lives around the concept of dark matter, nor will a scientist make demands of you and claim they can tell you the "will and wish" of dark matter. Ridiculous analogy in many respects, but it makes the point.
It's the consequences of unjustified beliefs that are important.
That's great if the math works out to a multiverse. It's just that everybody speculates and DEFAULTS to something. Why be so passionate against it defaulting to a Designer? This is not an excuse. Don't be so blind to the possibility, if the dark energy is amazingly fine tuned. It's just strange to be so antitheist or reactionary.
I find it strange that atheists are quick to jump on the potential that a Designer created everything? I see that passion to jump on it as kind of bizarre, malfocused.
You need to understand something. I'm not at all trying to "evangelize" in my comments. I'm just commenting on an observation I made when watching this video.
I know that just saying "God did it" doesn't answer the question..or it begs other questions.. but we don't have an answer yet why the dark energy, which makes up 74% of the universe seems "fantastically fine tuned" I read Victor Stenger's book, which is a good read, and he's a very accomplished individual. But we're all just speculating right now about befre the big bang.
how strange.. the atheist Weinberg admits that dark energy (which makes up 74% of the universe) looks fine tuned.
He just admitted that 74% of the universe looks fine tuned. I see the major irony in this conversation. I'm a doubting skeptic myself, but it's interesting that they speculate about multi-verses as an answer to this "fine tuning" instead of a Fine Tuner
slantythecamel, you know maybe when I was viewing the video, I had a different outlook of things--but I'm putting things together. Dark energy makes up 74% of the universe and Steven Weignberg is basically saying it's fantastically fine tuned OR there has to be multiple universes to account for the life in this universe and the constants to be the way they are. I understand in conversation and right now we're speculating, but some of us put faith in multiverses and others put faith in a Designer
You say you put "faith" in a Designer. Scientists don't put "faith" in anything, faith is by definition the opposite of the scientific process. Weinberg doesn't have "faith" in the multi-verse, it is simply a sound speculation based on the conclusion of calculations and observations we can do. Scientists don't invent these ideas, the science presents them and scientists persue them to either prove or disprove.
Furthermore, is not as though saying the multi-verse hypothesis is attractive somehow ends the conversation. Scientists dont put faith in the idea and call it a day, problem solved, lets move on. Saying there might be a multi-verse is only the beginning of the inquiry, the start of the discovery.
Defaulting to God is always a conversation ender. Where do you go from there? How can you prove or disprove and what even do you base your initial hypothesis on? It ends the inquiry.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I can't really agree that defaulting to God is necessarily a conversation ender. I do see what you mean, however.
Defaulting to God can also be a conversation starter. Or many things. Just like everything else. These guys (Dawkins, etc) see it that way, but Polkinghorne sees it as just the opposite. Who can say?
PEOPLE are conversation enders, not concepts. Anything can be a conversation ender if the person is a conversation ender. And anything can also be a conversation starter or whatever.
Well if I say to you "God created the universe", what are you going to say to that? If god cannot be proved or disproved, how does any form of inquiry proceed beyond that statement if we're discussing the why's and how's of nature? God as an explanation ends that line of discussion. If I make that statement, what conversation are we starting that is relevant to the question of why and how?
I have no problem with peoples belief in god, but claiming to know the mind of god becomes a problem.
If we're discussing the how's of nature, God doesn't enter into the discussion - introducing God is a non-sequitor in such a discussion. The why's of nature is a different sort of question, depending on context.
My point was that some scientists' belief in God is added motivation for them personally to explore the universe; that not all are like Dawkins, who seems to feel that such belief would discourage such pursuits.
I certainly agree with your comment on the mind of God.
Well, we also have to keep in mind that universes don't exist in space in the way that two cars near each other can exist in space.
To say that two universes can 'collide' is almost certainly meaningless - at least in the traditional sense of the word 'collide'.
The fact that we instinctively think this way is only a limitation of our brains. Dawkins calls this the 'middle world'. We can only understand what we evolved with. Large numbers, electrons and the multiverse are too weird for us.
I know exactly what you mean and agree totally! It definitely takes 2 very different types of brains. As a biologist I feel as though I have a sort of "logical intuition" that tends to be right, which often surprises me. But the way physicists think...is incredible. I can't even wrap my brain around it.
kjg28 - LOL As a mathematician I have a problem with the biological aspects. I hated chemistry, loved physics and all forms of math. Still, discussions like these are like gourmet cuisine for the intellect.. Sometimes we need this cross-subject bainstorming in order to rethink our predisposed ideas.
I think a lot of the claims of Dawkins' arrogance (I don't agree with the claim that he's arrogant) stems from the fact that he is so often asked the same type of stock questions whenever he opens himself up to questions. He's been writing for decades, yet is still treated as if he's a newcomer in the field by interviewers and debate opponents in many regards. Obviously you can all see how that would get annoying.
In what sense "no better"? Do you imply that superstitions and ignorance are equally good as genuine attempts to find explanation? Because they are not.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Genuine attempts to find an explanation" as you put it, aka speculation is no better than "superstitions and ignorance" because they are both meaningless. The Mutiverse guess is NOT science...Far from it...this cannot be proven. They talk about this as if it is scientific. This is mere story telling...
Ugh, I hate people who use their own ignorance of science as an argument against it.
"Well i can't read these here maths so it can't be true! If it doesn't make sense to ME (And I'm clearly smarter than Steven Weinberg, despite my lack of education and years of experience in the field) than it just can't be."
That is what you sound like. At least have humility to admit that maybe understanding of the origin of the UNIVERSE is beyond you, its not a big leap, it is probably beyond anyone.
Ugh, I hate people that claim their speculations to be scientific. The "evidence" they concoct are "maths" as you put it, to "support" their speculations. They then pass this garbage off as if it were fact. I make no claims; however indeed I will humbly claim that I don't know how the universe came about. Mutiverse guess cannot be empirically tested. Just as the existence of God cannot be empirically tested. Therefore it is no better than the creationist's account for the universe.
They concoct math? Are you kidding? Yeah they just write lots of symbols down that kinda look important and say its the origin of the universe. Oh wait thats the bible!
I'm not betting on this theory and it will probably go out the window like most scientific theories but at least its based on a rational evidence based pursuit of knowledge and not an old leather bound collection of assorted ancient myths.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, I am not kidding. Mathematical equations are fun and can be used to "prove" anything ones heart desires. How else can one say something that is empirically untestable can in fact be PROVEN mathematically?Does that logically follow to you?Or do you just have blind faith and believe what these "scientists" preach?This is hardly based on rational evidence, and no more valid than ancient myths.They are both equally meaningless in the realm of science.
You should read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He explains very well how you can know things a priori instead of relying on experience. I'll give an example:
We know that for a shape to be what we call a triangle the degree of the angles formed by the lines have to sum to 180 degrees. We don't have to draw an infinite number of them and measure them to know this. We understand it because in order for all the lines to meet at 3 different points it has to be no more and no less.
This is a very poor argument. Using your example, even though this can be known a priori to testing, it is still confirmed though testing. Likewise, there have been many "facts" that were assumed a priori and were refuted by testing. The multiverse theory is much more abiguous.
It's funny that you mention that specific critique, because as you know, in that critique Kant was clearly against this type of attenuation. He believed that the metaphysics must not attempt to reach beyond the limits of possible experience but must discuss only those limits, thus furthering the understanding of ourselves as thinking beings.
OH no not at all dude, I was actually trying to agree with you in a way. That is what you are taught in middle school science class but in reality the "scientific method" rarely works like that. Copernicus came up with elliptical orbits in a dream for example.
So my point is that while this stuff sounds unscientific in reality that is how discoveries are often made, science is not so definite as we think and we should always be questioning and looking for evidence no matter what.
I see your point. I think we will also agree that scientific discoveries like elliptical orbits should always be confirmed using the scientific method.
Wanna go back to the burning bush? Sticks that turn into snakes? A rain of frogs? Technicolour dreamcoats? Horns that blow down city walls? Or would you rather have whirling balls of hydrogen, black holes, x-rays and pulsars?
As arrogant and pompous as many people see Dawkins being, it is so pleasant to see him sit in childlike reverence of such a massive giant in physics. Mr. Weinberg is so brilliant and kind.....These are two true gentlemen of science....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
..........insulting, swearing, name-calling, derogatory, all of you who write and comment are not even worth the bother of writing to. Listen to Roy Masters. He'll tear them apart.
It is kind of weird how some say that science doesn't provide any "real answers" to "big questions". Well when i listen to Weinberg, it is whell of alot better info than any scripture has ever given.
Whaddya mean Caleb? That YOU'RE bored or that he (Weinberg? Dawkins?) is boring? If you're gonna write something, then write something that makes sense. My guess is that it's you who are bored because you don't understand what they're talking about. You should switch to MTV,you'll feel more at home there...
Could anyone explain to me how 'the dark energy' can actually be measured?..lol..my degree is in physics and mathematics but i ended up an english teacher in asia...just trying to use the internet to get back to my roots again....
would you like him to get into the complexities of biology, such as protein folding and watch as Weinberg sits and nods? These 2 brilliant men are humans who together are trying to work to better there own understandings of what we know and snickering at a biologists for not understanding advanced physics makes you look like a total asshat.
Funny how these videos somehow started with some kind of religious something, and then it tangents waaaaay off into a detailed explanation of some physics theories.
These guys give me a hard on!
mikewebthree 1 week ago
1:34 When I was in secondary school, my physics teacher would always correct us when we said "degrees Kelvin". If only I could have shown him a video of Steve Weinberg saying it that way...
Md2802 2 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
7:25 that face: "I don't know what the fuck he's talking about"
sophocrat 3 months ago in playlist Steven Weinberg Discussion - Richard Dawkins 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
I hope genetic engineering can give me a brain like one of these guys one day. : )
ZachRose88 5 months ago 4
A tip to anyone trying to look smart, don't sit next to Steven Weinberg.
tennis12456 7 months ago 9
@tennis12456 lol
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
Watch Dawkin's face as Weinberg's breaking it down to him... Looks like he just heard about outer space for the first time.....LOL 5:02
Just look at the frigin size of Weinberg's dome. You know how much brain you can stuff in that melon?!?! Jeez... Gotta be some quantum fluctuations goin on in there.
2eelShmeal 7 months ago in playlist Dawkins awed by Weinberg
Weinberg is astonishing! His physics gets underneath some of the greatest truths ever searched for. It takes a lot to make Dawkins the student rather than the teacher. This is two men of great minds in a fantastic dialog.
SIMKINETICS 9 months ago
Carl Sagan called the multiverse the 'cosmos'. I think that is a more descriptive word.
reinforcedpenisstem 10 months ago in playlist Steven Weinberg Discussion - Richard Dawkins 4
A WONDERFUL discussion! The moment where Weinberg goes "It' s got to be at least... 1 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 thats a little disturbing..." (rubbing his face with the hand) PRICELESS! LOL! I love these guys! LoveLoveLoveLove!
tengilla 1 year ago 10
Oh my God (no) he said 1 degree Kelvin?? Kelvin does NOT accompany degree, please!!
prabhatpalpal 1 year ago
@prabhatpalpal It ought to, cause it makes the terminology uniform. The official explanation why there ain't no degrees on there is you don't attach units to absolute measures, like radians, but only the "0" of the Kelvin scale is absolute: the distance between, the "degree" is the same size as the Celsius, which is arbitrary.
TaterGumfries 1 year ago
Although I admit that Steven Weinberg is a brilliant physicist, he just cannot explain the wonder of physics in an interesting and in layman's terms that much. I think to attract ordinary people to pay more attention to science, you dont need to go so deep to vacuum energy or dark energy or multiverse or etc. Just to it in a plain simple way like, say, Carl Sagan did. That would prevent the audience from falling asleep :)
ktawut 1 year ago
@ktawut I find it facinating and interesting including friends too. I think he comes across very well.
spareaxe 1 year ago
@ktawut Yes, that's true, but one cannot help but feel a sense of wonder when he talks about certain ideas.
ClamCrunchy 9 months ago
For me it doesn't matter the number of universes needed, as long as it is a finite number. If it is infinite (even worse if it is uncountable), the multi-big-bang thing won't work.
WoodCroftwoodcroft 1 year ago
Why do people hate Weinberg?
Xiuxiu1121 1 year ago
It is interesting how when you look at the statistics on any youtube video about science or other intellectual areas the demographics of the most common viewers is male ages 35 to 65. That is every single video i looked at the statistics on. I feel left out; I'm 21 and a junior in college so maybe the demographics of these videos shows why my generation is full of dumbasses who drink way too much
MVT44 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This government sponsored Antichrist Jew homosexual is just riding the gravy train. LOL at you bunch of idiotic evolutards.
thechessstick 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperSharko 1 year ago
Weinberg, everybody in physics knows you are a collosal asshole.
joehenger 1 year ago
@joehenger Weinberg is such a dick for saying things like the fine tuning argument may not hold true. Where does he get the freak'n nerve, eh? Let's burn his books.
killugh 1 year ago
To any physics nut,
What does Weinberg mean when he says the energy calculated is 56 orders of magnitude larger than the observed value? what does that imply?
And how do contributions from shorter wavelengths cancel out with an accuracy of 56 decimal places? Why is it disturbing? Thanks
halubalu 1 year ago
@halubalu
1) It means it was calculated wrong (the theory might be incomplete);
2) One possibility is that something we don't quite know might be cancelling it, resulting the small value observed;
3) Example: 52345766598 - 52345766597 = 1 (the first illustrates the calculated value; the second the shorted wavelengths contribution; and the last one the observed value)
4) Because, in principle, 52345766598 doesn't have anything to do with 52345766597, and yet they are unexpectedly similar values.
WoodCroftwoodcroft 1 year ago
thank you
eoinroe 1 year ago
If there is, supposedly, infinite amount of Sub Universes, then can there be an infinite amount of dimensions? If yes, then should people be able to learn of every single dimension in order to retrieve usefulness for their species, or knowing just neighboring, connected dimensions will suffice?
Anastasiaology 1 year ago
@Anastasiaology, I think the Multiverse theory means that we're each trapped in our own sub Universe, with no possibility of communication with the others (by definition: the fact that they can't communicate is an important part of what they mean by sub Universe.)
AlanCanon2222 1 year ago
wrong wrong wrong barilium 8 nucleus plus a helium nucleus in a bound state is merely a cross derivative of 4 carbon based alpha state molecules suspended in a dormant subatomic purgative alpha state. Clearly if you arrange the nuclei of both into one it would merge.
zorbatheok 1 year ago
Lol Dawkins at 7:22
"Shut the hell up old man. This is supposed to be an interview not a lecture"
chebob2009 1 year ago
@chebob2009 No, I don't think so. Dawkins is as impressed as the rest of us with the incredible insight Weinberg is giving us to the origins of our universe. Interestingly, it's worth pointing out that Weinberg never hesitates to say where science is just speculating (read still investigating). Compare that with the absolute certainty of our origins of the religious who, when pressed, say I have no evidence, I just have faith, i.e. belief without evidence. I could listen to Weinberg all day!
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
But does he know this planet has been visited by ETI for a long long time? so smart ye tdoesn't know the most important piece of info to ever face mankind, thats the second astronaut on record stating they saw ufos around the earth often! they all lying are they?
Helios601 1 year ago
I like listening to brilliant people talk even when I have no idea what they're talking about.
cotchery 1 year ago
great people , respecttt.......at the same time fucking religious retards do not even understand even one of their words here,,,, fucking religion and fucking religious idiots,, consumers of our air
turnmeonn 1 year ago
5. Mostly atheist, are against GOD's morality and justice but never refer the same to other candidate: satan.
6. Bible maintans evolution after creation, earth have billions of years etc.
Atheism is a dead concept.
CMVD777 1 year ago
@CMVD777
Fucking spammer.
BohemianBlasphemy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5. Mostly atheist, are against GOD's morality and justice but never refer the same to other candidate: satan.
6. Bible maintans evolution after creation, earth have billions of years etc.
Atheism is a dead concept.
CMVD777 1 year ago
3. Blasphemies: if anybody will do it, is puniched very soon and anybody is free to try it, even right now! This one can come immediatly or later and it doesn't mean death or going to hospital (but can also happen).
4. In Bible, we find two (2) candidates to be called GOD, but atheists are arguing just with ONE,not with other pretendent.
CMVD777 1 year ago
Comment removed
DaggerThroatFuck 1 year ago
@CMVD777
lol! nice joke man
andresordo 1 year ago
God exist! evidences:
1. In Bible we find a lot of prophecies which happened and are happening, examples: vatican, midle east, united states etc.
2. If anybody will follow what God asks (ex: praying), everybody will have whatever they want (ask). Note:Praying in a right form,following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible.
CMVD777 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
Wintblash 1 year ago
The Nature of Reality is just utterly fascinating.
zthechainz 2 years ago 19
@zthechainz Oh, the truth in that.
CurtisDunnChannel 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
No we are all sure you have evidence. You're very special, I'm proud of you.
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
oh look, an insulter. The first sign of a closed mind.
DLPBurke 2 years ago
huh? who?
piporob2001 2 years ago
I have thought, They are making up more wild theories than the ones they are leaving behind.
DLPBurke 2 years ago
@DLPBurke the exact purpose of idea exploration
piporob2001 2 years ago
"the ones they are trying to get rid of" being Religion.
DLPBurke 2 years ago
religion is not an idea. its a claim supported by gaps. religion helps scientists, they discover new gaps in scientific theories and scientists with intellect explore them.
piporob2001 2 years ago
god is an idea. So is a creator or overseer. It is an idea.
DLPBurke 2 years ago
i guess i missspoke, nevertheless its usless to try to explain the world by saying god did it
piporob2001 2 years ago
Well I agree it is useless, but it is equally useless to try and say what came before the big bang, and there my friend is the problem.
DLPBurke 2 years ago
hmmm unless a big bang is something humans will learn to achieve? in a distant part of the universe where matter is scarce? im just thinking of random ideas. sounds a bit intriguing though for me
piporob2001 2 years ago
and my point is that these 2 are conjuring up things which are just as "implausible".
DLPBurke 2 years ago
I didn't get that impression at all.
Did you watch the first part, where they discuss the concept of God and its explanatory value?
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I kinda agree. I think they are actualy making up even more far fetched ideas than the one they are trying to get rid of hahaha
DLPBurke 2 years ago
1 String Theory ? Okay...
aerycksmusic 2 years ago
You're just putting the word God in there whenever we don't understand something. Like you would have done with lightning a couple thousand years ago.
lokhtar 2 years ago 62
This comment has received too many negative votes show
of coursse the problem is...no one will ever be able to explain where life and where the universe came from, so of course there will always be faith. Science will fail to deliver the ultmate answers, so what is the point
DLPBurke 2 years ago
@lokhtar I think god is an excellent word for a gap. God exists as much as something we don't know exists. Something non-existant we know has to have some explanation can be called god. But it wont respond or be a perosn, but you can chase it and try and achieve finding it. Once you find it, god disappears, and you go chase another god.
Kan2209 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THE WORLD ENDS IN 2012!!!!!!!!
TheJawsusNSexmanShow 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
When he was talking about helium 8, I think he made a physics joke that only a physicist could appreciate 3:26
rugs729 2 years ago 4
I have a problem with people who say god spoke to me.
john5o 2 years ago 56
@john5o me too! Just go's to show not all the loony s are locked up.
Ingham818181 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Steven Weinberg is Nobel laureate in Physics. What is he doing in the same room the with snake-oil salesman R. Dawkins?
karlmahlmann 2 years ago
Why exactly is it that you would call Dawkins a "Snake-oil salesman"? I don't understand.
Onirayushizobura 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
20 years ago Dawkins was claiming scientists had modeled evolution with a computer which he demonstrated, complete with R2D2 sound effects. Of course, his claims are ridiculous in light of what we know today. Dawkins got an advanced degree in biology and went straight into peddling great scientist condescends to masses books. In reality, his only connection to science is that his name rhymes with Hawking. Weinberg, on the other hand, has made a significant contribution to science.
karlmahlmann 2 years ago
It was perfectly possible for people in the 1990s to model evolution with computers. I'm sure it could have even been done in the '80s as well. Possibly even as early in the 1970's too. People were playing video games widely on computers by the '70s and modeling evolution doesn't require much more than text, which is even less code than what most video games at the time were comprised of. Hardware generated sounds have been around since the 1970s, so that would have been totally possible, too.
Onirayushizobura 2 years ago
And, I'd really have to disagree with you on the whole "condescending" bit. There is a line between explaining/teaching and condescending, and I find that Dawkins is pretty good at staying at the explaining/teaching side more than anything else. It looks to me that he's simply just trying to educate the undereducated masses in the science of Biology. This, I find is a glorious contribution to science, because writing understandable books for the masses is a great way to gain support.
Onirayushizobura 2 years ago
@karlmahlmann
Steering people away from the cancer of religion, faith and other hocus-pocus is indeed a significant contribution to "Science" and "mankind". Steven Weinberg has too. And those two contributions are apples and oranges. They cannot be compared in their direct effects.
gunghojoeno 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Weinberg understands the physics of the early universe and he won his Nobel Prize for his work in particle physics. This is simply a photo-op for Dawkins, who is a con-artist.
karlmahlmann 2 years ago
@karlmahlmann
You are again resorting to ad-hominem while ignoring the effects of his writings.
gunghojoeno 2 years ago
why a con artist
donnyab 2 years ago
@karlmahlmann
What makes you say he's a con artist?
You sit there saying that Weinberg is such a brilliant scientist; it's ironic that you throw the accusation of Dawkins being a con artist, when you yourself don't have any evidence. How very very... Very ;) scientific of you...
If you're going to call him a con artist, give me proof. A link, a URL, proof, something? Your word alone is about as useful as a fart.
MurderMan11 1 year ago
@karlmahlmann I seriously doubt, that you would be able to find a scientist with more scientific integrity than Dawkins. For example Kenneth Miller (who is an opponent with respect to religious believes) has presented an example of this... serch: Kenneth Miller + Dawkins
SittingDuckDK 1 year ago
@Onirayushizobura
Snake oil salesman are the ones selling religion.
nolobede 2 years ago
I can't argue with you there.
Onirayushizobura 2 years ago
"Defaulting to God is always a conversation ender. Where do you go from there? How can you prove or disprove and what even do you base your initial hypothesis on? It ends the inquiry. " <- where do we go from a multiverse? Please don't be ridiculous. Many believers in God keep asking questions and don't end the conversation.
jeffbrown8 2 years ago
Dawkins personally doesn't believe in God, nor is he completely against you, Jeff, believing in God. Dawkins' point is in frustration not with those who keep asking questions, but the majority who use God as The Final Answer, and thus stop asking questions. Also, these men are aware of the multiverse just being speculation at this point.. but that's precisely what Dawkins' asked for... he wanted Weinberg's speculation.
Baldingchimp 2 years ago 2
Dawkins is all giddy!
Buckman82 2 years ago 3
As to the dark matter comments: i guess the difference is no scientists is going to try to get the world to organize their lives around the concept of dark matter, nor will a scientist make demands of you and claim they can tell you the "will and wish" of dark matter. Ridiculous analogy in many respects, but it makes the point.
It's the consequences of unjustified beliefs that are important.
slantythecamel 2 years ago 3
That's great if the math works out to a multiverse. It's just that everybody speculates and DEFAULTS to something. Why be so passionate against it defaulting to a Designer? This is not an excuse. Don't be so blind to the possibility, if the dark energy is amazingly fine tuned. It's just strange to be so antitheist or reactionary.
jeffbrown8 2 years ago
I find it strange that atheists are quick to jump on the potential that a Designer created everything? I see that passion to jump on it as kind of bizarre, malfocused.
You need to understand something. I'm not at all trying to "evangelize" in my comments. I'm just commenting on an observation I made when watching this video.
jeffbrown8 2 years ago
I know that just saying "God did it" doesn't answer the question..or it begs other questions.. but we don't have an answer yet why the dark energy, which makes up 74% of the universe seems "fantastically fine tuned" I read Victor Stenger's book, which is a good read, and he's a very accomplished individual. But we're all just speculating right now about befre the big bang.
jeffbrown8 2 years ago
Utterly brilliant.
zthechainz 2 years ago
how strange.. the atheist Weinberg admits that dark energy (which makes up 74% of the universe) looks fine tuned.
He just admitted that 74% of the universe looks fine tuned. I see the major irony in this conversation. I'm a doubting skeptic myself, but it's interesting that they speculate about multi-verses as an answer to this "fine tuning" instead of a Fine Tuner
jeffbrown8 2 years ago
I'm afraid I don't see the irony.
There's a huge difference in drawing conclusions (even if speculative) based on calculations, observations, and an understanding of physics...
.. to just saying "Well god did it."
See the difference? If you don't get the difference, you don't get the difference.
slantythecamel 2 years ago
slantythecamel, you know maybe when I was viewing the video, I had a different outlook of things--but I'm putting things together. Dark energy makes up 74% of the universe and Steven Weignberg is basically saying it's fantastically fine tuned OR there has to be multiple universes to account for the life in this universe and the constants to be the way they are. I understand in conversation and right now we're speculating, but some of us put faith in multiverses and others put faith in a Designer
jeffbrown8 2 years ago
You say you put "faith" in a Designer. Scientists don't put "faith" in anything, faith is by definition the opposite of the scientific process. Weinberg doesn't have "faith" in the multi-verse, it is simply a sound speculation based on the conclusion of calculations and observations we can do. Scientists don't invent these ideas, the science presents them and scientists persue them to either prove or disprove.
(cont...)
slantythecamel 2 years ago 6
It's about discovery and curiosity and searching for truth. Is that anything similar to defaulting to a "Designer" for your explanations?
slantythecamel 2 years ago 3
Furthermore, is not as though saying the multi-verse hypothesis is attractive somehow ends the conversation. Scientists dont put faith in the idea and call it a day, problem solved, lets move on. Saying there might be a multi-verse is only the beginning of the inquiry, the start of the discovery.
Defaulting to God is always a conversation ender. Where do you go from there? How can you prove or disprove and what even do you base your initial hypothesis on? It ends the inquiry.
slantythecamel 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can't really agree that defaulting to God is necessarily a conversation ender. I do see what you mean, however.
Defaulting to God can also be a conversation starter. Or many things. Just like everything else. These guys (Dawkins, etc) see it that way, but Polkinghorne sees it as just the opposite. Who can say?
PEOPLE are conversation enders, not concepts. Anything can be a conversation ender if the person is a conversation ender. And anything can also be a conversation starter or whatever.
Terry5135 2 years ago
Well if I say to you "God created the universe", what are you going to say to that? If god cannot be proved or disproved, how does any form of inquiry proceed beyond that statement if we're discussing the why's and how's of nature? God as an explanation ends that line of discussion. If I make that statement, what conversation are we starting that is relevant to the question of why and how?
I have no problem with peoples belief in god, but claiming to know the mind of god becomes a problem.
slantythecamel 2 years ago 6
If we're discussing the how's of nature, God doesn't enter into the discussion - introducing God is a non-sequitor in such a discussion. The why's of nature is a different sort of question, depending on context.
My point was that some scientists' belief in God is added motivation for them personally to explore the universe; that not all are like Dawkins, who seems to feel that such belief would discourage such pursuits.
I certainly agree with your comment on the mind of God.
Terry5135 2 years ago
Good point.
gn889 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's about discovery and curiosity and searching for truth. Is that anything similar to defaulting to a "Designer" for your explanations?
slantythecamel 2 years ago
I'm a jiggly wiggly bear.
balloonsrise 2 years ago
aka religion..
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
Comment removed
andyx1205 3 years ago
Long live science.
classiquebonita 3 years ago 9
What will happen when universes collide?
RoninSanjuro 3 years ago
They wont - theyre created one after another. Until finally one arises that neither expands too fast nor collapses immediatly
T3rraBahamut 3 years ago
Well, we also have to keep in mind that universes don't exist in space in the way that two cars near each other can exist in space.
To say that two universes can 'collide' is almost certainly meaningless - at least in the traditional sense of the word 'collide'.
The fact that we instinctively think this way is only a limitation of our brains. Dawkins calls this the 'middle world'. We can only understand what we evolved with. Large numbers, electrons and the multiverse are too weird for us.
Telamnar 3 years ago
I'm a biologist and when I speak to physicists i sit in awe at their ability to understand and conjure models of such things.
As physicists they tend to admire my ability to answer questions to which i know very little about with a decent degree of accuracy through logic.
all three sciences are fascinating, i wish i had the university funding to do a third degree in physics to aid my biology phd and philosophy degree.
both men are fascinating and long live science.
Focusb4ufire 3 years ago 13
I know exactly what you mean and agree totally! It definitely takes 2 very different types of brains. As a biologist I feel as though I have a sort of "logical intuition" that tends to be right, which often surprises me. But the way physicists think...is incredible. I can't even wrap my brain around it.
kjg28 3 years ago
kjg28 - LOL As a mathematician I have a problem with the biological aspects. I hated chemistry, loved physics and all forms of math. Still, discussions like these are like gourmet cuisine for the intellect.. Sometimes we need this cross-subject bainstorming in order to rethink our predisposed ideas.
smb12321 3 years ago 4
Agreed. : ) This is why Youtube can be such a wonderful (albeit addictive) tool.
kjg28 3 years ago 2
I wan't Steven Weinberg to sit down and tell me things.
GeorgesBarras 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'll sit down and teach you fucking English you fucking god damn idiot. Want is NOT a fucking contraction motherfucker. Kill yourself.
scientistwriter 3 years ago
Soz rock, I was stoned when i watched this.
GeorgesBarras 3 years ago
this is pure brain candy. awesome!
redlightklondike 3 years ago 8
I think i got most of it, when he became technical about the nuclear stuff i got lost for a moment. But great stuf about the multivers
ETatWAR 3 years ago
Thank you so much for these videos.
tehsma 3 years ago 2
I think a lot of the claims of Dawkins' arrogance (I don't agree with the claim that he's arrogant) stems from the fact that he is so often asked the same type of stock questions whenever he opens himself up to questions. He's been writing for decades, yet is still treated as if he's a newcomer in the field by interviewers and debate opponents in many regards. Obviously you can all see how that would get annoying.
KrisKrafft 3 years ago 10
It is so nice to see Dawkins in childlike awe of someone else.
midnight9wanderer 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
I think Weinberg don't like Dawkins . He is not interested to look into his face and talk !!
vishnusiva007 3 years ago
you cant make that conclusion, you dont know how other people function.
rolvaag0 3 years ago 4
I'm sure you have a psychology degree but I would disagree.
TheStig000 3 years ago
Maybe he's uncomfortable with a camera pointed at his face. I would be.
Soundgarden4eva 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think he's just in his head too much instead of reality....
couchpotatoe244 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree all this is speculation...No better than religion..
mlsmithers4 3 years ago
In what sense "no better"? Do you imply that superstitions and ignorance are equally good as genuine attempts to find explanation? Because they are not.
baze128 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Genuine attempts to find an explanation" as you put it, aka speculation is no better than "superstitions and ignorance" because they are both meaningless. The Mutiverse guess is NOT science...Far from it...this cannot be proven. They talk about this as if it is scientific. This is mere story telling...
mlsmithers4 3 years ago
It can be proven Mathematically.Obviously it cannot be proven through observation.
tomikkkkk 3 years ago
Show me the math..
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
go get a PhD in theoretical physics..
tomikkkkk 2 years ago
you first..you made the claim..
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
I'm workin' on it.
tomikkkkk 2 years ago
Ugh, I hate people who use their own ignorance of science as an argument against it.
"Well i can't read these here maths so it can't be true! If it doesn't make sense to ME (And I'm clearly smarter than Steven Weinberg, despite my lack of education and years of experience in the field) than it just can't be."
That is what you sound like. At least have humility to admit that maybe understanding of the origin of the UNIVERSE is beyond you, its not a big leap, it is probably beyond anyone.
forza599 2 years ago
Ugh, I hate people that claim their speculations to be scientific. The "evidence" they concoct are "maths" as you put it, to "support" their speculations. They then pass this garbage off as if it were fact. I make no claims; however indeed I will humbly claim that I don't know how the universe came about. Mutiverse guess cannot be empirically tested. Just as the existence of God cannot be empirically tested. Therefore it is no better than the creationist's account for the universe.
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
They concoct math? Are you kidding? Yeah they just write lots of symbols down that kinda look important and say its the origin of the universe. Oh wait thats the bible!
I'm not betting on this theory and it will probably go out the window like most scientific theories but at least its based on a rational evidence based pursuit of knowledge and not an old leather bound collection of assorted ancient myths.
forza599 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, I am not kidding. Mathematical equations are fun and can be used to "prove" anything ones heart desires. How else can one say something that is empirically untestable can in fact be PROVEN mathematically?Does that logically follow to you?Or do you just have blind faith and believe what these "scientists" preach?This is hardly based on rational evidence, and no more valid than ancient myths.They are both equally meaningless in the realm of science.
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
You should read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He explains very well how you can know things a priori instead of relying on experience. I'll give an example:
We know that for a shape to be what we call a triangle the degree of the angles formed by the lines have to sum to 180 degrees. We don't have to draw an infinite number of them and measure them to know this. We understand it because in order for all the lines to meet at 3 different points it has to be no more and no less.
Setzer 2 years ago
Comment removed
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a very poor argument. Using your example, even though this can be known a priori to testing, it is still confirmed though testing. Likewise, there have been many "facts" that were assumed a priori and were refuted by testing. The multiverse theory is much more abiguous.
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
It's funny that you mention that specific critique, because as you know, in that critique Kant was clearly against this type of attenuation. He believed that the metaphysics must not attempt to reach beyond the limits of possible experience but must discuss only those limits, thus furthering the understanding of ourselves as thinking beings.
mlsmithers4 2 years ago 2
Scientifc method:
1 Ask a Question
2 Do Background Research
3 Construct a Hypothesis
4 Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5 Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6.1 Hypothesis wrong go back to step 3
6.2 Hypothesis right it become a fact
they are at step 3 now
Mafiaaffe 3 years ago
Let me know when they get past step 3...thanks
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
haha yeah maybe in 5th grade, scientific discoveries almost never happen like that.
forza599 2 years ago
hmm, interesting perspective. Are you saying the scientific discoveries do not need to meet the criteria set by the scientific method?
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
OH no not at all dude, I was actually trying to agree with you in a way. That is what you are taught in middle school science class but in reality the "scientific method" rarely works like that. Copernicus came up with elliptical orbits in a dream for example.
So my point is that while this stuff sounds unscientific in reality that is how discoveries are often made, science is not so definite as we think and we should always be questioning and looking for evidence no matter what.
forza599 2 years ago
I see your point. I think we will also agree that scientific discoveries like elliptical orbits should always be confirmed using the scientific method.
mlsmithers4 2 years ago
Wanna go back to the burning bush? Sticks that turn into snakes? A rain of frogs? Technicolour dreamcoats? Horns that blow down city walls? Or would you rather have whirling balls of hydrogen, black holes, x-rays and pulsars?
baalChrist 3 years ago
Way over my head.
Lavabug 3 years ago
As arrogant and pompous as many people see Dawkins being, it is so pleasant to see him sit in childlike reverence of such a massive giant in physics. Mr. Weinberg is so brilliant and kind.....These are two true gentlemen of science....
nudsh 3 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
..........insulting, swearing, name-calling, derogatory, all of you who write and comment are not even worth the bother of writing to. Listen to Roy Masters. He'll tear them apart.
334286 3 years ago
It is kind of weird how some say that science doesn't provide any "real answers" to "big questions". Well when i listen to Weinberg, it is whell of alot better info than any scripture has ever given.
TaleThatWasntRight 3 years ago 12
Whaddya mean Caleb? That YOU'RE bored or that he (Weinberg? Dawkins?) is boring? If you're gonna write something, then write something that makes sense. My guess is that it's you who are bored because you don't understand what they're talking about. You should switch to MTV,you'll feel more at home there...
DrZenith 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did someone take a giant shit on you, or are you just determined to live up to the stereotype of the angry, bitter Frenchman?
x362436 3 years ago
sorry, my bad..i should have listened to the rest of the video...
damovox 3 years ago
Could anyone explain to me how 'the dark energy' can actually be measured?..lol..my degree is in physics and mathematics but i ended up an english teacher in asia...just trying to use the internet to get back to my roots again....
damovox 3 years ago
lol you're awesome XD
Avelqual 3 years ago
Bloody hell, as a zoologist I find Weinbergs knowledge utterly fascinating. How do people understand all this stuff!? Science is amazing.
Davester1988 3 years ago 7
wow, I didn't know science knew so much about the big bang. it's not just a hypothesis.
I have chills
josebuezas 3 years ago 9
i have chills too :D
raggizz 3 years ago 7
yes he's like a child with a new toy.
so I'm I.
awesome men this two...
josebuezas 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dark energy is just made up.
quezcatol 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes..It looked like he was about to unzip his pants and start to jack off to Weinberg's theory!? lol
Tribad 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hehe.. Dawkins can only smile and nod with all of this technical physics talk.
Vinifera7 3 years ago
would you like him to get into the complexities of biology, such as protein folding and watch as Weinberg sits and nods? These 2 brilliant men are humans who together are trying to work to better there own understandings of what we know and snickering at a biologists for not understanding advanced physics makes you look like a total asshat.
ItsFiddy 3 years ago 22
u think everybody is like u
HammerSickle 3 years ago
Funny how these videos somehow started with some kind of religious something, and then it tangents waaaaay off into a detailed explanation of some physics theories.
I could listen to his physics explanat