Well is was a good video, then you ruined with your bullshit at the end. Im an Atheist but "there being no god" isn't exactly a fact just a logical assumption.
@willou901 Richard Phillips Feynman was born on May 11, 1918,[8] in Far Rockaway, Queens, New York.[9] His family originated from Russia and Poland; both of his parents were Ashkenazi Jewish.[10] They were not religious and by his youth Feynman described himself as an "avowed atheist".[11]
i watched another part of the same interview where he spoke out strongly against the certainty of mysticism and religion, and there being no evidence at all for theistic god.
@earthypig Yes, I've read two of his biographies. I don't believe in a deity, and I am also an Atheist. There is no reason to believe in a god, yet in accordance with Feynman's belief, there is no reason not to believe in god, as in there is no proof. We may all be an alien's dream and cannot prove otherwise, but that's a silly thought, yet Feynman wouldn't be sure of it, because we cannot with certainty say it wasn't so. Saying there is no God is not a fact.
@earthypig . "I have approximate answers,and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things,but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don’t know anything about,such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here,and what the question might mean.I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things,by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose,which is the way it really is,as far as I can tell,possibly. " removed words for sp conserv
@willou901everything depends on the definition of "god" i think he makes more specific statements against a theistic god. as for "deistic god" i never thought that deism and atheism were really incompatible.
@willou901 yes he is specifically pointing out the atheistic position in accepting that they may very well be no purpose at all for our existence on earth. theists are very big on purpose - and having the personal god having a "plan" for each and every one of us. so it seems clear to me that with his words, he is actually making a strong statement against a personal god/ ie theistic god. indeed, in the same interview, he does speak out against the myths of religions in general. :)
@earthypig Yes, the manner in which people acquire beliefs is irrational, but we cannot say there is no god as a factual statement, as if we can verify it. "Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between 'very high' and 'very low' as 'agnostic' and reserves the term 'strong atheist' for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale." Feynman would be the same as Dawkins.
@willou901 it all depends on one's definition of God as to whether we can say there is a high or extremely low probability that god exists or not. if one's definition of God is simply the unknowable quantity that is nature/universe itself or if one's definition of god is a personal god as believed by theists. How confident should we be that the biblical god who created eve out of adam's rib exists or doesn't exist? How confident do you think Feynman was on this issue?
@earthypig For it to be a fact that a deity does not exist, one must be certain of it. As Feynman was not certain of the non-existence, it's not a fact.
@willou901 once again, it really depends on one's definition of god. religions were started by men who imagined god to be a certain very specific entity. one could start a new religion today and imagine god to be different than both Zeus and the biblical god. if there are people who start this new religion, how certain can we be that this god that they worship do not exist? or should we be certain at all?
it seems to me that feynman speaks very clearly against the "certainty" of religion.
he wasn't "certain of anything" because that's the position of scientists - they are willing to be proven wrong as we learn more and more about nature - but when you listen to him talk, is he really saying "i am not certain of anything therefore i think that theistic god might exist" - is that really what you hear? just curious.
Perhaps you should have truncated Feynman's participation in this video further, if you are to use his language to suggest a point completely alien to what he actually said.
@LovehammerMedia The concept of “God” is what is called a theory. Theories come from publications. The three main publications of this theory are the Bible, Quran, and Rig Vida, which together account for 78% of the world’s belief in this theory. Each of these publications, in turn, derives from an older publication, namely Egyptian Book of the Dead, a mythology book. Mythology is the study of things that do not exist. Hence, 78% of the world believes in a nonentity. Fact.
@HumanChemistry101 Is there a definition for "purpose" and why? Why and were did elements, molecules etc come from. don't we have to regress to some sort of logical beginning?
@HumanChemistry101 it isn't a fact that there is no god, it isn't a fact that there is a god. We just don't know yet either way. Simple. Anyone who claims to KNOW that there is or isn't a god is a liar or is simply mistaken.
@HumanChemistry101 The Egyptian Book of the Dead isn't the source material of these books. While there are some similarities, the stuff proposed in Zeitgeist has largely been dis-proven by scholars. Also you fucked up Feynman's brilliant speech.
@HumanChemistry101 Dude, I never said I believed the Bible. I just said the points your making are completely unrelated to what Feynman was talking about and that the proposals of the Christ-myth theory are by and large exaggerated. I'm an agnostic/atheist but there's no call for ignorant hostility. Putting your own agenda on Feynman's speech and then using personal attacks isn't only rude and ignorant, it's an argumentative logical fallacy.
@HumanChemistry101 So because you define something as mythology it untrue? Weren't narwhals a mythological beast for some time? Scientists, and mathematicians have proven that it is possible we can live in a 2 Dimensional world, who is to say that everything we see is not a myth. No we can only make the best decisions we can with what we are given. I respect your opinions although I disagree with you, however we can not define something as fake, because someone defines it as
@myrtlebox Feynman was an atheist. Please don't tie Feynman to your agenda (agnosticism). More than 3 of 4 scientists are atheists (Feynman included), over 90-95% at present, and it has been that way for 200 years (since at least the 1802 "Napoleon Laplace anecdote"). Feynman was holding back in that video; if he was speaking frankly, buddy to buddy, he would have told it just as the facts state at the end of the video.
@HumanChemistry101 Feynman was an agnostic atheist. Please learn the subtle differences.
A) "There is no god" <--- (YOUR statement, not his)
Feynman would NEVER make a statement like that because it is NOT KNOWN!!!
While he held no belief system (nor do I), he would never claim to know something in the absolute terms that you use in (A) without PROOF. I defy you to find him stating that ANYWHERE. It is simply not known.
@myrtlebox Feynman quote (truncated): “I actually don’t believe in a God in a conventional sense.” (The Relation of Science and Religion, 1956). In the mind of someone (Feynman) who does not believe in God, there "is no God"; hence fact #1 is actually Feynman's statement.
@HumanChemistry101 Sorry, but you fail to understand. Read your top comments - they are telling you the same thing. It is true that Feynman held no belief system (nor do I), but he never said "God does not exist." He simply says that it is not known and he is okay with that. Reread the comment and think about the differences.
@HumanChemistry101 You are wrong, saying 'I don't believe' is not the same as stating a fact. We only use the word 'believe' when we don't have the solid facts to back up what we suspect to be true. When we know something beyond doubt we don't use the word believe, we just say it is or isn't. Feynman would never claim to know something as fact without proof, he was a scientist in the purest sense.
I find fact #1 to be inconsistent and irrelevant to Feynman's point. His point is that we don't know and should, instead of being content with filling holes of ignorance with whatever we want to believe, acknowledge our ignorance and seek real knowledge. We can only, as far as we know, do that through sceptical inquiry.
I appreciate your facts, but I always have to wonder about the laws of nature. I mean, we have laws setup for our protection and safety; someone set those up. Who setup the laws of nature? How do laws just come into existence? For example, if your in the desert and find an arrowhead, what's your immediate response? You say that someone made this because of it's obvious shape. An arrowhead is a carved rock and we know someone made it. How about an ant, a butterfly, a human, the universe?
@toddsmith00 "Why Questions" (distinct from “How?”) assume Conscious Intent -- leading you to logically error in believing “Some Thing” was conscious. In other words, you are Anthropomorphizing; not a bad way to think, just not scientific…
@toddsmith00 The more I think of you comment, the more I wonder – Perhaps you should pursue Mathematics. Math is not Science, and Mathematics incorporates (allows for) Why Questions… (Many don't realize, Math so happens to be a more "Human" way of thinking than the Scientific Method.)
Namaste , The one thing Feynman didn't add into the equation of life is that the space in our universe isn't really space at all. Its a particle of macro Matter. Consisting of the substance and energy of God. Our universe is simply a blastocyst of Gods body. Thus the scripture that relates to god is everywhere and in all things.we are part of him and he is part of us. God is the consciousness of eternity as we know it because we can know nothing else. ~ Bret V ~ In Lak'ech
@2012DarkKnight Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Thank you for sharing; pardon me for not holding your belief…
I'm an atheist and I do not hold that "There is no God" is a fact. Saying that is, ironically, also a statement of faith, because there is almost no way to verify it. It's even less verifiable than the claim that there IS a god because at least if there were it might be possible he/she/it could let us in on it (and even that is fraught with problems, but putting that aside for now...). If there isn't one, we'd have to be omniscient ourselves to know it.
@Lanza52 Have you actually read Feynman’s 1956 talk “The Relation of Science and Religion” (freely readable on Google Scholar), or are you just venting?
@dudejohnny That "there is no god" is a FACT in the minds of over 95 percent of the world's leading scientists (see "existence of god" link, pulldown). That "there is a God" is not something you are taught, but rather something you were told (when you were a child); that there is no god is something you have to unlearn, a process that takes many years.
Facts don't depend on whose minds what, where whatever. Facts depending on reality and whether or not you can demonstrate something to be true. You are trying to skip steps and you are naive in your philosophy regardless of what your personal orientation is in response to theism.Your certainty makes you wrong either way.
Facts don't depend on whose minds what, where, when, whatever. The majority of scientists thought a lot of things that were fundamentally wrong, so I don't see your point. I'd be surprised if you could find a scientist that would endorse your certainty in regards to this debate. Your naive philosophy gives you away as somebody in dire need of a library card.
@dudejohnny Re: "library card", that's funny. My "home library" has over 1,300 books, of which about 100 are in comparative religions and mythology. Re: "I'd be surprised if you could find a scientist that would endorse your certainty in regards to this debate", watch my "What's your Dawkins number?" video. In any event, go to church if you want to believe in God; come to science if you don't.
I watched your video where dawkins says he's not certain. "I think any scientist would be unwise to commit himself to saying that there definitely is not anything." Watch your own damn video and get a library card.
@dudejohnny Let me try to explain to you why there is no God. The God that 72% of the world believes in, which includes you (being Canadian) is the one based on the Abraham/Brahma theologies. The rest are non-religious (15%) or Chinese/Ethnic religions (13%) (spirit-based religions). The former 72% are “father Ra born of Nun” religions. As “Ra” is a mythology (and does not exist): God does not exist. You are agnostic about Egyptian mythology, to put it plainly.
"The God that 72% of the world believes in, which includes you" Except the fact that I'm an atheist. Also, " Let me try to explain to you why there is no God." LMAO. In one ear and out the other eh? Good science, good science.
@HumanChemistry101 Also, just to make something clear: when talking about consciousness I'm not talking IQ, but perception and clarity. In other words: a person with a high level of consciousness is fully aware of his physical body (instincts), emotions, mental thoughts and identity (intuition) all at the same time. Therefore, they use their brain to its fullest extent. A person with a low level of consciousness elevates one of these "bodies" in denial of others.
@HumanChemistry101 How can you deny God with certainty while realising that the physical universe you see with your five senses is only a very tiny percentage of the vibrational spectrum? Do you even know what the universe is? Hint: it's both a piano and a movie at the same time, with each note/true color corresponding to a certain point level of consciousness, the first note being the chemical universe. We are at the third level (density) right now, yet there is MOREEEEEEEEEE
@HumanChemistry101 So, as you ask us to unlearn our knowledge of God, I ask you to unlearn your knowledge that there is no God, also a process which takes many years. So I direct you to read the Law of One, since it's quite an intellectual piece of esoteric literature, so it "fits" more with your upbringing, and therefore easier to understand for such a "full mind" as yours.
@HumanChemistry101 "That "there is a God" is not something you are taught, but rather something you were told" This statement I find extremely ironic, in that you don't realise that the belief in "no God" is also something you are taught. Ask a dog whether he believes in God or no God. He won't answer, since humans are the only creatures on this planet who "belief".This is the result of not wishing to raise our consciousness, which results in close-mindedness and materialism.
I ran out of space, but I would also like to say that some people just don't get interested in the test, so it isn't worth putting forth the effort. One of the questions on the IQ test I took asked you to count rectangles in a picture. If it wasn't for the fact that I wanted something for a grad school application, I would have just guessed. Feynman seemed to me like someone who wouldn't waste his time on something he didnt enjoy
Feynman's IQ was a 120. He was against IQ tests on several, very reasonable grounds, such as IQ tests are, themselves, not necessarily made by geniuses. Many of the questions are subjective. Boat, Water, Fire, Fish. Which word doesn't belong? Most would say fire, but some may notice that water is a 5 letter word and the rest are four. Which person is smarter? I am part of Mensa and I am against giving IQ tests any credibility. There are just as many idiots there as anywhere else.
@GibbyCanes To correct you, Feynman scored 125 on a high school IQ test. Nowadays, however, we rank him in at about IQ 190(+/-). The rest of your logic is about right, in the sense that any IQ test (a device that was originally designed to test for imbecility in children) that purports to assign genius range IQs is in nearly all cases fallacious, in the sense that "genius" is not something that can be tested for, but rather only shown.
@HumanChemistry101 Thank you for the correction. Makes me feel like there is justice in the world. Also reminds me to always recheck the facts before posting. I don't want to completely discount IQ tests, and I think using them to test for deficiency rather than genius is a much more realistic application. However I am consistently disappointed by whatever "genius" shows up on the media with an IQ over 200.
@GibbyCanes As far as IQ test go (in regards to genius potential), the only validity I can discern is that if such a test is given to say sub ten year old, it might give some sort of heads up to a child who might be well off to finish high school at a younger than average age, e.g. Gibbs (16), Goethe (16), Clausius (18), Lewis (15), Newton (18), Helmholtz (17), and Maxwell (16), Thomson (10), all entered college at a relatively young age, and such early migrations here certainly paid off.
@GibbyCanes Re: "I am consistently disappointed by whatever "genius" shows up on the media with an IQ over 200" (ditto). This is one of the reasons I am slowly making the greatest geniuses ever listing (with IQs) online; where I shown all known cited IQs (many in the over-inflated 200 range) and meta analysis ranking of the person's realistic IQ (see: Genius IQs link in pull down), so to help dispel the frequent media anon with the so called "smarter than Einstein IQ" (which is pure absurdity).
@GibbyCanes Boat, Water, Fire, Fish... I would have said Boat since the others have a "nature" theme. What is the point of MENSA? I doubt the intelligence of a group whose acronym spells out "Dumb" in the feminine form, in the world's number two language (as well as other Romance languages)
What a laugh, you follow a video of Feynman with a series of unsupported statements. Some bold assertions followed by some more plausible ones, but with no references. So we have nothing to go on but your word. Well done. You obviously learned a lot.
@IIEdeNII Feynman was a non-believer, as are most scientists. In fact, fewer than 5% of leading scientists currently believe in the existence of god (see link in drop menu). That "the concept of God is a huge concept" is indeed true, the theory of God is an Egyptian Ra theology based theory passed on to us as children via the Bible, Koran, and Rig Vida, arguing that life and death exist, explaining morality via the negative confession based soul weight (karma weight) theory. Upgrade is needed.
@HumanChemistry101 Very nice video. Logical and precise. I love Richard Feynmann was a brilliant independent thinker. The religious ideology of god is total bullshit, been proven wrong time and time again. But lets have a look at the laws of the Universe and mathematics, there seems to be an order which our brain recognises. For e.g the golden ratio which exists in spiral galaxies to the shape of a snails shell just to name 2 examples. For me as a scientist there seems to be a Universal order.
My apologies, but you just listed out "facts" in the last half of your video, when yet Feynman completely goes against this logic and says there is "uncertainty" and "I'm not absolutely sure of anything". So is your argument with or against this video? I am very confused.
@MM28MGI Feynman was certain about one thing, which he called a “fact” (atomic fact), namely belief in the existence of atoms, which he said should be the one sentence of human knowledge to be put into a time capsule for the next generation should a cataclysm wipe out all of human knowledge (see link in pulldown). This fact is the starting point for all the other "facts" listed in the video, including atheism, which, according to Francis Bacon, arose from Greek atomic theory.
(j) The catalysts for the chemical reactions between humans are religion, common interests, nationality, race, etc. These catalysts either vastly enhance or inhibit the chemical reactions.
@atrowell You’re a tool. The one piece of scientific wisdom Feynman believed in more than anything else was the “atomic hypothesis” (see time capsule wisdom, pull down), a precursor to the “human molecular hypothesis” (Jean Sales, 1789), according to which humans are atomic structures (molecules or large moving chemicals) governed by the physical sciences, in particular Feynman's own QED.
relashionship are chemical reactions. true..trust.love is ocytocin, physical attraction, testosterone, oestroge, adrenaline, serotonine, dopamine..etc but i think there is a god..not like common image of god..but rather.. all the forces/energies within the universe, the continuation the the big bang..logic of the universe and beyond..its initiator.
@bitethis47 Why should you call that all encompassing entity god? The term "God" has been misused so many times, and it is better to not use it refer to the cosmic force. Also, why there should be a logic for the universe? What if it just exists?
@vmurali this is my perception of god..the creator. the initiator of the big bang. logic of the universe is like undestanding the physical world around us..the laws of physics..for eg
Truth: We ask these questions, because we are surviving things. Whatever happened way back when, happened, if it didn't we wouldn't be here. And we've continued to be here for a very long time, so whatever we're made of, has had to be good enough at surviving to endure. That's why we're driven, we're just more complex parts of nature trying to think up ways to keep on existing. The moment we stop trying, we stop existing, and the things that were better at existing replace us.
People who want to quote Feynman should take the time to actually learn about him. Feynman was certainly skeptical about the existence of any specific god, but he never claimed to "know" that there is no god. I think he was just certain that nobody else knows either. He was frustrated by people spending their time trying to prove unprovables.
There is no God. There is no purpose to anything. And I love it. More than anything. The fact that there is no purpose to my life means that I can grant my own purpose to it. I get the choice.
@TicTacTacitus Of course you realize, that the world that is being hypothesized here, is a materialist world. In this world, no one really has a "choice", because "choice" is an illusion. If we are made up of nothing but particles of matter, bouncing around and interacting according to set laws, then there is no way we are making any choices, you see? If those laws can precisely define how these particles interact, then our whole existance is already laid out - That is called determinism.
@ionrocket That’s a good question. I would guess that the answer lies in some type of overall universal theory of the interactions (or interconversions) of the various fermions (matter) and bosons (energy) in conjunction with what we observe about the movement of the universe?
I'm guessing that you are aiming the question around yourself, i.e. why you as a piece of matter exists? or what is the point of you, as a piece of matter, existing?
@ionrocket: That’s how we are. The fact that we’re driven to ask these questions does neither mean there has to be an answer at all nor does it mean life would be meaningless without a creator. We define the meaning of the world around us according to our (conscious and/or purely biological) needs, some of the aspects changing importance over time, some staying rather written in stone. There’s nothing undignifying in that fact nor does it make us mere robots or lost in the universe.
@ionrocket To me, "Why?" a useless question. "Why is there something?" "Why do trees exist?" "Why do we love?" These questions "Why?" aren't the best questions to ask for me, especially when discussing nature. "Why?" involves a human element; it asks for a motive (a reason involving free-will as to why you did something). And I can easily get wrapped up in these infinities of "Why?" that really don't move me forward in understanding anything.
So: instead of asking "Why?", I like to ask "How?"
@8644371 Awesome reply. Have you seen the video where the interviewer asks Feynman "why do magnets attract" and Feynman goes off on a tangent about "why" questions. Thumbs up for your comment.
@8644371 You seem to be lost in semantics. The real question is "What's the go o' that?", James Maxwell's famed question he started asking at age 3 about everything that moved, shone, or made a noise; and if he was not satisfied, the followup "but what's the particular go of it?". Note also: see genius rankings in pull down for the IQ rankings of Maxwell, Feynman and others.
@8644371 You are thinking correctly if you want to do Science (Math, no; Science, yes). The Scientific Method does NOT take into consideration the question “Why” (the nearest is “How Come”); for example, the Scientific Method does not answer questions regarding “God” (because science does not permit these questions to even be asked -- less to say, be answered scientifically). Just remember when someone asks you God questions: You don’t know, you are a scientist!
@ExBoydWho " for example, the Scientific Method does not answer questions regarding “God” (because science does not permit these questions to even be asked..."
Bit confused here. Can't science address a hypothesis that a God(s) is the most plausible explanation for observed phenomenon?
God is a metaphysical claim, not just an answer to a "why" question. Supernatural claims are often ill defined and unfalsifiable, but doesn't science allow us to address the probability of their being true?
@ionrocket I did come across the factoid (recently) that it was German polymath Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) that first famously asked the question why is there something rather than nothing, or in his own words “Why is any world .... something rather than nothing? There isn't. There's both."
This response came after Feynman was queried about God. In modern times, less than 6 percent of US scientists believe in God. The residual theories of religion, however, still linger in the minds of many Godless scientists, e.g. life and death. Life is a religious theory, not a modern scientific theory. A human is a molecule. Technically, a molecule cannot be alive, nor die.
@HumanChemistry101 I believe there's so much circumstantial evidence that points to another or other dimensions, and also that we as living molecules also have a spirit which coexists within another dimension while our matrix of molecules exists in this physical one. There is much more that we don't know than there is of what we do know & think we know. If that statement is true, it is difficult to rule out a supreme being as a statement of fact. That is just one example.
@kevjay777 The stuff you're talking about, i.e. humans are "living molecules with spirit", was Pierre Teilhard's 1930s-40s theory about which he wrote volumes on. Nowadays, were stepping our game up. Atoms and molecules (humans included) are not "living" and do not have "spirit". These are Egyptian theories handed down to us. We move and have higher levels of animation, but all of this needs to be explained in modern physics and chemical terms (not mythological terms).
@HumanChemistry101 Your use of the term 'living' and the argument of whether or not it applies to that which we refer to as 'life' is an argument in semantics. If life is simply defined as chemical processes or entities, which gather energy, and self-replicate, and have some sort of capacity to process information, then indeed we are 'alive'. As far as I am concerned, this is the modern operating definition of life.
@stardust005 It's far from an argument in semantics. "Living" and "life" are religious terms, not defined in modern chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics. We all evolved over time from the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom, however, is not alive. We can calculate the entire chemical reaction mechanism, hydrogen to us (an animated 26 element molecule). The search for the specific day in this mechanism in which molecules became "alive" is a search for fool's gold. Google "defunct theory of life".
@HumanChemistry101 We're molecules? No. We are a complex organization of many molecules that metabolize, grow and reproduce. The molecules that make us up one day are not the same that make us up the next. This process is called life. A molecule is a stable specific collection of bonded atoms. The term life is in fact defined in biology, which is a specialization of chemistry. Whether religious people have their own definition for it is not my concern.
@armpitpuncher You might want to read Sterner and Elser's 2002 Ecological Stoichiometry, because humans are defined as "molecules". This is a new fact of human existence, possibly one they didn't' teach you in school. Re: "life" Google "defunct theory of life" to educate yourself further on the illusion you call life, which is a religious-based theory.
Well is was a good video, then you ruined with your bullshit at the end. Im an Atheist but "there being no god" isn't exactly a fact just a logical assumption.
cjs2964 4 days ago
I'm an atheist, and I find it absurd that you state, "There is no God," as fact. Feynman stated that he wasn't absolutely sure of anything.
willou901 1 week ago
@willou901 Richard Phillips Feynman was born on May 11, 1918,[8] in Far Rockaway, Queens, New York.[9] His family originated from Russia and Poland; both of his parents were Ashkenazi Jewish.[10] They were not religious and by his youth Feynman described himself as an "avowed atheist".[11]
i watched another part of the same interview where he spoke out strongly against the certainty of mysticism and religion, and there being no evidence at all for theistic god.
earthypig 5 days ago
@earthypig Yes, I've read two of his biographies. I don't believe in a deity, and I am also an Atheist. There is no reason to believe in a god, yet in accordance with Feynman's belief, there is no reason not to believe in god, as in there is no proof. We may all be an alien's dream and cannot prove otherwise, but that's a silly thought, yet Feynman wouldn't be sure of it, because we cannot with certainty say it wasn't so. Saying there is no God is not a fact.
willou901 4 days ago
@earthypig . "I have approximate answers,and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things,but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don’t know anything about,such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here,and what the question might mean.I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things,by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose,which is the way it really is,as far as I can tell,possibly. " removed words for sp conserv
willou901 4 days ago
@willou901everything depends on the definition of "god" i think he makes more specific statements against a theistic god. as for "deistic god" i never thought that deism and atheism were really incompatible.
earthypig 4 days ago
@willou901 yes he is specifically pointing out the atheistic position in accepting that they may very well be no purpose at all for our existence on earth. theists are very big on purpose - and having the personal god having a "plan" for each and every one of us. so it seems clear to me that with his words, he is actually making a strong statement against a personal god/ ie theistic god. indeed, in the same interview, he does speak out against the myths of religions in general. :)
earthypig 4 days ago
@earthypig Yes, the manner in which people acquire beliefs is irrational, but we cannot say there is no god as a factual statement, as if we can verify it. "Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between 'very high' and 'very low' as 'agnostic' and reserves the term 'strong atheist' for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale." Feynman would be the same as Dawkins.
willou901 4 days ago
@willou901 it all depends on one's definition of God as to whether we can say there is a high or extremely low probability that god exists or not. if one's definition of God is simply the unknowable quantity that is nature/universe itself or if one's definition of god is a personal god as believed by theists. How confident should we be that the biblical god who created eve out of adam's rib exists or doesn't exist? How confident do you think Feynman was on this issue?
earthypig 4 days ago
@earthypig For it to be a fact that a deity does not exist, one must be certain of it. As Feynman was not certain of the non-existence, it's not a fact.
willou901 4 days ago
@willou901 once again, it really depends on one's definition of god. religions were started by men who imagined god to be a certain very specific entity. one could start a new religion today and imagine god to be different than both Zeus and the biblical god. if there are people who start this new religion, how certain can we be that this god that they worship do not exist? or should we be certain at all?
earthypig 4 days ago
@willou901
please watch
/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4
it seems to me that feynman speaks very clearly against the "certainty" of religion.
he wasn't "certain of anything" because that's the position of scientists - they are willing to be proven wrong as we learn more and more about nature - but when you listen to him talk, is he really saying "i am not certain of anything therefore i think that theistic god might exist" - is that really what you hear? just curious.
earthypig 4 days ago
Perhaps you should have truncated Feynman's participation in this video further, if you are to use his language to suggest a point completely alien to what he actually said.
MartianSpore 1 week ago
A fact is something provable. So how is it a fact that there is no God?
LovehammerMedia 2 weeks ago
@LovehammerMedia The concept of “God” is what is called a theory. Theories come from publications. The three main publications of this theory are the Bible, Quran, and Rig Vida, which together account for 78% of the world’s belief in this theory. Each of these publications, in turn, derives from an older publication, namely Egyptian Book of the Dead, a mythology book. Mythology is the study of things that do not exist. Hence, 78% of the world believes in a nonentity. Fact.
HumanChemistry101 2 weeks ago
@HumanChemistry101 Is there a definition for "purpose" and why? Why and were did elements, molecules etc come from. don't we have to regress to some sort of logical beginning?
skills1ent 2 weeks ago
@HumanChemistry101 it isn't a fact that there is no god, it isn't a fact that there is a god. We just don't know yet either way. Simple. Anyone who claims to KNOW that there is or isn't a god is a liar or is simply mistaken.
trotskydolan 2 weeks ago
@HumanChemistry101 The Egyptian Book of the Dead isn't the source material of these books. While there are some similarities, the stuff proposed in Zeitgeist has largely been dis-proven by scholars. Also you fucked up Feynman's brilliant speech.
BurenVanMartin 1 week ago
@BurenVanMartin You're a tool that's been screwed in by the system.
HumanChemistry101 1 week ago
@HumanChemistry101 Well aren't you just full of insightful criticism and wit.
BurenVanMartin 1 week ago
@BurenVanMartin Go read Gary Greenberg's 101 Myths of the Bible and don't come back until you have some sense in your head.
HumanChemistry101 1 week ago
@HumanChemistry101 Dude, I never said I believed the Bible. I just said the points your making are completely unrelated to what Feynman was talking about and that the proposals of the Christ-myth theory are by and large exaggerated. I'm an agnostic/atheist but there's no call for ignorant hostility. Putting your own agenda on Feynman's speech and then using personal attacks isn't only rude and ignorant, it's an argumentative logical fallacy.
BurenVanMartin 1 week ago
@HumanChemistry101 So because you define something as mythology it untrue? Weren't narwhals a mythological beast for some time? Scientists, and mathematicians have proven that it is possible we can live in a 2 Dimensional world, who is to say that everything we see is not a myth. No we can only make the best decisions we can with what we are given. I respect your opinions although I disagree with you, however we can not define something as fake, because someone defines it as
LovehammerMedia 1 week ago
I liked the Feynman part far better ;-)
While I am agnostic, I am not a hater. There is an intrinsic need (for some) to believe in something. This will probably always be the case.
Please dont tie Feynman videos to your agenda.
Thanks.
myrtlebox 2 weeks ago 2
@myrtlebox Feynman was an atheist. Please don't tie Feynman to your agenda (agnosticism). More than 3 of 4 scientists are atheists (Feynman included), over 90-95% at present, and it has been that way for 200 years (since at least the 1802 "Napoleon Laplace anecdote"). Feynman was holding back in that video; if he was speaking frankly, buddy to buddy, he would have told it just as the facts state at the end of the video.
HumanChemistry101 2 weeks ago
@HumanChemistry101 Feynman was an agnostic atheist. Please learn the subtle differences.
A) "There is no god" <--- (YOUR statement, not his)
Feynman would NEVER make a statement like that because it is NOT KNOWN!!!
While he held no belief system (nor do I), he would never claim to know something in the absolute terms that you use in (A) without PROOF. I defy you to find him stating that ANYWHERE. It is simply not known.
I repeat: stop putting words in his mouth.
myrtlebox 2 weeks ago
@myrtlebox Feynman quote (truncated): “I actually don’t believe in a God in a conventional sense.” (The Relation of Science and Religion, 1956). In the mind of someone (Feynman) who does not believe in God, there "is no God"; hence fact #1 is actually Feynman's statement.
HumanChemistry101 2 weeks ago
@HumanChemistry101 Sorry, but you fail to understand. Read your top comments - they are telling you the same thing. It is true that Feynman held no belief system (nor do I), but he never said "God does not exist." He simply says that it is not known and he is okay with that. Reread the comment and think about the differences.
myrtlebox 2 weeks ago
@HumanChemistry101 You are wrong, saying 'I don't believe' is not the same as stating a fact. We only use the word 'believe' when we don't have the solid facts to back up what we suspect to be true. When we know something beyond doubt we don't use the word believe, we just say it is or isn't. Feynman would never claim to know something as fact without proof, he was a scientist in the purest sense.
trotskydolan 2 weeks ago
@HumanChemistry101 Because you knew him personally and know exactly what he meant to say rather than what he said. Uh-huh. ;)
BurenVanMartin 1 week ago
I find fact #1 to be inconsistent and irrelevant to Feynman's point. His point is that we don't know and should, instead of being content with filling holes of ignorance with whatever we want to believe, acknowledge our ignorance and seek real knowledge. We can only, as far as we know, do that through sceptical inquiry.
saxojon 3 weeks ago
Please take the time to type your presentation(s) in advance; most of us can read much faster than you can type.
SolutionByEvolution 1 month ago
Comment removed
iridescentsquids 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lanza52 "Feynman was quite strongly on the "I don't know" side in regards to a God and religion."
He was also quite firmly on the "I don't believe" side.
iridescentsquids 1 month ago
I appreciate your facts, but I always have to wonder about the laws of nature. I mean, we have laws setup for our protection and safety; someone set those up. Who setup the laws of nature? How do laws just come into existence? For example, if your in the desert and find an arrowhead, what's your immediate response? You say that someone made this because of it's obvious shape. An arrowhead is a carved rock and we know someone made it. How about an ant, a butterfly, a human, the universe?
toddsmith00 1 month ago
@toddsmith00 "Why Questions" (distinct from “How?”) assume Conscious Intent -- leading you to logically error in believing “Some Thing” was conscious. In other words, you are Anthropomorphizing; not a bad way to think, just not scientific…
ExBoydWho 1 month ago
@toddsmith00 The more I think of you comment, the more I wonder – Perhaps you should pursue Mathematics. Math is not Science, and Mathematics incorporates (allows for) Why Questions… (Many don't realize, Math so happens to be a more "Human" way of thinking than the Scientific Method.)
ExBoydWho 1 month ago
Wonderful video.
thesanhavenchuckle 2 months ago
@Lanza52 ur a fool, hes not talking bout god here.
rahulpower 2 months ago
Namaste , The one thing Feynman didn't add into the equation of life is that the space in our universe isn't really space at all. Its a particle of macro Matter. Consisting of the substance and energy of God. Our universe is simply a blastocyst of Gods body. Thus the scripture that relates to god is everywhere and in all things.we are part of him and he is part of us. God is the consciousness of eternity as we know it because we can know nothing else. ~ Bret V ~ In Lak'ech
2012DarkKnight 2 months ago
@2012DarkKnight Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Thank you for sharing; pardon me for not holding your belief…
ExBoydWho 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm an atheist and I do not hold that "There is no God" is a fact. Saying that is, ironically, also a statement of faith, because there is almost no way to verify it. It's even less verifiable than the claim that there IS a god because at least if there were it might be possible he/she/it could let us in on it (and even that is fraught with problems, but putting that aside for now...). If there isn't one, we'd have to be omniscient ourselves to know it.
phinny5608 2 months ago
Comment removed
phinny5608 2 months ago
@Lanza52 Have you actually read Feynman’s 1956 talk “The Relation of Science and Religion” (freely readable on Google Scholar), or are you just venting?
HumanChemistry101 2 months ago
@HumanChemistry101
If you think that "there is no god" can be considered a fact, then you need to stop what you're doing and be taught.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@dudejohnny That "there is no god" is a FACT in the minds of over 95 percent of the world's leading scientists (see "existence of god" link, pulldown). That "there is a God" is not something you are taught, but rather something you were told (when you were a child); that there is no god is something you have to unlearn, a process that takes many years.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@HumanChemistry101
Facts don't depend on whose minds what, where whatever. Facts depending on reality and whether or not you can demonstrate something to be true. You are trying to skip steps and you are naive in your philosophy regardless of what your personal orientation is in response to theism.Your certainty makes you wrong either way.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@HumanChemistry101
Facts don't depend on whose minds what, where, when, whatever. The majority of scientists thought a lot of things that were fundamentally wrong, so I don't see your point. I'd be surprised if you could find a scientist that would endorse your certainty in regards to this debate. Your naive philosophy gives you away as somebody in dire need of a library card.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@dudejohnny Re: "library card", that's funny. My "home library" has over 1,300 books, of which about 100 are in comparative religions and mythology. Re: "I'd be surprised if you could find a scientist that would endorse your certainty in regards to this debate", watch my "What's your Dawkins number?" video. In any event, go to church if you want to believe in God; come to science if you don't.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@HumanChemistry101
I watched your video where dawkins says he's not certain. "I think any scientist would be unwise to commit himself to saying that there definitely is not anything." Watch your own damn video and get a library card.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
@dudejohnny Let me try to explain to you why there is no God. The God that 72% of the world believes in, which includes you (being Canadian) is the one based on the Abraham/Brahma theologies. The rest are non-religious (15%) or Chinese/Ethnic religions (13%) (spirit-based religions). The former 72% are “father Ra born of Nun” religions. As “Ra” is a mythology (and does not exist): God does not exist. You are agnostic about Egyptian mythology, to put it plainly.
HumanChemistry101 1 month ago
@HumanChemistry101
"The God that 72% of the world believes in, which includes you" Except the fact that I'm an atheist. Also, " Let me try to explain to you why there is no God." LMAO. In one ear and out the other eh? Good science, good science.
dudejohnny 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HumanChemistry101 Also, just to make something clear: when talking about consciousness I'm not talking IQ, but perception and clarity. In other words: a person with a high level of consciousness is fully aware of his physical body (instincts), emotions, mental thoughts and identity (intuition) all at the same time. Therefore, they use their brain to its fullest extent. A person with a low level of consciousness elevates one of these "bodies" in denial of others.
nielss4 3 weeks ago
@HumanChemistry101 How can you deny God with certainty while realising that the physical universe you see with your five senses is only a very tiny percentage of the vibrational spectrum? Do you even know what the universe is? Hint: it's both a piano and a movie at the same time, with each note/true color corresponding to a certain point level of consciousness, the first note being the chemical universe. We are at the third level (density) right now, yet there is MOREEEEEEEEEE
nielss4 3 weeks ago
@HumanChemistry101 So, as you ask us to unlearn our knowledge of God, I ask you to unlearn your knowledge that there is no God, also a process which takes many years. So I direct you to read the Law of One, since it's quite an intellectual piece of esoteric literature, so it "fits" more with your upbringing, and therefore easier to understand for such a "full mind" as yours.
nielss4 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HumanChemistry101 "That "there is a God" is not something you are taught, but rather something you were told" This statement I find extremely ironic, in that you don't realise that the belief in "no God" is also something you are taught. Ask a dog whether he believes in God or no God. He won't answer, since humans are the only creatures on this planet who "belief".This is the result of not wishing to raise our consciousness, which results in close-mindedness and materialism.
nielss4 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
nielss4 3 weeks ago
I ran out of space, but I would also like to say that some people just don't get interested in the test, so it isn't worth putting forth the effort. One of the questions on the IQ test I took asked you to count rectangles in a picture. If it wasn't for the fact that I wanted something for a grad school application, I would have just guessed. Feynman seemed to me like someone who wouldn't waste his time on something he didnt enjoy
GibbyCanes 3 months ago
Feynman's IQ was a 120. He was against IQ tests on several, very reasonable grounds, such as IQ tests are, themselves, not necessarily made by geniuses. Many of the questions are subjective. Boat, Water, Fire, Fish. Which word doesn't belong? Most would say fire, but some may notice that water is a 5 letter word and the rest are four. Which person is smarter? I am part of Mensa and I am against giving IQ tests any credibility. There are just as many idiots there as anywhere else.
GibbyCanes 3 months ago
@GibbyCanes To correct you, Feynman scored 125 on a high school IQ test. Nowadays, however, we rank him in at about IQ 190(+/-). The rest of your logic is about right, in the sense that any IQ test (a device that was originally designed to test for imbecility in children) that purports to assign genius range IQs is in nearly all cases fallacious, in the sense that "genius" is not something that can be tested for, but rather only shown.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 Thank you for the correction. Makes me feel like there is justice in the world. Also reminds me to always recheck the facts before posting. I don't want to completely discount IQ tests, and I think using them to test for deficiency rather than genius is a much more realistic application. However I am consistently disappointed by whatever "genius" shows up on the media with an IQ over 200.
GibbyCanes 3 months ago
@GibbyCanes As far as IQ test go (in regards to genius potential), the only validity I can discern is that if such a test is given to say sub ten year old, it might give some sort of heads up to a child who might be well off to finish high school at a younger than average age, e.g. Gibbs (16), Goethe (16), Clausius (18), Lewis (15), Newton (18), Helmholtz (17), and Maxwell (16), Thomson (10), all entered college at a relatively young age, and such early migrations here certainly paid off.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@GibbyCanes Re: "I am consistently disappointed by whatever "genius" shows up on the media with an IQ over 200" (ditto). This is one of the reasons I am slowly making the greatest geniuses ever listing (with IQs) online; where I shown all known cited IQs (many in the over-inflated 200 range) and meta analysis ranking of the person's realistic IQ (see: Genius IQs link in pull down), so to help dispel the frequent media anon with the so called "smarter than Einstein IQ" (which is pure absurdity).
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 I will be checking that out. anon's who are smarter than Einstein seem to be loved by Faux news.
GibbyCanes 3 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 What's the source for Feynman's IQ being thought as 190?
willou901 3 months ago
@willou901 The Genius IQs table (link in pulldown) at Hmolpedia.
HumanChemistry101 3 months ago
@GibbyCanes Boat, Water, Fire, Fish... I would have said Boat since the others have a "nature" theme. What is the point of MENSA? I doubt the intelligence of a group whose acronym spells out "Dumb" in the feminine form, in the world's number two language (as well as other Romance languages)
Pasaxero 2 months ago
What a laugh, you follow a video of Feynman with a series of unsupported statements. Some bold assertions followed by some more plausible ones, but with no references. So we have nothing to go on but your word. Well done. You obviously learned a lot.
InvincibleIronyMan 4 months ago
@IIEdeNII Feynman was a non-believer, as are most scientists. In fact, fewer than 5% of leading scientists currently believe in the existence of god (see link in drop menu). That "the concept of God is a huge concept" is indeed true, the theory of God is an Egyptian Ra theology based theory passed on to us as children via the Bible, Koran, and Rig Vida, arguing that life and death exist, explaining morality via the negative confession based soul weight (karma weight) theory. Upgrade is needed.
HumanChemistry101 4 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 Very nice video. Logical and precise. I love Richard Feynmann was a brilliant independent thinker. The religious ideology of god is total bullshit, been proven wrong time and time again. But lets have a look at the laws of the Universe and mathematics, there seems to be an order which our brain recognises. For e.g the golden ratio which exists in spiral galaxies to the shape of a snails shell just to name 2 examples. For me as a scientist there seems to be a Universal order.
givemeblowjob69 4 months ago
@givemeblowjob69 What would you put Feynman's IQ at, in the context of the Genius IQs table (dropmenu)?
HumanChemistry101 4 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 Tough question. I would roughly estimate at 180-200. Though I could be way off. Would you happen to have the correct answer?
givemeblowjob69 4 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 woops nevermind according to that website its 190...wow not a bad guess :D
givemeblowjob69 4 months ago
This video is available in BLURRY ASS 720p. There's something wrong with that.
nimajnebrm 4 months ago
My apologies, but you just listed out "facts" in the last half of your video, when yet Feynman completely goes against this logic and says there is "uncertainty" and "I'm not absolutely sure of anything". So is your argument with or against this video? I am very confused.
MM28MGI 4 months ago 41
@MM28MGI No, you are not confused. HumanChemistry 101 is confused.
bjs301 2 months ago
@MM28MGI Feynman was certain about one thing, which he called a “fact” (atomic fact), namely belief in the existence of atoms, which he said should be the one sentence of human knowledge to be put into a time capsule for the next generation should a cataclysm wipe out all of human knowledge (see link in pulldown). This fact is the starting point for all the other "facts" listed in the video, including atheism, which, according to Francis Bacon, arose from Greek atomic theory.
HumanChemistry101 1 week ago
-237c
mattysimsoficial 4 months ago
(j) The catalysts for the chemical reactions between humans are religion, common interests, nationality, race, etc. These catalysts either vastly enhance or inhibit the chemical reactions.
vmurali 4 months ago
Whose appended view was at the end? was it Feynman's or yours?
vmurali 4 months ago
@vmurali The end of the video wasn't tactful or illuminating, and therefore, not from Feynman. :)
atrowell 4 months ago
@atrowell You’re a tool. The one piece of scientific wisdom Feynman believed in more than anything else was the “atomic hypothesis” (see time capsule wisdom, pull down), a precursor to the “human molecular hypothesis” (Jean Sales, 1789), according to which humans are atomic structures (molecules or large moving chemicals) governed by the physical sciences, in particular Feynman's own QED.
HumanChemistry101 4 months ago
relashionship are chemical reactions. true..trust.love is ocytocin, physical attraction, testosterone, oestroge, adrenaline, serotonine, dopamine..etc but i think there is a god..not like common image of god..but rather.. all the forces/energies within the universe, the continuation the the big bang..logic of the universe and beyond..its initiator.
bitethis47 4 months ago
@bitethis47 Why should you call that all encompassing entity god? The term "God" has been misused so many times, and it is better to not use it refer to the cosmic force. Also, why there should be a logic for the universe? What if it just exists?
vmurali 4 months ago
@vmurali this is my perception of god..the creator. the initiator of the big bang. logic of the universe is like undestanding the physical world around us..the laws of physics..for eg
bitethis47 4 months ago
Energy is God.
VaelVictus 5 months ago
Truth: We ask these questions, because we are surviving things. Whatever happened way back when, happened, if it didn't we wouldn't be here. And we've continued to be here for a very long time, so whatever we're made of, has had to be good enough at surviving to endure. That's why we're driven, we're just more complex parts of nature trying to think up ways to keep on existing. The moment we stop trying, we stop existing, and the things that were better at existing replace us.
7j8i9m 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(a) is wrong
He doesn't exist for you.
wa9r 5 months ago
You type really loud...
junitono1 5 months ago
People who want to quote Feynman should take the time to actually learn about him. Feynman was certainly skeptical about the existence of any specific god, but he never claimed to "know" that there is no god. I think he was just certain that nobody else knows either. He was frustrated by people spending their time trying to prove unprovables.
bjs301 6 months ago
There is no God. There is no purpose to anything. And I love it. More than anything. The fact that there is no purpose to my life means that I can grant my own purpose to it. I get the choice.
TicTacTacitus 6 months ago
@TicTacTacitus Of course you realize, that the world that is being hypothesized here, is a materialist world. In this world, no one really has a "choice", because "choice" is an illusion. If we are made up of nothing but particles of matter, bouncing around and interacting according to set laws, then there is no way we are making any choices, you see? If those laws can precisely define how these particles interact, then our whole existance is already laid out - That is called determinism.
manipunation 5 months ago
I am an atheist and i think your off a bit on point B. I would have said that the Laws of energy and entropy operate according to the universe
jkrobertson88 6 months ago
'Fact' A is subjective.
dijitalparadox 6 months ago
but i still wonder what the point of there even being matter or why its here.
ionrocket 1 year ago
@ionrocket That’s a good question. I would guess that the answer lies in some type of overall universal theory of the interactions (or interconversions) of the various fermions (matter) and bosons (energy) in conjunction with what we observe about the movement of the universe?
I'm guessing that you are aiming the question around yourself, i.e. why you as a piece of matter exists? or what is the point of you, as a piece of matter, existing?
HumanChemistry101 1 year ago
@HumanChemistry101
I'm hoping it's not due to the random meaninglessness implied by quantum mechanics.
BlockisticStudios 5 months ago
@ionrocket: That’s how we are. The fact that we’re driven to ask these questions does neither mean there has to be an answer at all nor does it mean life would be meaningless without a creator. We define the meaning of the world around us according to our (conscious and/or purely biological) needs, some of the aspects changing importance over time, some staying rather written in stone. There’s nothing undignifying in that fact nor does it make us mere robots or lost in the universe.
albedoshader 6 months ago
@ionrocket To me, "Why?" a useless question. "Why is there something?" "Why do trees exist?" "Why do we love?" These questions "Why?" aren't the best questions to ask for me, especially when discussing nature. "Why?" involves a human element; it asks for a motive (a reason involving free-will as to why you did something). And I can easily get wrapped up in these infinities of "Why?" that really don't move me forward in understanding anything.
So: instead of asking "Why?", I like to ask "How?"
8644371 5 months ago 17
@8644371 Awesome reply. Have you seen the video where the interviewer asks Feynman "why do magnets attract" and Feynman goes off on a tangent about "why" questions. Thumbs up for your comment.
RustyCyler 5 months ago
@8644371 Very well put.
justtryharder 4 months ago
@8644371 You seem to be lost in semantics. The real question is "What's the go o' that?", James Maxwell's famed question he started asking at age 3 about everything that moved, shone, or made a noise; and if he was not satisfied, the followup "but what's the particular go of it?". Note also: see genius rankings in pull down for the IQ rankings of Maxwell, Feynman and others.
HumanChemistry101 4 months ago
@8644371 You are thinking correctly if you want to do Science (Math, no; Science, yes). The Scientific Method does NOT take into consideration the question “Why” (the nearest is “How Come”); for example, the Scientific Method does not answer questions regarding “God” (because science does not permit these questions to even be asked -- less to say, be answered scientifically). Just remember when someone asks you God questions: You don’t know, you are a scientist!
ExBoydWho 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExBoydWho " for example, the Scientific Method does not answer questions regarding “God” (because science does not permit these questions to even be asked..."
Bit confused here. Can't science address a hypothesis that a God(s) is the most plausible explanation for observed phenomenon?
God is a metaphysical claim, not just an answer to a "why" question. Supernatural claims are often ill defined and unfalsifiable, but doesn't science allow us to address the probability of their being true?
iridescentsquids 1 month ago
@8644371 i approve your thought. I'd just say the question "why?" is not useless. But answering this question is. ;)
motherfather2009 1 month ago
@ionrocket Why should there be a reason? Maybe there isn't one.
outlaw87100 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outlaw87100 "Why should there be a reason? Maybe there isn't one." I was going to say the same thing. Thumbs up for you.
RustyCyler 5 months ago
@ionrocket I did come across the factoid (recently) that it was German polymath Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) that first famously asked the question why is there something rather than nothing, or in his own words “Why is any world .... something rather than nothing? There isn't. There's both."
HumanChemistry101 5 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 Nothing is something.
lexidart 4 months ago
This response came after Feynman was queried about God. In modern times, less than 6 percent of US scientists believe in God. The residual theories of religion, however, still linger in the minds of many Godless scientists, e.g. life and death. Life is a religious theory, not a modern scientific theory. A human is a molecule. Technically, a molecule cannot be alive, nor die.
HumanChemistry101 1 year ago
@HumanChemistry101 I believe there's so much circumstantial evidence that points to another or other dimensions, and also that we as living molecules also have a spirit which coexists within another dimension while our matrix of molecules exists in this physical one. There is much more that we don't know than there is of what we do know & think we know. If that statement is true, it is difficult to rule out a supreme being as a statement of fact. That is just one example.
kevjay777 5 months ago
@kevjay777 The stuff you're talking about, i.e. humans are "living molecules with spirit", was Pierre Teilhard's 1930s-40s theory about which he wrote volumes on. Nowadays, were stepping our game up. Atoms and molecules (humans included) are not "living" and do not have "spirit". These are Egyptian theories handed down to us. We move and have higher levels of animation, but all of this needs to be explained in modern physics and chemical terms (not mythological terms).
HumanChemistry101 5 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 Your use of the term 'living' and the argument of whether or not it applies to that which we refer to as 'life' is an argument in semantics. If life is simply defined as chemical processes or entities, which gather energy, and self-replicate, and have some sort of capacity to process information, then indeed we are 'alive'. As far as I am concerned, this is the modern operating definition of life.
stardust005 5 months ago
@stardust005 It's far from an argument in semantics. "Living" and "life" are religious terms, not defined in modern chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics. We all evolved over time from the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom, however, is not alive. We can calculate the entire chemical reaction mechanism, hydrogen to us (an animated 26 element molecule). The search for the specific day in this mechanism in which molecules became "alive" is a search for fool's gold. Google "defunct theory of life".
HumanChemistry101 5 months ago
@HumanChemistry101 We're molecules? No. We are a complex organization of many molecules that metabolize, grow and reproduce. The molecules that make us up one day are not the same that make us up the next. This process is called life. A molecule is a stable specific collection of bonded atoms. The term life is in fact defined in biology, which is a specialization of chemistry. Whether religious people have their own definition for it is not my concern.
armpitpuncher 2 weeks ago
@armpitpuncher You might want to read Sterner and Elser's 2002 Ecological Stoichiometry, because humans are defined as "molecules". This is a new fact of human existence, possibly one they didn't' teach you in school. Re: "life" Google "defunct theory of life" to educate yourself further on the illusion you call life, which is a religious-based theory.
HumanChemistry101 2 weeks ago