Richard Dawkins on The Begining of the Universe

[roxtar55]

LOL fail. he said "If a God exists, He would have to be very, very, very complicated." LOL Derrrr!!! He is the most complicated being in existence. lol whatta fail. contradicted himself.

[AzureFlameElk]

@roxtar55

What contradiction? He stated that if god existed, he would have to be very complicated, and then you agreed.

His argument is this:

If one is trying to explain the beginning of the universe, in which we have very little evidence about, it is always easier to accept a simple explanation rather than a complex one.

To answer the question with a god is overkill, and thus you are posing a bigger question "What created this more complex thing (god)?"

Do you understand?

[roxtar55]

@AzureFlameElk No, God has always existed. He created the meaning of existence. He created time and the physical world. Thus, since we live in a time spectrum created by God, we only understand a cause-and-effect system. God has always existed, which we cannot fathom, even the Bible says. Even Albert Einstein said that and agreed with it, and most physicists accept the idea that something did not come from nothing. It's fallacied biologists like Dawkins who deny God because he hates the clergy.

[AzureFlameElk]

@roxtar55

The bible is not a reliable source of information on physics or cosmology.

If God could have always existed, then why does matter and energy need some kind of creation point?

Matter and energy can be converted into one another, but never really destroyed. As far as we know, all material and energy in existence has always existed in some form, even if it was different before the big bang. The idea that a god must be responsible is asinine and based on....what again?

[roxtar55]

this is something no athiest can really answer. Dawkins got debunked haha.

[dhide14]

This Dawkins homo just got pwned by a friggin' kid!!!

[AzureFlameElk]

@dhide14

How so?

[bigboxbobby2]

Bruce Springsteen move aside - Richard Dawkins - you are the Boss!!!

[TiCkToCkMaRiO1473]

what the hell did start everything. if some of you say god, who created god?

[dhide14]

@TiCkToCkMaRiO1473 typical Atheist.....don't defend your side...just attack the other. Answer yours first

[TiCkToCkMaRiO1473]

@dhide14 im not atheist. Im a christian who started questioning.

[stepchangeable]

God isnt real, no amount of text will make it real.

[TheMuckRucker]

3 months and you haven't answered my question(s) let put the comment again

[TheMuckRucker]

It's not that you need to propose a specific entity. But regardless what it is, wouldn't it have to be more complex than the universe in order to create it? According to your logic? And again, "he always existed" which means that he is the "prime reality", thus he does not need an explanation because HE is the ultimate explanation. It's just like "the theory of everything" that physicists are pursuing. A theory that not only explains the universe but also explains itself....

[TheMuckRucker]

There MUST be something that is self-existent. So Since there must be something thats self existent it is rational to posit something to be self existent and can rationally maintain that it is self existent unless it can be demonstrated how that entity is logically or physically contingent on something else for its existence. Theists will assert that its God( thats what the very definition of God is) and if you take that attribute away then you are no longer attacking the Christian God.

[TheMuckRucker]

(continuing) but a God of your own setup, but if thats the case then you do not argue against Christianity. So this argument doesn't affect me or any other Christian

[AzureFlameElk]

The argument is that, even if there is some entity or "prime mover" there's no reason to believe it's any one specific entity over another.

There's no reason to think it's jesus or zues specifically.

It's an attack on the specificity of the christian god, not upon the existence of a deity.

[TheMuckRucker]

OK. Let me show exactly why dawkins is in a contradiction. He states that God - in order to create the universe - would have to be more complex than the universe itself. But then he goes on to say that the cause of the universe must be simple. But wait a minute! Wouldn't the cause of the universe have to even more complex than the universe itself? I know I already said that, but I just wanted to clarify it more.

[AzureFlameElk]

God is complicated because he not only created the universe, but being a conscious being, would have to be VERY intelligent and complex in order to understand and poof a universe out of nowhere, where as a simple explanation (such as the big bang) does not necessitate intelligence or intent to create such a universe.

For example, it took a long time for mankind to learn to make fire, but fire is often made in nature from simple processes without anyone's intervention.

[TheMuckRucker]

I'm sorry about the order, read the comments bottom to top.(the 3 below that is)

[TheMuckRucker]

READ the article I posted on my home youtube channel "TheMuckRucker". And you'll get your argument schooled

[AzureFlameElk]

I read it.

If god can be 'the prime' end all answer to everything, then the universe needs no explanation either.

It provides no credence to an argument for god to say that he needs no explanation or creator, because the same could be said about anything.

[TheMuckRucker]

WELL,well. EXACTLY, Something must be the prime reality, The theist will assert that it is God, the atheist something else(like a multi-verse). But the thing is, is that not everything can be non-contingent or the "prime reality"(i.e things that begin to exist, example, the universe, life etc.) But do you admit that Dawkins' argument is fallacious?

[TheMuckRucker]

Moreover we must ask ourselves who is the best candidate for the "prime reality". lets get started. In order to be the prime reality and a causal agent, it must have the ability to self propel itself because this is the "first state" and none before,thus "act on its own", Matter(under the law of inertia) does not have this ability. Impersonal beings do not have the ability to self propel themselves(again the law of inertia)....

[TheMuckRucker]

So we know that the best candidate for the prime reality is a spiritual and personal being, reasonably known as God.

[AzureFlameElk]

The universe, being whatever it may be in such a 'rime reality' is not bound by inertia, or anything that exists inside the universe. We can only observe the universe as it is from the inside.

Something that caused the existence of the universe (if indeed it had a beginning) would not necessarily operate under the laws of our universe.

God is a more complicated explanation to the problem, because it asserts that not only did an omnipotent being exist forever, but has no development stages.

[TheMuckRucker]

The law of inertia is a universal metaphysical principle. Again, you are subscribing to this "complexity=improbability". NO. it is "contingency=improbability". and you said "no development stages". what? developmental stages? We are talking about the first state of existence and what was it.

[AzureFlameElk]

A universal principle does not necessarily apply outside of the universe.

The argument is that god is must be a complex being in order to create the entire universe (which is very complex itself).

So if god could have 'always existed' then anything outside the universe could as well, and therefore assigning a personality to that thing and calling it 'god' is superfluous.

There are no development stages for god. He just 'is' perfect, and didn't become more complex over time.

[TheMuckRucker]

AZUREFLAMEELK. You did not really refute my argument, but I guess that that's OK.

MAYBE the law of inertia cannot be used as a "conclusive" proof for the existence of God, but at least the argument makes it reasonable to be a theist. Is it not? In light of this argument? At least a little? Anyway, you said that God must be complex in order to create the entire universe, but so what?(actually God is spirit and thus indivisible, but whatever you say)....

[TheMuckRucker]

But I say to you, What entity do you posit to be the cause of the universe? Not that you have to be specific or anything, But wouldn't that entity have to be "more complex" than this universe to cause it? But regardless, I thought we were talking about "the ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" produced by Dawkins. Will you admit that it is fallacious? Considering the necessity of a "prime reality"?

[AzureFlameElk]

I don't propose any entity. I'm remarking upon the improbability of god being that entity.

Dawkins analogy refers to the complexity of god.

He's saying that, because evidence says things start simple and become complex, that God is very unlikely because he 'always has existed' and is powerful enough to create the universe and answer trillions of prayers a day.

[TheMuckRucker]

It's not that you need to propose a specific entity. But regardless what it is, wouldn't it have to be more complex than the universe in order to create it? According to your logic? And again, "he always existed" which means that he is the "prime reality", thus he does not need an explanation because HE is the ultimate explanation. It's just like "the theory of everything" that physicists are pursuing. A theory that not only explains the universe but also explains itself....

[TheMuckRucker]

But then again, I can see where you are driving at. Are you saying that God would be an unlikely prime reality? But as I have argued before, the best candidate for being the "prime reality" is a spiritual and personal being. If I am ever attacking straw man, please let me know.

[JONK1NG]

they are just trying to attack our beliefs with disbelief, and half or quarter truths. Most of their arguments are self defeating...so let them defeat themsleves, and slide further

[JONK1NG]

Most of this specualtion is strictly relative an unfortunately biased..a "non-believing" scientist will statistically find God to be improbable for they fill in gaps with theories. Yet a scientist who "believes" will most likely conclude the existence of God probable from his research. Much has to do with the degree of "faith" within a person to accept things attached to ambiguity. Personally i think that science points to intelligent design and/or a God.There is just too much evidence to ignore

[AzureFlameElk]

Garbage.

[omiteru]

dribble. Dawkins has become the whipping boy for creationists. People like JONK1NG try to believe that if you believe in science then you do not believe in God.

One does not believe in science, but understands science.

Many of the facts that science presents are quite scary, more because it forces one to discard ones preconceptions. It is quite surprising what superstitions are lost when one starts to understand. However, science is a humble art and people like Dawkins demystifies it.

[commanderplank]

What "Evidence"?

[AzureFlameElk]

When someone doesn't understand science, they think everything is 'evidence' of god @_@

[commanderplank]

True, it's just as George Carlin said - "The last refuge of a man with no knowledge and no answers is 'It came from god'

[3superdogs]

The reason why life is so improbable is because it is dependent on so many things that are necessary for a life sustaining planet and universe. God is not dependent on anything-He is above all things. to back up your claims... Give me an example on what God is dependent on.

[AzureFlameElk]

There are between 1 and 30 billion planets in our solar system, and an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Even if we assume all these galaxies only have 1 billion planets in each, we could say there's a 1 in a billion chance of life existing, and we'd still be @ 100%!

Simply because you invoke something and say it has no boundaries doesn't make it true, or even statistically productive O.o

[3superdogs]

so there is only one in a billion chance for life existing?We can dispute those numbers but those aren't the ONLY things that life needs to exist.for example Roger Penrose calculated that one parameter the "original phase-space volume," required fine tuning to an accuracy of one part in 10^1230. also there are about 30 other parameters that have to be tweaked just right for life(example) the probability that the cosmological constant is somewhere around 1 part in 10^60

[3superdogs]

also. I did not make up something and say it has no boundaries. God by definition has no boundaries. and you can't tell HOW He is 'statistically improbable' like your hero dawkins(and yourself) claim to do.

[AzureFlameElk]

My hero? >.>

He's statistically improbable because of the nature he is explained to have. An extremely complex entity he must be to create and control our entire universe and everything in it.

And not just this, but that he is 'timeless' and therefore has always been this way.

These are very huge leaps in complexity from any answer. For example, why is there thunder? When we didn't know this, it was Thor, because any other explanation was just silly.

[AzureFlameElk]

If you changed these constants, life as we know it might not exist. But this isn't to say no form of life at all would exist. We only understand our type of life because it's what we're able to study in our current situation.

Besides, even if we don't know why these things are constant, it doesn't mean that god is the necessary answer, it simply means we're ignorant of that knowledge.

You must understand that absence of knowledge does not justify a niche for god.

[3superdogs]

most of the constants if you change them then NO planets could form.

[Joddit]

Right now you are putting forward an assertion without any backing up and expecting your adversary to disprove your assertion... But then, that's just common practice for most creationists...

To answer your question: since God is no more than a word cooked up by humanity to explain whatever they did not understand, God is only dependent on the existence of people, or perhaps more accurately: the existence of God is only dependent on the ink needed to write it down...

[3superdogs]

so i am making an assertion? it was dawkins who said that God was "statistically" improbable". I'm just asking you guys to back it up. HOW is God improbable? what is He dependent on?

[Joddit]

He explains in this very video why he considers an intelligent and complicated being an improbable cause for the existence of the universe. You clearly haven't been paying attention.

And your assertion was that God must be above all things and independent from anything; You haven't given any evidence for that whatsoever!!

[3superdogs]

i heard it and it did not sound like he gave me a reason to believe that God is "statistically improbable" I am just asking you what is God dependent on? God by definition is independent from everything.

[Joddit]

"i heard it and it did not sound like he gave me a reason to believe that God is "statistically improbable"

He has given a perfectly valid reason why he thanks the god-scenario is unlikely, which he explains in detail. The ball is in your court to counter his argument!!

"God by definition is independent from everything. "

Definitions are just descriptions made up by man and therefore do not qualify as evidence...

You've lost the argument man!!

[3superdogs]

in detail? GIVE ME A REASON WHY GOD IS STATISTICALLY IMPROBABLE. WHAT IS HE DEPENDENT ON? I AM ASKING YOU!

BTW. YOU REASONING IS FLAWED WHEN YOU SAY that because there is no evidence for God that means that he is not independent from everything. CONSIDER THIS the multi-verse theory has no evidence behind it, but does that mean that it does not explain away the fine tuning of the universe? of course not. if the multi-verse theory is true regardless if there is no evidence it still acounts for f.t

[Joddit]

Firstly, the reasoning you just named was not my reasoning, nor of anyone else here.

Secondly, since God is made up by man, he is not dependent on anything except the people who thought of him.

And finally, since you are extremely reluctant to even watch this video for some reason: to start of with an endlessly complicated being is improbable because the universe appears to grow in complicatedness instead of decreasing in complexity!

You could have extracted this yourself from the video!

[3superdogs]

so tell me dawkins... HOW is God more improbable? give me an example or an equation.

[AzureFlameElk]

Did you even watch the video?