Theologians talk of God as 'Spirit' i.e. immaterial. Debates about his complexity and simplicity simply a category error in relation to the material universe. You might as well ask how complicated or simple is the emotion of anger, compassion etc.
@QShots hahahahhahaahhha oh my fucking word!!!they know space is eternal because something always has to come after,whats after that and then whats after that,granted,its nothingness perhaps but it is still space and it is eternal,it has no end,so u are a clearly a moron."where does it say space is eternal" unbelieveble!im not arguing with someone who doesnt even know first school science!expanding into what???!!?!? SPACE!!!
@reeceyhigs theres a reason the creationists look like complete morons in these videos, its the same reason youre looking like a complete moron on this forum. Its because you know nothing and refuse to learn it. Its subtle, but theres a difference between "nothing" and "space". Watch some more videos, get a book and learn up.
@reeceyhigs you really havent learned a thing from these videos. Where does it say that space is eternal? They say its expanding, theres a major difference. How can YOU not comprehend that saying god is eternal and space is eternal is still making a huge leap. As far as space, we can see how vast it is. god doesnt even exist and youre giving him characteristics.
I find this kind of boring. At least the less civilized theists are entertaining. This is just a, what seems to be an intelligent man, dancing around simple questions, not saying anything of value.
atheists believe that it is better that you had never been born. if you are an atheist, before you give up hope on life, actually STUDY the Bible, cs lewis, mcgrath, and other theologians, because if Dawkins is right it makes no difference.
@hello83558 reading the bible turned me into an atheist. you should try reading it and understanding what youre reading. If you understood it theres no possible way to believe it.
@hello83558 too much to simply list with 500 characters and its more complicated than a list. However, to sum it up, there's MAJOR problems at every turn with Christianity. It basically discredits itself in scripture, dogma, actions, etc. I mean it says in the bible that god made day and night before he made stars, and thats right off the bat. If you read the bible from a neutral position, god is a terrible character and certainly the villain.
@hello83558 you cannot be given free will. You simply have it. He's the villain for all the reasons i listed earlier. Are you calling those things qualities? Are those things that god ORDERED good? He's a terrible character by any moral standard. If you change the word god to any other name with those same characteristics youd tell me I was describing a terrible person. The rules dont change because we're talking about 'god'
@hello83558 as far as teachings, I think it gives the absolute WORST teachings. Ive learned in the bible that slavery is sanctioned by god, rape is okay I just have to marry the victim and pay her father, illegitimate children will go to hell, I as a human am worthless, god wanted me to be stupid, god sanctions genocide and infanticide, endless torture is okay, god will do evil things to test you, god prefers some nationalities and races over others, polygamy is sanctioned, etc... just read it
@hello83558 Yes, Ive read the NT. And I agree that Christianity would be better if it didnt attach itself to the god of the OT. However, it did, and claims its the same god. Are you suggesting that god changed, and that he no longer is for slavery, genocide, infanticide, stupidity, thievery, etc. If so why do you not hold him to moral standards. Also the NT is really no different than the OT: "believe in me or go to hell" is the underlying theme. Are you also saying that jesus and god disagree?
I think Mcgrath has some really good points I don't understand what is wrong on his part...like they both agreed on, there is no absolut side to whether or not god is real on not... but the question remains...how did the universe start? And how was humankind started?
Alister "You've raised some very interesting questions and I'm not going to answer any of them" McGrath.
I mean, really. Dawkins asks how helpful it is to use God as an explanation for unexplained things when God itself is unexplained (and unexplainable), and McGrath's answer is to say he doesn't think God needs to be explained because it explains things. The point, of course, being that God doesn't explain anything.
Another champion for God that theists will discredit if they haven't yet.
I really like this discussion, but I do think that McGrath is being just as wishy washy as many other Christians are when asked difficult questions. It's very much a "I'm a Christian and therefore I interpret the world through Christianity" (for clarity, no atheist takes this kind of stance) not a "The world makes me believe a god must exist" approach. Which is especially interesting given that he apparently used to be atheistic.
I wish Dawkins would spend more time talking to real theologians like McGrath, rather than picking on moronic Creationists in arguments about the fossil record he's obviously going to win.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Well I would like to see Dawkins behave as gently and politely to the average Joe or Jane, as he behaves in this video with Prof. McGrath. (That is actually at the heart of Christianity, to treat all others respectfully-as you would have them treat you. But of course he rejects all that)
Dawkins is usually respectful to the people he interviews, at least initially.
He does get angry at people who make stupid arguments and spew lies at him though (primarily creationist stuff) and he knows beforehand that Alistair McGrath is very unlikely to do that so he doesn't need to put his guard up
not that I have noticed. Did you see the panel with the two Buddhists (I think they are Buddhists) One of them remarks directly to him about his manner with the audience and well. its just way out of line.
@margiedemello I see you haven't actually read the heart of Christianity which would be it's foundational texts of the NT. Numerous repeated calls for violence, and other forms of harsh treatment for unbelievers are found throughout the document. This doesn't at all jive with what you seem to be implying that it's a book of kindness, generosity, and acceptance. If you look really hard, and are prepared to do some logic based gymnastics, you can find what you are talking about.
@meabandit dont' know what comment you are responding to, but calls? for violence in NT, are not what I have been reading and not what I subscribe to, so would you say that is a good thing? The Ch. violence often criticised is complicity in secular intK Arerests which is misreading of NT and more cultural than faith based. Have you read K Armstrong. Check out TED comments and you tube videos of her historical text. Thanks
@margiedemello I fail to see how you can call yourself a Christian unless you subscribe to the teachings of Jesus. Of course there are sick perverted, hypocritical statements like "love your enemies", but are many other examples of him condoning violence, and him even engaging in it. How is it you or some pseudo science theologian knows the essence of his teaching, and that "knowledge" isn't available to all? See the book "Misquoting Jesus" by B Ehrman.
The sun is not the only source of light you know. As for whether the days of creation referring to a literal 6 days, well I don't know, maybe it was from God's point of view or days can mean stages I don't know.
McGath's point about christianity establishing a framework for science is nonsense. The Greeks postulated Atoms and worked out the circumference of the Earth before the bible was even concieved.
@lewisner What are you talking about? Don't you know that science has catched up to the Bible? The Bible states that, the universe had a beginning,(non eternal) the (heavens) universe is expanding, mountains in the sea, oceans contains springs, light can be divided, the hydrological cycle, air has weight and more, these claims by the Bible were once thought to be wrong but science has proven the Bible to be right after all. also this..
@jonathanfater Yes, especially the bit where god creates light before she creates a SOURCE of light ie the Sun or any other star. And how she creates plants before she creates the Sun? And how it takes 4 days to create the Earth but an instant to create the rest of the Universe with it's countless trillions of stars and planets? They knew how to tell a funny story those old time savages 8-)
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
Dawkins assumes that everything has a cause. It is false. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. God is transcendent; he is not bound in time. In fact he created spacetime. Time arose from God. All those things which hav a relation to time has to be explained by causality. As God is above time, he didnot have to be created.
@kevinvalsonjacob excuses IF the bible is the word of god,then u belive that there was a talkin snake in the garden of eden,and that he made adam and eve,,if he did,then i put this 2 u,if he created adam and eve then 1 of them must have been fukin their child in order 4 the rest of us 2 exist,and ur saying that humans are all inbread,,think about what the bible says its so flawed its UNREAL,even as a kid of 7 i would always ask them questions,a talkin snake,hahahah christans=MOREONS
@stevenut88 I dont have any replies to your filthy language. They are assertions which do not follow from any premise. Please answer to my questions in the earlier post. If you go around telling me that you are a moron, it wont change me; nor it would change anybody. Rather, try to give logical arguments. I showed Dawkins' illogicality in assuming that everything has a cause. As a scientist, he himself knows very well that Quantum Mechanics disproves causality.
@stevenut88 You speak of inconsistencies in the Genesis. your argument is valid and I can reply to it. But what does the atheist say? That the universe just sprang into existence? Remember that this violates all the known laws of Physics including conservation of matter and energy. If that is not a miracle, what is?
I do not know why I am writing this because I feel that it is not worth it.
@kevinvalsonjacob no1 ses it simply sprung in 2 existance,,,we dont no how we came 2 be,but its ideotic to say because we dont no then then 4 some god must have created it
@stevenut88 The cause for the universe must be immaterial(as all matter+energy is in the universe) , transcendant ( timeless) (as time exists in the universe)and uncaused. It is what I call the God. This defies the atheistic position that there is no God. Again, I do not assert that this God might be the God of the Christian faith or of the Koran.
alister tried to answer some questions,mostly religious people dont go that far. very interesting questions raised by dawkins . physicists may try to answer . but he is the man , really cool.
man this mcrath guy some valid arguments agiants dawkins O.O maibe alot of people do like dr william lane craig who dawkins has refused to debate over and over.
Weird eh? Dawkins doubts a complex God because he thinks a complex universe should come out of simplicity, such as the simplicity of evolution, but when considering the notion of an ultimately simple God, he rejects it on grounds that anything simple could not give rise to the complex laws of physics.
@Rybot9000 The universe did not come out of evolution, nor did he state that.
To say the universe came about by simplicity does not contradict his doubt about a complex god anyways.
His point is that for an entity that is not natural to create something, this entity must also be complex. This is not compared with a simple process as evolution for a process does not equate to an entity.
Therefore, his argument has no problem, nor is he contradicting himself.
@fcdog555 I don't remember Alister saying that God is a supernatural entity. God was defined by St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas as "That than which nothing greater can be thought." Some call this the "Set of all sets". This kind of definition does not indicate anything greater than the natural order. If the natural order is the greatest thought, then the natural order is God. Is the universe a complex entity? Was the universe created by evolution?
@fcdog555 Exactly! So, just like your "Universe". "God" is not an entity and was not created by evolution, but was transformed by it's own cosmic evolution.
@fcdog555 How does cosmic evolution describe the creation of the universe? Is or is not the universe everything? Whatever term you use to mean "everything", that is my meaning of "God". Evolution could not have created "everything" because "everything" includes evolution. You tell me what created "everything", and I will tell you that it couldn't have because it is by definition part of "everything". Evolution and (apparently) Universe happen within "Everything" (a.k.a. "God").
@fcdog555 The critical point here seems to be that there is a totality, an everything, or "omnitudo realitatis" (All that exists). And nothing could have created this Totality, any particular thing that could "exist" is of necessity just a fragment or piece of a larger puzzle. When we ponder what is "real" or "extant" we imagine them inhabiting the Totality. Anything we imagine as "existing" is merely a part of this greater fact of existence, which I call God among many other names.
@fcdog555 Now the Bible does state that "There is One God and beside him there is no other." With One capitalized to represent a distinct meaning. In the Hebrew Bible the word is Yacchid which means "An absolute unity" which reflects the meaning of "God" I've described. This is set apart from Echad which is numerical one. Nevertheless, there is "no other" beside God, which means that God is everything.
@fcdog555 "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." (Gospel of Thomas; 77) In Christ were created all things in heaven and on eartheverything visible and everything invisible.... Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in unity. —Col. 1-15-17
God is defined in the Bible and by Christians as "ALL-EVERYTHING"
@fcdog555 In him we live, and move, and have our being.... "We are his offspring."
—Acts 17.28 NIV
For from him, and through him and to him are all things.
—Rm. 8.36 NIV
There is one God who is father of all, over all, through all and within all.
—Eph. 4.6
"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me. The Wise who fully realize this engage in my devotional service and worship me with all their hearts." (Hindu Bhagavad Gita 10.8)
@fcdog555 Finally all the names of God reflect this meaning; "God" from PIE -ghut meaning "to invoke", "Yahweh" pronunciation of "JHVH" meaning "to-be", "I AM THAT I AM", some translate JHVH as "to-be" or "To cause to become".
what about job chapter26 verse 7 from the bible he spoke of god and how he made the earth to hang upon nothing, sounds like the earth in space doesnt it? : ) and how noahs ark has been found on mount arrat just where it said it was in genesis. our god is an awesome god.
The neuron in a brain has no concept of the mind yet interacts with other elements of the brain and so "knows" of the brain. Think! You need to to know how limited you are, as am I.
Think! Imagine traveling to a far advanced civilization and seeing things completely out of the realm of human knowledge. Now imagine trying to convey those things you had learned to the average human. This is an example of how far we are from God and why we must have intelligent discussions like this to understand better.
Dawkins can't conceive of an eternal creative force that has simply always been there. Yet if you take God out of the equation then you still have the equally difficult problem of explaining how empty space that goes on infinately in every direction could have always somehow been there prior to and after the big bang occured. Both concepts require a certain level of faith because they are both improbable. No matter which way you go it takes you to an improbable place.
@esraretin He was until recently Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, but has now taken up the chair of Theology, Religion and Culture at King's College London since September 2008. He gained his doctorate at Oxford in Molecular Biophysics, and went on to earn a further doctorate when he completed his Doctor of Divinity degree, also at Oxford.
The Material Universe by itself cannot account for assembly of purely random events into complexity. It is like gambling at the casino against good odds and having forever and all the money of infinity , yet the only outcome is to lose, unless a third rail or judgment on gambling events by randomness , extracts interest by intent to conserve some events and let others stand idle. An Intelligent Cause must determine the roll of the dice, or the roll of the dice is eternally lost causes.
Science has proven that the universe has a beginning (the big bang). It is that *beginning*, that explosion of something from nothing, requires a *beginner*. The creation of something from absolute nothingness, the absence of matter/space/time absolutely requires an infinite God.
@AllSeeingEy3 Time had a beginning, and thus time did not always exist, but that doesn't mean that the universe as a whole poofed out of nothingness. The thing is that there was no time before the start of time for there to have been nothing in. We start with a singularity. Relativity says that without distance, there is no time, so if all the matter and energy of the universe occupies a single infinitely small, infinitely dense point, there is no time for there to be a "before" to ask about.
@AllSeeingEy3 Just because we don't yet know what came before the big bang doesn't mean we have to fill that space with god. saying that because there is beginning means there has to be a beginner, still leaves you with the question of the beginning of that beginner, which is why that is a very weak point to make.
@rememberthename33 Something has to be responsible for that infinitely dense, infinitely small point from which the universe grew. Things don't just spontaneously generate. I fill that gap with God because only something that exists *outside* of time and space could create and initiate time and space. A being with no beginning or end.
@AllSeeingEy3 so everything has to be created EXCEPT for god, not only is there no evidence to support that, but it's also a special pleading fallacy and so an illogical claim to make. in other words you're saying Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
@rememberthename33 Would you call existence outside of space/time an irrelevant characteristic?
All events are connected by causality. The universe either has an ultimate efficient cause, or causes can be traced back to infinity. However, once the the BB and subsequent causes have been traced back to an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny point, naming that points cause forces us to make one of two very large assumptions: God(or "prime mover"), or a causal chain of increasing power ad infinitum.
@AllSeeingEy3 we don't have to make any large assumptions about what was there before the big bang, we can say "we don't know yet" but to say we know that a god MUST have been what caused it is i big claim to make
@sonykroket Someone will help you with it, I'm sure. It's obviously over your head. In other words (which you won't understand any better) it's an allusion, not an illusion, brainiac.
Well, at least i don't believe in nonexistent lying gay zombies, dipshit. Why don't you taketh that bible and shoveth up thou anus, you bronze-age moron.
@sonykroket You really have nothing to contribute to this discussion, do ye? LOL! Name calling, yea! This man is ten folks. Look, the grown-ups are talking about big boy stuff, better run along, son.
That's because there is no discussion, dummy. It's beliefs against the scientific method. The reli-muppets are sticking their fingers in their ears and jusy keep yelling: Nanaa nanaa, i want my skydaddy to be real.
Why couldn't God be the center of the universe and as he creates they spread. This is my own thought pattern and infact would explain why the universe is consistantly expanding.
These two are both very peculiar and intelligent individuals- but i would like McGrath to get the point more. He seems to avoid the questions and topics and hand, sometimes.
Oxford dandies prattling about God. If you want to know why someone believes in God, go to, say, an African-Methodist Episcopal Church on Sunday and ask someone that question. I guarantee you'll get a more interesting answer than you'll ever hear on these YouTube debates...and considerably more genuine.
I can understand his point but if you believe why do you change, is god working with americanism, mcdonalds, coca cola, your bible wanted people killed , who up dated it for the 21st century, plesae its a book that was to keep control and give understanding when there was none, its game over now.
i definitely can respect this guy as a religious man, i disagree, but still this man is like no other ive ever encountered in my life, but dawkins is still dominating, whether mcgrath realizes it or not
Analogy of realizing God's existence like he sees the rising Sun is a defeatist argument. It is like x-y=z which is true therefore God exists. Second point is that some religions have no God. It is only the Abraham's Trio that has God. And this God has failed to make sane people believe His existence. Rest is just verbosity leading to nowhere. I agree with Dawkins' argument of not forcing Religion upon children. I wish he does not make Atheism a religion? Atheism needs no Dawkins.
@etrle - Your so right! I have enjoyed listening to this debate. I myself am a strong believer in god and I've always thought of Dawkins as a man of great inteligence, even though we differ in our beliefs but I am very please to finally found this video about these two smart men and their debate without any tensions, yelling, sarcasms, arrogance and without having to cut each other off. Respectful and honest! This what a debate should be!!!!
correct! this is what a debate should be. too bad debating against atheists on the internet will end up unhealthy. atheists in general will throw a bunch of bad, foul words at you when you proved them wrong and they are outreasoned
@AgApE010 your correct, but he spends most of his time studying theology. He accepts evolution on the grounds that as a molecular biophysicist, he has studied and experimented with evolutionary concepts
@etrle Theology and Science more like! Proper analytical philosophy is just a brutally deductive as science, it simply addresses difference questions and takes no conclusion as a premise (a la theology's flaw as taking the existence of God as a premise in its reasoning).
@etrle How can you say McGrath is very smart, or even a philosopher??? I've never seen a greater, and i mean it, a greater intellectual and moral coward as McGrath.
i think both sides need to stop insulting the other. that leads to arrogance and ignorance. logically understand both sides before you completely dismiss people and their beliefs.
Dawkins wants the theory of evolution to explain EVERYTHING and that's where he goes wrong. This theory is about a certain frame of reality, but there are other levels. And that's just a theory, not a fact, Dawins says so himself. How can that theory explain the fact that I have a conscience? I can't, it was not meant to do that in the first place. FAITH needs no explaining. How can I explain by scientific means the faith I have in my father, for example?
the truth will out . i am more real than god i am more moral than god . i don't think its good to stone people to kill people to make them slaves god does . it says so in the bible . not one christian can deny that . face facts god is a lie god is control and power and greed and evil
It seems to me that McGrath is primarily a time-waster - and I think very deliberately so. He doesn't attempt to answer Dawkins's questions as much as avoid them by waffling around them. I am surprised that Dawkins was so patient and didn't challenge McGrath more directly on the question of why conjuring God into existence is an adequate explanation for anything at all. I think because McGrath is eloquent and understands evolution theory Dawkins is willing to be tolerant of the bilge he talks.
Dawkins doesn't understand it's not a cop-out to say God always existed. It follows logically and deductively from philosophical argumentation. Something has always existed--if there was ever nothingness, there would just be nothingness, because from nothing nothing comes. But things exist, so something has always existed. McGrath just uses the word "God" to refer to that.
@mmmga I don't hear that at all. Mcgrath is a very intelligent man who offers some very strong arguments. He seems to be quite a bit more intelligent than you, actually.
@mmmga I thought the notion of understanding god not by any preconceived idea of who god must be, but to attempt to understand through the framework which he created, was quite interesting. He also brought up the age old debate regarding the capacity of the human mind. Good points that have been brought up by many philosophers before.
@mmmga your comment sums up why I often lose patience with an atheistic point of view. This is an interesting debate, with good comments from both sides, but when you don't like what you hear you resort to name calling. It is possible to be religious and intelligent. McGrath's comments (whether you like them or not) are certainly more intelligent than yours. I'm not a fan of Dawson, but I admire his facing McGrath, and the respect he showed him. More it would seem, than you're capable of.
@clanky11 But he's telling the truth. The man speaks but not a whole lot comes out. It seems to me that his arguments are based on "faith" without specifically calling it that. It seems he re-defined the word and then continues on with the faith argument.
@mmmga No, it's just that all you can hear is what you want to hear. Dawkins was saying where does the eye come from? And Mcgrath countered with, well, where does the matter come from? You know, if the universe created man, where did the universe come from? If you the universe is expanding, roll back the tape, everything compacts, how much can it compact. It compacts into nothingness. Uh-oh. So where did the matter come from with which to have a big bang with?
@Believerification where did god come from,roll the tape back on that, dont do to one and not the other, what kills me is god is so complex we manage to figure it thousand of years, but the wheel we had to wait a lil longer to figure that one out
@bossswanky We didn't manage to "figure it out" ---God revealed it, it's called revelation. So maybe, with a little understanding it won't "kill you" now. You think Noah didn't have the wheel, but he had the cruise ship? Yeah. Ok. Gotcha. I gotta go. Take care then; bye, bye now.
@bossswanky I will roll the tape back---God is eternal. When you say who created God you automatically the narrow the field of inquiry, assuming God had to be created. But what if he wasn't created? You act as if that isn't a possibility. And with science saying, "We don't know," or "here' s my theory," you should be humble enough not to rule anything out.
@Believerification so why god the only thing that could be eternal and not space, why space had to be created like i said before, dont do to one and not the other, read a nonfiction book instead of a fiction book, free your mind read and eat from the tree of knowledge and you to would be a god like us. lol
@mmmga While I was watching this, I said out loud almost verbatim your McGrath "quote". Then I looked down and started laughing. I also like when he responds to a question with something like, "I think that's a very good question, but I think the real question is..." and then answers his own question. I'm not sure he understands how an interview works.
@mmmga Dawkins - "What I'm trying to say is, although in my naturalistic and (unprovable, improbable) atheistic view, there really is no purpose or point beyond what I feel like conjuring up in my arrogant mind, I'm really ticked off that there are people out there...even accomplished scientists, who don't agree with me. So I'm going to stomp my feet and talk down to everyone who disagrees. Thank you for letting me do that Allister. You're really a nice guy, though it doesn't matter."
Dawkins- "Since a God that exists outside of the naturalistic system destroys my case and robs me of a way to make lots of money, let me just say that in my naturalistic perspective, since the eye is improbable, therefore God is even more improbable."
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt...There is no one who does good" (Psa. 53:1). It really is a moral issue, which is why Dicky D is so angry. If God exists, Dick is accountable; he doesn't like that at all.
Is it just me or does every response by mcgrath start like this " I completely agree but now let me spend some time rambling and avoiding the point you just made to say how much i in fact disagree with you"
comparing god with an eye would make god not god because he would be figured out lol as if man kind can know god excatly lol we are a mere grain of salt in comparison to god.
@prime440 yet christians claim to know what god wants based on a book that was put together quite a long time ago, has been subject to a ludicrous amount of translation and editing by early christians, and has huge historial, scientific, and moral illegitimacies littered throughout it.
@idreamtofflight many people interpret what they read incorrectly that would include scientific theories, remember theories are not facts but mere hypothesis about a spacific theory , once it becomes a fact its no longer a theory, some people like to interpret it as fact for the sake of proving thier positions.
@prime440 theories are constantly tested hypotheses that survive these tests. Evolution via natural selection is among these theories. Sure, it could be wrong, but there are mountains of evidence, and museums full of evidence to provide factual evidence towards a case like evolution. Religion however, has no proof. Why would you believe in something that can't back itself up? Just because something seems appealing and makes you feel nice doesn't make it correct. Religion is just not reasonable.
@idreamtofflight obviously your thoughts are based only on impiricle evidence, anything beyond that is uprovable therefore not true, if thats your stance then you limit yourself ,but hey thats your right .
@prime440 it's also your right to believe in a genocide condoning sky daddy who watches everybody and kills them on the sole fact of if they believe in him or not ;) I guess we all have our limits, what can you do! I happen to like believing in realistic things, you happen to believe in watered down Egyptian myths ;) I wonder if horus and jesus would have been pals since they have so much in common..
@idreamtofflight how fast people forget that god gave man free will to make their own choices and so often man blames god for everything thats bad.A true and loving god has given man an option to redeem himself and yet its often rejected. once again a choice thats given freely and rejected often.its a known fact that man is self destructive by free choice so go ahead and keep blaming god for mans free will since he gave us that option.and forget about accountability.
Theologians talk of God as 'Spirit' i.e. immaterial. Debates about his complexity and simplicity simply a category error in relation to the material universe. You might as well ask how complicated or simple is the emotion of anger, compassion etc.
WotchDis 3 weeks ago
McGrath is just repeating himself.
theman82 1 month ago 2
@QShots hahahahhahaahhha oh my fucking word!!!they know space is eternal because something always has to come after,whats after that and then whats after that,granted,its nothingness perhaps but it is still space and it is eternal,it has no end,so u are a clearly a moron."where does it say space is eternal" unbelieveble!im not arguing with someone who doesnt even know first school science!expanding into what???!!?!? SPACE!!!
reeceyhigs 2 months ago
@reeceyhigs theres a reason the creationists look like complete morons in these videos, its the same reason youre looking like a complete moron on this forum. Its because you know nothing and refuse to learn it. Its subtle, but theres a difference between "nothing" and "space". Watch some more videos, get a book and learn up.
QShots 2 months ago
how can dawkings not comprehend an eternal god,yet,as a scientist he HAS to accept that space is eternal?another aprarent impossibility?...
reeceyhigs 2 months ago
@reeceyhigs you really havent learned a thing from these videos. Where does it say that space is eternal? They say its expanding, theres a major difference. How can YOU not comprehend that saying god is eternal and space is eternal is still making a huge leap. As far as space, we can see how vast it is. god doesnt even exist and youre giving him characteristics.
QShots 2 months ago
i wish i could get a appointment with Dawkins i would seriously make mince meat out of him :)
topbluffa1 2 months ago
I find this kind of boring. At least the less civilized theists are entertaining. This is just a, what seems to be an intelligent man, dancing around simple questions, not saying anything of value.
Apanzon 2 months ago
atheists believe that it is better that you had never been born. if you are an atheist, before you give up hope on life, actually STUDY the Bible, cs lewis, mcgrath, and other theologians, because if Dawkins is right it makes no difference.
hello83558 2 months ago
@hello83558 reading the bible turned me into an atheist. you should try reading it and understanding what youre reading. If you understood it theres no possible way to believe it.
QShots 2 months ago
@QShots what part turned you into an atheist? the bible has the greatest teachings ever recorded. you can check the validity too
hello83558 2 months ago
@hello83558 too much to simply list with 500 characters and its more complicated than a list. However, to sum it up, there's MAJOR problems at every turn with Christianity. It basically discredits itself in scripture, dogma, actions, etc. I mean it says in the bible that god made day and night before he made stars, and thats right off the bat. If you read the bible from a neutral position, god is a terrible character and certainly the villain.
QShots 2 months ago
@QShots how can god be the villian if he gave us free will?
hello83558 2 months ago
@hello83558 you cannot be given free will. You simply have it. He's the villain for all the reasons i listed earlier. Are you calling those things qualities? Are those things that god ORDERED good? He's a terrible character by any moral standard. If you change the word god to any other name with those same characteristics youd tell me I was describing a terrible person. The rules dont change because we're talking about 'god'
QShots 2 months ago
@hello83558 as far as teachings, I think it gives the absolute WORST teachings. Ive learned in the bible that slavery is sanctioned by god, rape is okay I just have to marry the victim and pay her father, illegitimate children will go to hell, I as a human am worthless, god wanted me to be stupid, god sanctions genocide and infanticide, endless torture is okay, god will do evil things to test you, god prefers some nationalities and races over others, polygamy is sanctioned, etc... just read it
QShots 2 months ago
@QShots have you only read the old testament? what about Jesus' teachings?
hello83558 2 months ago
@hello83558 Yes, Ive read the NT. And I agree that Christianity would be better if it didnt attach itself to the god of the OT. However, it did, and claims its the same god. Are you suggesting that god changed, and that he no longer is for slavery, genocide, infanticide, stupidity, thievery, etc. If so why do you not hold him to moral standards. Also the NT is really no different than the OT: "believe in me or go to hell" is the underlying theme. Are you also saying that jesus and god disagree?
QShots 2 months ago
I think Mcgrath has some really good points I don't understand what is wrong on his part...like they both agreed on, there is no absolut side to whether or not god is real on not... but the question remains...how did the universe start? And how was humankind started?
Exlax123 2 months ago
God was always there! How do they know that? This alister guy is intellectually dishonest. Hawkins completely floored him.
Starnebula100 3 months ago
i wish Alister would straighten his neck and lower his eyebrows.
jinofthethunder 3 months ago
Alister "You've raised some very interesting questions and I'm not going to answer any of them" McGrath.
I mean, really. Dawkins asks how helpful it is to use God as an explanation for unexplained things when God itself is unexplained (and unexplainable), and McGrath's answer is to say he doesn't think God needs to be explained because it explains things. The point, of course, being that God doesn't explain anything.
Another champion for God that theists will discredit if they haven't yet.
EdwardHowton 3 months ago in playlist Dawkins Debate
I really like this discussion, but I do think that McGrath is being just as wishy washy as many other Christians are when asked difficult questions. It's very much a "I'm a Christian and therefore I interpret the world through Christianity" (for clarity, no atheist takes this kind of stance) not a "The world makes me believe a god must exist" approach. Which is especially interesting given that he apparently used to be atheistic.
Orkiperson 3 months ago
Surely, the idea that god or gods were 'always there' is no more plausible than the cosmos 'always there'
axolotl5 4 months ago
@axolotl5 Maybe one is the same as the other.
UltraEpicLoser 3 months ago
If this is Dawkins hitting 70 I'd have like to have seen him in his 40s.
BritishArrow 4 months ago
I wish Dawkins would spend more time talking to real theologians like McGrath, rather than picking on moronic Creationists in arguments about the fossil record he's obviously going to win.
MrOdsplut 4 months ago 23
this is so polite
martinohna 4 months ago
@martinohna Its a matter of opinion, this would have been nice to see during the crusades, and countless other times.
UltraEpicLoser 3 months ago
Entropy56 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Well I would like to see Dawkins behave as gently and politely to the average Joe or Jane, as he behaves in this video with Prof. McGrath. (That is actually at the heart of Christianity, to treat all others respectfully-as you would have them treat you. But of course he rejects all that)
margiedemello 5 months ago
@margiedemello
Dawkins is usually respectful to the people he interviews, at least initially.
He does get angry at people who make stupid arguments and spew lies at him though (primarily creationist stuff) and he knows beforehand that Alistair McGrath is very unlikely to do that so he doesn't need to put his guard up
TheOmegajuice 5 months ago
@TheOmegajuice
not that I have noticed. Did you see the panel with the two Buddhists (I think they are Buddhists) One of them remarks directly to him about his manner with the audience and well. its just way out of line.
margiedemello 5 months ago
@margiedemello I see you haven't actually read the heart of Christianity which would be it's foundational texts of the NT. Numerous repeated calls for violence, and other forms of harsh treatment for unbelievers are found throughout the document. This doesn't at all jive with what you seem to be implying that it's a book of kindness, generosity, and acceptance. If you look really hard, and are prepared to do some logic based gymnastics, you can find what you are talking about.
meabandit 4 months ago
@meabandit dont' know what comment you are responding to, but calls? for violence in NT, are not what I have been reading and not what I subscribe to, so would you say that is a good thing? The Ch. violence often criticised is complicity in secular intK Arerests which is misreading of NT and more cultural than faith based. Have you read K Armstrong. Check out TED comments and you tube videos of her historical text. Thanks
margiedemello 4 months ago
@margiedemello I fail to see how you can call yourself a Christian unless you subscribe to the teachings of Jesus. Of course there are sick perverted, hypocritical statements like "love your enemies", but are many other examples of him condoning violence, and him even engaging in it. How is it you or some pseudo science theologian knows the essence of his teaching, and that "knowledge" isn't available to all? See the book "Misquoting Jesus" by B Ehrman.
meabandit 4 months ago
@meabandit Karen Armstrong and Rene Girard, are also good sources for those interested. Religious tolerance org is a good site from Canada.
margiedemello 4 months ago
The sun is not the only source of light you know. As for whether the days of creation referring to a literal 6 days, well I don't know, maybe it was from God's point of view or days can mean stages I don't know.
jonathanfater 5 months ago
William Craig is better than Mcgrath
gogolplex74 5 months ago
McGath's point about christianity establishing a framework for science is nonsense. The Greeks postulated Atoms and worked out the circumference of the Earth before the bible was even concieved.
lewisner 5 months ago
@lewisner What are you talking about? Don't you know that science has catched up to the Bible? The Bible states that, the universe had a beginning,(non eternal) the (heavens) universe is expanding, mountains in the sea, oceans contains springs, light can be divided, the hydrological cycle, air has weight and more, these claims by the Bible were once thought to be wrong but science has proven the Bible to be right after all. also this..
watch?v=JVhxL9AoF_w
jonathanfater 5 months ago
@jonathanfater Lolz very funny!
lewisner 5 months ago
@lewisner The Bible being 3000 to 2000 yrs ahead of science in many areas is indeed very funny, hahahahahahaha yes very funny indeed.
jonathanfater 5 months ago
@jonathanfater Yes, especially the bit where god creates light before she creates a SOURCE of light ie the Sun or any other star. And how she creates plants before she creates the Sun? And how it takes 4 days to create the Earth but an instant to create the rest of the Universe with it's countless trillions of stars and planets? They knew how to tell a funny story those old time savages 8-)
lewisner 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 5 months ago
Am I the only one who is annoyed by the fact that Alister lives on a slant? lol
EdgePitSwing 6 months ago
McGrath is amazing.
mimmsss1 6 months ago
Dawkins assumes that everything has a cause. It is false. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. God is transcendent; he is not bound in time. In fact he created spacetime. Time arose from God. All those things which hav a relation to time has to be explained by causality. As God is above time, he didnot have to be created.
kevinvalsonjacob 6 months ago
@kevinvalsonjacob excuses IF the bible is the word of god,then u belive that there was a talkin snake in the garden of eden,and that he made adam and eve,,if he did,then i put this 2 u,if he created adam and eve then 1 of them must have been fukin their child in order 4 the rest of us 2 exist,and ur saying that humans are all inbread,,think about what the bible says its so flawed its UNREAL,even as a kid of 7 i would always ask them questions,a talkin snake,hahahah christans=MOREONS
stevenut88 5 months ago
@stevenut88 I dont have any replies to your filthy language. They are assertions which do not follow from any premise. Please answer to my questions in the earlier post. If you go around telling me that you are a moron, it wont change me; nor it would change anybody. Rather, try to give logical arguments. I showed Dawkins' illogicality in assuming that everything has a cause. As a scientist, he himself knows very well that Quantum Mechanics disproves causality.
kevinvalsonjacob 5 months ago
@stevenut88 You speak of inconsistencies in the Genesis. your argument is valid and I can reply to it. But what does the atheist say? That the universe just sprang into existence? Remember that this violates all the known laws of Physics including conservation of matter and energy. If that is not a miracle, what is?
I do not know why I am writing this because I feel that it is not worth it.
kevinvalsonjacob 5 months ago
@kevinvalsonjacob no1 ses it simply sprung in 2 existance,,,we dont no how we came 2 be,but its ideotic to say because we dont no then then 4 some god must have created it
stevenut88 5 months ago
@stevenut88 The cause for the universe must be immaterial(as all matter+energy is in the universe) , transcendant ( timeless) (as time exists in the universe)and uncaused. It is what I call the God. This defies the atheistic position that there is no God. Again, I do not assert that this God might be the God of the Christian faith or of the Koran.
kevinvalsonjacob 5 months ago
alister tried to answer some questions,mostly religious people dont go that far. very interesting questions raised by dawkins . physicists may try to answer . but he is the man , really cool.
attila33hm 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
I think, I've increased my total IQ with like 30+ by just watching this.
resistancerydman 7 months ago
Comment removed
resistancerydman 7 months ago
man this mcrath guy some valid arguments agiants dawkins O.O maibe alot of people do like dr william lane craig who dawkins has refused to debate over and over.
legalizetheglobe7 7 months ago
What's with a sucky camera guy swinging the camera around between the two subjects? I seen porn done better.
GiveCourage 7 months ago
It's like he has said "Simplicity cannot be the basis of Complexity" and in the same 5 minutes "Complexity cannot be the basis of Complexity."
Rybot9000 7 months ago
Weird eh? Dawkins doubts a complex God because he thinks a complex universe should come out of simplicity, such as the simplicity of evolution, but when considering the notion of an ultimately simple God, he rejects it on grounds that anything simple could not give rise to the complex laws of physics.
Rybot9000 7 months ago
@Rybot9000 The universe did not come out of evolution, nor did he state that.
To say the universe came about by simplicity does not contradict his doubt about a complex god anyways.
His point is that for an entity that is not natural to create something, this entity must also be complex. This is not compared with a simple process as evolution for a process does not equate to an entity.
Therefore, his argument has no problem, nor is he contradicting himself.
fcdog555 7 months ago
@fcdog555 I don't remember Alister saying that God is a supernatural entity. God was defined by St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas as "That than which nothing greater can be thought." Some call this the "Set of all sets". This kind of definition does not indicate anything greater than the natural order. If the natural order is the greatest thought, then the natural order is God. Is the universe a complex entity? Was the universe created by evolution?
Rybot9000 7 months ago
@Rybot9000 wtf I didn't say that is what he said.
And no, the universe is not an entity at all.
Nor was it "created" by evolution.
Though it has transformed through cosmic evolution, which is different than bio evolution
fcdog555 7 months ago
@fcdog555 Exactly! So, just like your "Universe". "God" is not an entity and was not created by evolution, but was transformed by it's own cosmic evolution.
Rybot9000 7 months ago
@Rybot9000 Oh yeah exactly!
Because you totally are not just creating you own interpretations of the bible:)
If he is not an entity, then why call him god?
How do you not see the logical fallacies you have created by stating he was comsically evolved.
that doesn't even make sense semantically.
Comical evolution describe the creation and evolution of the universe without god lolz
fcdog555 7 months ago
@fcdog555 How does cosmic evolution describe the creation of the universe? Is or is not the universe everything? Whatever term you use to mean "everything", that is my meaning of "God". Evolution could not have created "everything" because "everything" includes evolution. You tell me what created "everything", and I will tell you that it couldn't have because it is by definition part of "everything". Evolution and (apparently) Universe happen within "Everything" (a.k.a. "God").
Rybot9000 7 months ago
@fcdog555 The critical point here seems to be that there is a totality, an everything, or "omnitudo realitatis" (All that exists). And nothing could have created this Totality, any particular thing that could "exist" is of necessity just a fragment or piece of a larger puzzle. When we ponder what is "real" or "extant" we imagine them inhabiting the Totality. Anything we imagine as "existing" is merely a part of this greater fact of existence, which I call God among many other names.
Rybot9000 7 months ago
@fcdog555 Now the Bible does state that "There is One God and beside him there is no other." With One capitalized to represent a distinct meaning. In the Hebrew Bible the word is Yacchid which means "An absolute unity" which reflects the meaning of "God" I've described. This is set apart from Echad which is numerical one. Nevertheless, there is "no other" beside God, which means that God is everything.
Rybot9000 7 months ago
@fcdog555 "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." (Gospel of Thomas; 77) In Christ were created all things in heaven and on eartheverything visible and everything invisible.... Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in unity. —Col. 1-15-17
God is defined in the Bible and by Christians as "ALL-EVERYTHING"
Rybot9000 7 months ago
@fcdog555 In him we live, and move, and have our being.... "We are his offspring."
—Acts 17.28 NIV
For from him, and through him and to him are all things.
—Rm. 8.36 NIV
There is one God who is father of all, over all, through all and within all.
—Eph. 4.6
"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me. The Wise who fully realize this engage in my devotional service and worship me with all their hearts." (Hindu Bhagavad Gita 10.8)
Rybot9000 7 months ago
@Rybot9000 where are you going citing the bible? what do you think you are acomplishing?
sirdelrio 6 months ago
@fcdog555 Finally all the names of God reflect this meaning; "God" from PIE -ghut meaning "to invoke", "Yahweh" pronunciation of "JHVH" meaning "to-be", "I AM THAT I AM", some translate JHVH as "to-be" or "To cause to become".
Rybot9000 7 months ago
does anyone know what the interuptions in the videos are? where the guys come up the stairs? just curious
satyran 7 months ago
Gods are man made constructs, long live the spaghetti monster!!
stephenboing 8 months ago
great debate . amazing things can happen,but it takes very long time .
bassetter1 8 months ago
what about job chapter26 verse 7 from the bible he spoke of god and how he made the earth to hang upon nothing, sounds like the earth in space doesnt it? : ) and how noahs ark has been found on mount arrat just where it said it was in genesis. our god is an awesome god.
tuvmush 8 months ago
The neuron in a brain has no concept of the mind yet interacts with other elements of the brain and so "knows" of the brain. Think! You need to to know how limited you are, as am I.
freddyvoetsch 8 months ago
Think! Imagine traveling to a far advanced civilization and seeing things completely out of the realm of human knowledge. Now imagine trying to convey those things you had learned to the average human. This is an example of how far we are from God and why we must have intelligent discussions like this to understand better.
freddyvoetsch 8 months ago
Dawkins can't conceive of an eternal creative force that has simply always been there. Yet if you take God out of the equation then you still have the equally difficult problem of explaining how empty space that goes on infinately in every direction could have always somehow been there prior to and after the big bang occured. Both concepts require a certain level of faith because they are both improbable. No matter which way you go it takes you to an improbable place.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
my brain hurts
battyatty1 8 months ago
my brain hurts
battyatty1 8 months ago
THIS is what you call a debate. Not the"...tide's go in, tide's go out. Never a miscommunication..."-BULLCRAP.
Senni7 8 months ago
i just wondered wts Mc Grath' job?
esraretin 9 months ago
@esraretin dnt wonder... google
panterasux22 9 months ago
@esraretin He was until recently Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, but has now taken up the chair of Theology, Religion and Culture at King's College London since September 2008. He gained his doctorate at Oxford in Molecular Biophysics, and went on to earn a further doctorate when he completed his Doctor of Divinity degree, also at Oxford.
matrix4022 8 months ago
@matrix4022 thank u
esraretin 8 months ago
I think that McGrath countered his points very well.
SouthCarolinaSon 9 months ago 2
It is painful watching an educated man mangle his intellect in order to avoid having to admit a simple truth - ie, it is all just make believe.
stevehayes13 9 months ago
The Material Universe by itself cannot account for assembly of purely random events into complexity. It is like gambling at the casino against good odds and having forever and all the money of infinity , yet the only outcome is to lose, unless a third rail or judgment on gambling events by randomness , extracts interest by intent to conserve some events and let others stand idle. An Intelligent Cause must determine the roll of the dice, or the roll of the dice is eternally lost causes.
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
now i know islam is the truth
esraretin 9 months ago
Dawkins can lost argument only if the God would appear and send him to abyss. So never .
hldemi 10 months ago
Science has proven that the universe has a beginning (the big bang). It is that *beginning*, that explosion of something from nothing, requires a *beginner*. The creation of something from absolute nothingness, the absence of matter/space/time absolutely requires an infinite God.
AllSeeingEy3 10 months ago
@AllSeeingEy3 Yep, that's the foundation of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. :)
thetraceur123 10 months ago
@AllSeeingEy3 Time had a beginning, and thus time did not always exist, but that doesn't mean that the universe as a whole poofed out of nothingness. The thing is that there was no time before the start of time for there to have been nothing in. We start with a singularity. Relativity says that without distance, there is no time, so if all the matter and energy of the universe occupies a single infinitely small, infinitely dense point, there is no time for there to be a "before" to ask about.
16randomcharacters 9 months ago
@AllSeeingEy3 Just because we don't yet know what came before the big bang doesn't mean we have to fill that space with god. saying that because there is beginning means there has to be a beginner, still leaves you with the question of the beginning of that beginner, which is why that is a very weak point to make.
rememberthename33 9 months ago
@rememberthename33 Something has to be responsible for that infinitely dense, infinitely small point from which the universe grew. Things don't just spontaneously generate. I fill that gap with God because only something that exists *outside* of time and space could create and initiate time and space. A being with no beginning or end.
AllSeeingEy3 9 months ago
@AllSeeingEy3 so everything has to be created EXCEPT for god, not only is there no evidence to support that, but it's also a special pleading fallacy and so an illogical claim to make. in other words you're saying Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.
rememberthename33 9 months ago
@rememberthename33 Would you call existence outside of space/time an irrelevant characteristic?
All events are connected by causality. The universe either has an ultimate efficient cause, or causes can be traced back to infinity. However, once the the BB and subsequent causes have been traced back to an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny point, naming that points cause forces us to make one of two very large assumptions: God(or "prime mover"), or a causal chain of increasing power ad infinitum.
AllSeeingEy3 9 months ago
@AllSeeingEy3 we don't have to make any large assumptions about what was there before the big bang, we can say "we don't know yet" but to say we know that a god MUST have been what caused it is i big claim to make
rememberthename33 9 months ago
God existed at the same time that Bull Sh*t was created.
MeOverThinker 10 months ago
Alistair"McHolier than thou™"McGrath is a lying piece of apologetic shit.
Fuck him and his bs story about being a former atheist.
Reli-dorks will stop at nothing.
sonykroket 10 months ago
@sonykroket You're still left with one FLEW over the cuckoos nest.
Believerification 10 months ago
@Believerification
WTF is that supposed to mean, incoherent bible-kisser
sonykroket 10 months ago
@sonykroket Someone will help you with it, I'm sure. It's obviously over your head. In other words (which you won't understand any better) it's an allusion, not an illusion, brainiac.
Believerification 10 months ago
@Believerification
Well, at least i don't believe in nonexistent lying gay zombies, dipshit. Why don't you taketh that bible and shoveth up thou anus, you bronze-age moron.
sonykroket 10 months ago
@sonykroket You really have nothing to contribute to this discussion, do ye? LOL! Name calling, yea! This man is ten folks. Look, the grown-ups are talking about big boy stuff, better run along, son.
Believerification 10 months ago
@Believerification
That's because there is no discussion, dummy. It's beliefs against the scientific method. The reli-muppets are sticking their fingers in their ears and jusy keep yelling: Nanaa nanaa, i want my skydaddy to be real.
That's not even a fair battle.
sonykroket 10 months ago
Dawkins > Mcgrath
sportsportsport 10 months ago
But you can get away with it with the matter involved in the Big Bang. That, of course, was always there.
Believerification 10 months ago
Why couldn't God be the center of the universe and as he creates they spread. This is my own thought pattern and infact would explain why the universe is consistantly expanding.
TheBbg83 11 months ago
These two are both very peculiar and intelligent individuals- but i would like McGrath to get the point more. He seems to avoid the questions and topics and hand, sometimes.
funlord14 11 months ago
Oxford dandies prattling about God. If you want to know why someone believes in God, go to, say, an African-Methodist Episcopal Church on Sunday and ask someone that question. I guarantee you'll get a more interesting answer than you'll ever hear on these YouTube debates...and considerably more genuine.
hyeary1 11 months ago
I can understand his point but if you believe why do you change, is god working with americanism, mcdonalds, coca cola, your bible wanted people killed , who up dated it for the 21st century, plesae its a book that was to keep control and give understanding when there was none, its game over now.
greggcaff 11 months ago
SIT DOWN.
dustlandfairy 11 months ago 15
To me McGrath comes across as a Deist more so than a Christian.
cowboyup3181 1 year ago
Comment removed
cowboyup3181 1 year ago
Alert! irrational words coming from Alister!
alex39977 1 year ago
i definitely can respect this guy as a religious man, i disagree, but still this man is like no other ive ever encountered in my life, but dawkins is still dominating, whether mcgrath realizes it or not
wheresmywhiskey85 1 year ago
I would love to see all these educated and sophisticated men become primaeval and simply resolve all their issues with a good old fist fight.
Dodo251 1 year ago
Analogy of realizing God's existence like he sees the rising Sun is a defeatist argument. It is like x-y=z which is true therefore God exists. Second point is that some religions have no God. It is only the Abraham's Trio that has God. And this God has failed to make sane people believe His existence. Rest is just verbosity leading to nowhere. I agree with Dawkins' argument of not forcing Religion upon children. I wish he does not make Atheism a religion? Atheism needs no Dawkins.
amoralis123 1 year ago
This is a great debate, with two very smart men. It is always funny to see Philosophy and Science attempt to understand one another.
etrle 1 year ago 32
@etrle - Your so right! I have enjoyed listening to this debate. I myself am a strong believer in god and I've always thought of Dawkins as a man of great inteligence, even though we differ in our beliefs but I am very please to finally found this video about these two smart men and their debate without any tensions, yelling, sarcasms, arrogance and without having to cut each other off. Respectful and honest! This what a debate should be!!!!
beka2marie 1 year ago
@beka2marie
correct! this is what a debate should be. too bad debating against atheists on the internet will end up unhealthy. atheists in general will throw a bunch of bad, foul words at you when you proved them wrong and they are outreasoned
Alvinladen 11 months ago
@beka2marie - It would be great if all debates went this smoothly.
JohnO318 11 months ago
@etrle sickening misunderstanding of what philosophy is. religion is not philosophy
MrTPollitt 11 months ago
@MrTPollitt Mcgrath is a well-studied academic and many of his points are philosophical rather than religious.
justinosmond 11 months ago
@etrle
-
Actually, McGrath is a scientist as well. He holds a PhD in molecular biology, if I remember correctly.
AgApE010 11 months ago
@AgApE010 your correct, but he spends most of his time studying theology. He accepts evolution on the grounds that as a molecular biophysicist, he has studied and experimented with evolutionary concepts
generosos87 11 months ago
@etrle Theology and Science more like! Proper analytical philosophy is just a brutally deductive as science, it simply addresses difference questions and takes no conclusion as a premise (a la theology's flaw as taking the existence of God as a premise in its reasoning).
sthoma07 11 months ago
@etrle this is not philosophy, he's using logic and scientific proof. Philosophy would be entirely different, and far easier to argue.
frostatine 8 months ago
@etrle How can you say McGrath is very smart, or even a philosopher??? I've never seen a greater, and i mean it, a greater intellectual and moral coward as McGrath.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
@etrle err... philosophy?
NiNJack 6 months ago
i think both sides need to stop insulting the other. that leads to arrogance and ignorance. logically understand both sides before you completely dismiss people and their beliefs.
battle ideas, not people
lespaul13141516 1 year ago
@lespaul13141516 Too bad it's pretty much impossible to logically understand religion. That's sort of the point of religion, to be beyond logic.
fudrick43 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins wants the theory of evolution to explain EVERYTHING and that's where he goes wrong. This theory is about a certain frame of reality, but there are other levels. And that's just a theory, not a fact, Dawins says so himself. How can that theory explain the fact that I have a conscience? I can't, it was not meant to do that in the first place. FAITH needs no explaining. How can I explain by scientific means the faith I have in my father, for example?
cashernandes1 1 year ago
the truth will out . i am more real than god i am more moral than god . i don't think its good to stone people to kill people to make them slaves god does . it says so in the bible . not one christian can deny that . face facts god is a lie god is control and power and greed and evil
MrLogansrun35 1 year ago
It seems to me that McGrath is primarily a time-waster - and I think very deliberately so. He doesn't attempt to answer Dawkins's questions as much as avoid them by waffling around them. I am surprised that Dawkins was so patient and didn't challenge McGrath more directly on the question of why conjuring God into existence is an adequate explanation for anything at all. I think because McGrath is eloquent and understands evolution theory Dawkins is willing to be tolerant of the bilge he talks.
tonygpeters 1 year ago
Dawkins doesn't understand it's not a cop-out to say God always existed. It follows logically and deductively from philosophical argumentation. Something has always existed--if there was ever nothingness, there would just be nothingness, because from nothing nothing comes. But things exist, so something has always existed. McGrath just uses the word "God" to refer to that.
Jugglable 1 year ago
McGraths' head remains at an extreme angle throughout
Jugglable 1 year ago
Mcgrath - " Oh youve raised some interesting points, points that require attention, now excuse me while i avoid them with my diarrhea of the mouth."
mmmga 1 year ago 35
@mmmga Nice!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@mmmga I don't hear that at all. Mcgrath is a very intelligent man who offers some very strong arguments. He seems to be quite a bit more intelligent than you, actually.
jordaniac89 1 year ago
@jordaniac89 What specific argument did you find compelling?
mmmga 1 year ago
@mmmga I thought the notion of understanding god not by any preconceived idea of who god must be, but to attempt to understand through the framework which he created, was quite interesting. He also brought up the age old debate regarding the capacity of the human mind. Good points that have been brought up by many philosophers before.
etrle 1 year ago
@mmmga your comment sums up why I often lose patience with an atheistic point of view. This is an interesting debate, with good comments from both sides, but when you don't like what you hear you resort to name calling. It is possible to be religious and intelligent. McGrath's comments (whether you like them or not) are certainly more intelligent than yours. I'm not a fan of Dawson, but I admire his facing McGrath, and the respect he showed him. More it would seem, than you're capable of.
clanky11 11 months ago
@clanky11 But he's telling the truth. The man speaks but not a whole lot comes out. It seems to me that his arguments are based on "faith" without specifically calling it that. It seems he re-defined the word and then continues on with the faith argument.
hYpNoXiDe 11 months ago
@mmmga Funny, Dawkins seems to find is answers worth far more than diarrhea.
justinosmond 11 months ago
@mmmga No, it's just that all you can hear is what you want to hear. Dawkins was saying where does the eye come from? And Mcgrath countered with, well, where does the matter come from? You know, if the universe created man, where did the universe come from? If you the universe is expanding, roll back the tape, everything compacts, how much can it compact. It compacts into nothingness. Uh-oh. So where did the matter come from with which to have a big bang with?
Believerification 10 months ago
@Believerification where did god come from,roll the tape back on that, dont do to one and not the other, what kills me is god is so complex we manage to figure it thousand of years, but the wheel we had to wait a lil longer to figure that one out
bossswanky 10 months ago
@bossswanky We didn't manage to "figure it out" ---God revealed it, it's called revelation. So maybe, with a little understanding it won't "kill you" now. You think Noah didn't have the wheel, but he had the cruise ship? Yeah. Ok. Gotcha. I gotta go. Take care then; bye, bye now.
Believerification 10 months ago
@bossswanky I will roll the tape back---God is eternal. When you say who created God you automatically the narrow the field of inquiry, assuming God had to be created. But what if he wasn't created? You act as if that isn't a possibility. And with science saying, "We don't know," or "here' s my theory," you should be humble enough not to rule anything out.
Believerification 10 months ago
@Believerification so why god the only thing that could be eternal and not space, why space had to be created like i said before, dont do to one and not the other, read a nonfiction book instead of a fiction book, free your mind read and eat from the tree of knowledge and you to would be a god like us. lol
bossswanky 10 months ago
@mmmga And again, you made me really laugh. Thank you kind sir.
AxeHomeless 10 months ago
@mmmga Typical apologist "intellectualism" - "As long as I can keep talking and sound clever, I must score some points".
bbkingzor 9 months ago
@mmmga While I was watching this, I said out loud almost verbatim your McGrath "quote". Then I looked down and started laughing. I also like when he responds to a question with something like, "I think that's a very good question, but I think the real question is..." and then answers his own question. I'm not sure he understands how an interview works.
douglasfairchild 8 months ago
@mmmga Dawkins - "What I'm trying to say is, although in my naturalistic and (unprovable, improbable) atheistic view, there really is no purpose or point beyond what I feel like conjuring up in my arrogant mind, I'm really ticked off that there are people out there...even accomplished scientists, who don't agree with me. So I'm going to stomp my feet and talk down to everyone who disagrees. Thank you for letting me do that Allister. You're really a nice guy, though it doesn't matter."
poimen8 7 months ago
Dawkins- "Since a God that exists outside of the naturalistic system destroys my case and robs me of a way to make lots of money, let me just say that in my naturalistic perspective, since the eye is improbable, therefore God is even more improbable."
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt...There is no one who does good" (Psa. 53:1). It really is a moral issue, which is why Dicky D is so angry. If God exists, Dick is accountable; he doesn't like that at all.
poimen8 7 months ago
Is it just me or does every response by mcgrath start like this " I completely agree but now let me spend some time rambling and avoiding the point you just made to say how much i in fact disagree with you"
mmmga 1 year ago
lol
comparing god with an eye would make god not god because he would be figured out lol as if man kind can know god excatly lol we are a mere grain of salt in comparison to god.
prime440 1 year ago
@prime440 yet christians claim to know what god wants based on a book that was put together quite a long time ago, has been subject to a ludicrous amount of translation and editing by early christians, and has huge historial, scientific, and moral illegitimacies littered throughout it.
idreamtofflight 1 year ago
@idreamtofflight many people interpret what they read incorrectly that would include scientific theories, remember theories are not facts but mere hypothesis about a spacific theory , once it becomes a fact its no longer a theory, some people like to interpret it as fact for the sake of proving thier positions.
prime440 1 year ago
@prime440 theories are constantly tested hypotheses that survive these tests. Evolution via natural selection is among these theories. Sure, it could be wrong, but there are mountains of evidence, and museums full of evidence to provide factual evidence towards a case like evolution. Religion however, has no proof. Why would you believe in something that can't back itself up? Just because something seems appealing and makes you feel nice doesn't make it correct. Religion is just not reasonable.
idreamtofflight 1 year ago
@idreamtofflight obviously your thoughts are based only on impiricle evidence, anything beyond that is uprovable therefore not true, if thats your stance then you limit yourself ,but hey thats your right .
prime440 1 year ago
@prime440 it's also your right to believe in a genocide condoning sky daddy who watches everybody and kills them on the sole fact of if they believe in him or not ;) I guess we all have our limits, what can you do! I happen to like believing in realistic things, you happen to believe in watered down Egyptian myths ;) I wonder if horus and jesus would have been pals since they have so much in common..
idreamtofflight 1 year ago
@idreamtofflight how fast people forget that god gave man free will to make their own choices and so often man blames god for everything thats bad.A true and loving god has given man an option to redeem himself and yet its often rejected. once again a choice thats given freely and rejected often.its a known fact that man is self destructive by free choice so go ahead and keep blaming god for mans free will since he gave us that option.and forget about accountability.
prime440 1 year ago