Why do you think some scientists believe in God? And why don't so many believe? I'd love to hear your thoughts! Edit: Demonetized, then remonetized after already getting most of my regular subscribers views 🙃

@wingsuiter2392

5 жыл бұрын

When scientists believe in a god, it shows the dangers of religious indoctrination of children. It can prevent even highly educated, highly intelligent adults from thinking critically likely at the expenses of psychological trauma.

@atomo3072

5 жыл бұрын

Genetically Modified Skeptic hey man, unrelated topic. Have you heard people quote the "argument" for god that says "if god doesnt exist everything is permitted" (Dostoiévski)? That seems to me rather stupid, given the fact that "phisicaly" everything is indeed permited. We have to work as humans to create moral values to wich we will abid to.

@andersengman3896

5 жыл бұрын

Just because you have a belief in the divine doesn't mean you have to be a slave to the literal interpretation of one religious text or another. Scientists who don't realize this are atheists; those who do are not.

@nihilistnick5094

5 жыл бұрын

@@andersengman3896 so your god is so wishy washy he has no definition nice...😐

@wingsuiter2392

5 жыл бұрын

@@andersengman3896 Keep moving those goalposts, and you'll never need to think critically.

"It might be a multiverse but that's dumb, you can't observe it" "GOD HOWEVER..."

@lisahenry20

4 жыл бұрын

Of course you can observe god! You can observe him in the bible! That's why voldermort and sauron also exist. The evidences are right there in the texts!

@DeadEndFrog

4 жыл бұрын

as he said, its philosophical, he should "stick to his field", which happens to be 'not-philosophy'

@anandsuralkar2947

4 жыл бұрын

@@lisahenry20 lol

@Phoenix-King-ozai

4 жыл бұрын

@@lisahenry20 Voldemort's definitely real Its all in the Harry potter books And unlike most other false Gods Voldemort can legit become invisible That atleast explains why we don't see him

@yeah...2969

4 жыл бұрын

Can you prove that the books are actually from god?

“Everything needs to have a cause” “But what about god?” “God does not need to have a cause”

@apartofyou2375

4 жыл бұрын

@@grimm3972 some scientists even purpose hypothesis or rather ideas for that. Science cannot detect anything from that time, so it is not possible to make observations with our technology (yet). Science is just saying I don't know where the big bang comes from and that's okay, let's find out. Religion just claims everything unknown and many things perfectly explainable to god. Which is why I distanced more and more from religion.

@apartofyou2375

4 жыл бұрын

@@grimm3972 if we limit our knowledge to what the Bible says, we would still die of pretty much everything. Additionally not everything that is written in the bible should be followed. Finally nothing written in the bible is comparable in any way to knowledge. It lacks reproducibility, predictability and inherent logic.

@fakename3440

4 жыл бұрын

That's what I asked my religious uncle and that's what he replied 😂

@normalhumanperson4149

4 жыл бұрын

@@grimm3972 no one is claiming god to be "fake". You just created a straw man. Since we are not trying to disprove god, we do not need to provide evidence for that specific case as we (atheists) simply don't believe in a god. Christians/theists need to provide evidence as they are making a claim of belief.

@JavierAlbinarrate

4 жыл бұрын

@@grimm3972 so, you are not very used to how logic works, right? no worries, after all if you wish you can learn, just try not to expose yourself that much, it is as if you are wearing a neon sign right now.

It's crazy how quickly a smart person can sound like a stupid one when they focus on proving a desired truth instead of seeking the real one

@Phoenix-King-ozai

4 жыл бұрын

Lilly Exactly

@frenchtoast2319

4 жыл бұрын

Good point. Never understood why people focus on evolution.

@Phoenix-King-ozai

4 жыл бұрын

@@frenchtoast2319 Because they think Atheists would be theists without evolution They unfortunately think evolution is the only thing which exposes how batshit crazy their Primitive "Secrets of the Universe are in *Here* " book is

@frenchtoast2319

4 жыл бұрын

Kodukula Anirudh not true but good on ya.

@Phoenix-King-ozai

4 жыл бұрын

@@frenchtoast2319 Thanks, I am assuming you are a Christian ?

I find I'm much more willing to be convinced of a mere creator rather than an omnipotent god. I don't think one must also be the other.

@corrat4866

4 жыл бұрын

Coleman Hoyt the universe is likely a simulation within an omni-computer.

@Trollo_Swaggins

4 жыл бұрын

Infinite Omega that’s sad because it would be possible for god to be a fat neck beard simp

@colemanhoyt5437

4 жыл бұрын

@@Trollo_Swaggins lol

@TopRedditStoryPage

4 жыл бұрын

@@Trollo_Swaggins bruh 😭😭

@katyungodly

4 жыл бұрын

Why would you believe in either? The only honest answer we have is “I don’t know”. Avoid all “god of the gaps” fallacies that try to insert god in the place that we don’t know something (see the first scientist in this video inserting god where we don’t know anything)

If I were an omnipotent being and wanted to create life I'd first create an unbelievably big universe and then 13.7 billion years later I'd create some humans (in my image of course) on an insignificant planet orbiting an average star in the outskirts of an average galaxy. It all makes so much sense.

@davidroberts1689

5 жыл бұрын

then again...lol

@flerfbuster7993

5 жыл бұрын

If I were an omnipotent being, I would do that. I love seeing species developing and discovering how their environment works. But again, omnipotence is logically impossible, soo

@terryfuldsgaming7995

5 жыл бұрын

Nope, that's not the argument. The argument is 'if i were an omnipotent being, i would make a world that LOOKS like it's 13.8 billion years old in every way shape and form, so i can confuse smart people into going to hell, and fill heaven with gullible mush brained idiots, because really i just made it 6k years ago, and buried a bunch of 65 million year olds bones just to absolutely make sure nobody with a working brain makes it to heaven...'

@terryfuldsgaming7995

5 жыл бұрын

@@flerfbuster7993 if you were omnipotent, you would already know all that before doing it soo... why do it???

@flerfbuster7993

5 жыл бұрын

@Steven Seagull That's why omnipotence would suck. I guess I was thinking about what I would do If I was an incredibly powerful entity, but still not omnipotent.

As a physicist myself I am surprized more by the first scientist’s claims. Apart from the obvious association fallacy his claims are not valid scientifically. Firstly his claim that ‘’Science discovered that we can create the universe from absolutely nothing’’ is not so. Science has made no such discovery. Then he claims that the forces of nature aren’t physical. This is definitely not the case. The forces of nature are by definition physical. We can’t have gravity on earth for example if we didn’t have the earth and a mass. The forces of nature exist within nature and because of it. They are not outside factors that act on nature. That was a very good video as always, thank you.

@zemorph42

5 жыл бұрын

A couple of theoretical physicists have claimed that the universe could have spontaneously formed out of "nothing" (Krauss and Hawking), but, as the quotation marks imply, they are not talking about the same "absolutely nothing" that Dr. Schroeder is. I actually think that the use of the word contributed to the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of their claims, which were more speculation than any "discovery".

@yarone5960

5 жыл бұрын

Can you explain the "fine tune" theory. From all I found about it there is no real fine tuning. All the constant can shift a lot before the models break down (many simulations use 1% accuracy for simplicity of calculation). The only thing I found people talk about is the cosmological constant which is very small (in the units we use) but is so fine tuned is value changes by more than 100% (from 0 to more than twice the commonly excepted value) So where is the fine tuning?

@Nancy20012

5 жыл бұрын

Yaron E We have come up with those constants in our effort to make sense of the world. If tomorrow we find more or different evidence about something the equations that describe that phenomenon change and so will the constants. It's just that theists look at it the wrong way, they don't consider that science evolves.

@Nancy20012

5 жыл бұрын

zemorph42 exactly so

@NYsummertimeCHI

5 жыл бұрын

What baffled me is the claim that these forces "predate time". What on earth is that supposed to mean?!

I've never understood how you get from, "There has to be a creator" to "Therefore my version of God has to be true".

@galvanizeddreamer2051

Жыл бұрын

My father, to my understanding, had the logic of: First: It had to be one that had already revealed itself to mankind, otherwise, in his mind it was not worthy of worship. Second: Christianity seems like like the best out of them, I'll pick that one, and _have faith._ Most religion is exclusive, in that one exists contradictory to others, meaning if a god has revealed itself, the other ones are by definition not real.

@rypsterhc8673

Жыл бұрын

There has to be a creator or some intelligence due to the perfect universal laws that allowed us to live on earth with a great temperature

@maryeverett2266

Жыл бұрын

@@rypsterhc8673 Why do you think that?

@snooganslestat2030

Жыл бұрын

@@rypsterhc8673 What is a great temperature esp when it varies a lot?!

@juliee593

Жыл бұрын

​@@rypsterhc8673or hear me out... There are billions of planets orbiting around stars in the universe, so statistically there has to be at least one that's positioned at the right distance from a star so that the surface temperature allows for life to form.

It is so bizarre hearing these brilliant men saying essentially "we dont know, and since I also incidentally like this variant; therefore God"...

@JavierAlbinarrate

4 жыл бұрын

Well brilliant is an overestimation, even truly brilliant people is not brilliant all the time neither brilliant in all fields. If there is a beauty about science is that it does not depend on who makes the assertions. Over history there have been great scientists who were lousy persons and believed in crazy batshit or were simply insane.

@lil_weasel219

3 жыл бұрын

@ "It's bizarre because you haven't studied science" Actually I have. I'm a biology student

@lil_weasel219

3 жыл бұрын

@ so tell me how does this wall of text you wrote legitimise believing bronze age myths based on no evidence whatsoever? I think you misunderstood what secularism and science are at the core. science says: So we know this and this, but we DONT know xyz As a science, you at the basal level are aware of how little you know, which is why you strive to know more. The arrogant claim of knowledge of the unknown is a feature of the abrahamic religions religion says; WE KNOW EVERYTHIN AND OUR POSITION NEVER CHANGES. science doesnt spit out the entire chewed up narrative you want/the egocentric eorldview you want to see supported, therefore we have what you crave and are therefore right. What you wrote is again another variant of "eh it doesnt make sense to me, therefore God/esoteric mystical powers" edit; scientist***

@lil_weasel219

3 жыл бұрын

@@JavierAlbinarrate I know, it's just kinda sad seeing the apologist fuel.

3 жыл бұрын

@ science is a process not a result. funny you didn't learn that. Maybe that's why you weren't good at it.

Dismisses multiverse theory as a leap of faith. Claims that faith is the real answer.

@genzeuronymous7787

4 жыл бұрын

ZUCC LINDA nice to meet other.. atheist R’s?

@wilandren65

3 жыл бұрын

I mean, the conditions weren’t perfect for life then we wouldn’t exist. So it may be rare, but there would be no way for us to judge unless it happened precisely. If some aspect were wrong and we didn’t exist, then we wouldn’t be able to observe that we weren’t there. What I’m saying is that because we’re alive and life was created, we can talk about how improbable it was but it can’t change the fact we’re here and if we weren’t we wouldn’t be able to have this argument.

@Mernom

3 жыл бұрын

@@wilandren65 exactly. That's called the observer's bias. The observer is most likely to be the most typical of all observers. It also throws some uncomfortable predictions about that the world can end soon, so it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, rather than literally.

@johndelong5574

3 жыл бұрын

Multiverse creator insider info.

@sofiaporras3624

3 жыл бұрын

ok but my dumbass heard the words "multiverse" and "leap of faith" and immediately thought he was refrencing spiderman into the spiderverse lmao

I find that a lot of people have 2 personalities when it comes to religion. Most of the time they're a normal, logical, and kind person. Then suddenly when religion is brought up they do a complete 180°. A kind person can suddenly want sinners to burn for all eternity or a logical person can suddenly believe in things without evidence.

@scientistsbaffled5730

5 жыл бұрын

Strawman

@xxMrBaldyxx

5 жыл бұрын

Many religious believers think logically about everything but their religious beliefs. They seem to put all logic and reason aside, and just _believe_ . I think that religious belief really does impair a persons ability to logically think.

@jeffparent2159

5 жыл бұрын

That depends on what you'd consider religious. Are social issues religious? Are medical topics religious? These scientists consider science to be religious. The change from rational to irrational occurs when they want to employ religion, which can occur at any time they wish. THIS is why the irrationally of religion becomes dangerous. Having the ability to throw out the God card in any conversation should be pointless but living in a country where irrational views are ok when invoked by religion is when that card is dangerous.

@2FadeMusic

5 жыл бұрын

@@scientistsbaffled5730 ?

@graey24601

5 жыл бұрын

I disagree! No wait, you're right. ;-P

Part of my "problem" with God, regarding evil (suffering) is - "God heals"... until He doesn't. "God protects"... until He doesn't. "God is empathetic"... but does nothing! What then, is the use of believing in anything, that claims physical traits... but cannot be counted on to demonstrate those very claims?

@reisekeller6859

3 жыл бұрын

@Brandon Neifert So... that would make you a deist? Because most Christian beliefs claim that God is active, regarding intervention. Is this not part of your faith?

@reisekeller6859

3 жыл бұрын

@Brandon Neifert You're mistaken... I simply want to know how believers equate God's intervention as intentional? In the end, they give credit for good to God, and call everything else a "mystery". Does God intervene, or not?

@reisekeller6859

3 жыл бұрын

@Brandon Neifert ...Then, I refer back to my original statement. Hope you have a good holiday!

@Hamuel

3 жыл бұрын

The fact that love exists had nothing to do with a god existing

@TheCyrix1

3 жыл бұрын

@Brandon Neifert Just because your little book claims "God is love" doesn't make it real... PROVE your god is love... Lot of verses of the bible PROVE THE CONTRARY !

Dr Collins: "God is a good mathematician" The Bible: "Pi is 3"

@orangeanarchy235

4 жыл бұрын

where does it say this?

@aspinninggreycube1270

4 жыл бұрын

​@@orangeanarchy235 It's not hard to google. 1 Kings 7 23 And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. That gives a value for pi of 3.

@orangeanarchy235

4 жыл бұрын

@@aspinninggreycube1270 huh. i didn’t know that. interesting

@justasaiyanfromearth5252

3 жыл бұрын

God is an engineer.

@Thorbrine

3 жыл бұрын

Cristian: NO EVIDENCE EVEN THO YOU SAID IT TO MY FACE AND TOLD ME WERE IT IS. ITS STILL NOT EVIDENCE

oh my. i‘m a physicist and the first guy‘s interpretation of the big bang theory and the WMAP cosmic microwave background INFURIATES me. no credible research is saying that the universe exploded out of nothing, just that it started expanding at some point! we barely know anything about the inflationary period and what the universe behaved like before that.

@VoltVizenti

4 жыл бұрын

Hey, are you really a physicist? I'm studying to become one, and over this note you made I wanted to ask: isn't it more that we cannot yet see what happened in the early life of our universe due to this "matter wall" (for a lack of a better definition, at least in my knowledge) that blocks our sight? Thanks

@Alex-wi1mx

4 жыл бұрын

@@VoltVizenti not a physicist, but as I understand it, our current understanding of physics breaks down as we try to go past t=0

@truescotsman4103

4 жыл бұрын

hawking has suggested that only gravity might be required to "create" the entire universe from nothing its possible hes just parroting this.

@truescotsman4103

4 жыл бұрын

@@VoltVizenti i think it has to do with how far we can detect light and how old that light or radiation is.

@TechnetiumPrime

4 жыл бұрын

from what I understand, the universe was just far denser (the entire observable universe squished into a space the size of a proton) and the four fundamental forces were a unity, and the temperature was so hot, physics breaks down. It expanded because of quantum fluctuations reversing entropy, but maybe I'm wrong.

"God is real because I want him to be." -every religious person ever

@pollypockets508

4 жыл бұрын

What if they didn't want him to be?

@manueltrejosfranco

4 жыл бұрын

"God isn't real because I don't want him to be" -every atheist person ever

@ironyuppie2089

4 жыл бұрын

j j I’ll take evidence over faith every minute of every hour of every day of the week.

@manueltrejosfranco

4 жыл бұрын

@@ironyuppie2089 do you even know what faith means

@ironyuppie2089

4 жыл бұрын

j j Of course I do, but I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make because it has no bearing on my preference of evidence over faith.

Christian Scientist: Science can't address philosophical questions so we have to resort to Christianity. Philosophy: Am I a joke to you?

@yourfutureself3392

2 жыл бұрын

The last one says "science can't answer philosophical questions and we therefore should "answer" them through faith". Wtf if they're philosophical questions answer them with philosophy not faith.

@lasttarrasque6223

2 жыл бұрын

agreed, people never seem to understand that philosophy is in-fact a science

@markbrandly6036

2 жыл бұрын

@@lasttarrasque6223 it’s not, but that doesn’t mean it can’t answer questions. Math isn’t a science either. Science is empirical

@truthseeker7815

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty much the same

@truthseeker7815

2 жыл бұрын

@@lasttarrasque6223, no

Dr Collins: you can’t create something out of nothing Also Dr Collins: but God can

@mattd6085

2 жыл бұрын

Something that's always bothered me with the statement that you can't create something out of nothing... why the fuck not? We know essentially fuck and all about the first instants of our universe, so why can't it be something from nothing? The deeper our understanding of the very small, the very fast and the very heavy, the less intuitive sense it makes. So I say fuck yeah the universe can just happen without cause, it's an entire fucking universe it can do what it wants. No need for god, no need for the TERRIBLE cosmological argument, just... no universe, then bam, universe. Don't know how, don't know why, will likely never know.

@roadrunner9622

2 жыл бұрын

An atheist: The idea of God is ridiculous! Also an atheist: The Universe was created at the Big Bang, with no creator.

@roadrunner9622

2 жыл бұрын

@@mattd6085 So you say "Why not?" to that idea, but call Christians ridiculous for their belief in a God that wasn't created.

@marcelloberry6829

2 жыл бұрын

@@roadrunner9622 well we know that the Big Bang happened but we don’t know how it was caused

@mattd6085

2 жыл бұрын

@@roadrunner9622 yes, that's exactly right. Because the christian god is neither interesting nor predictive as an answer to anything at all. Did an intelligent being kick start the universe? Can't rule it out, however there is absolutely no positive evidence to lend credence to the idea. We also can't rule out the possibility that we are the fleeting day dream of a galactic hyper snail. Or that we are all plugged into a simulation. Or that i'm the only conscious being. Your god fits in among these ideas, unfalsifiable. And when a proposed mechanism is unfalsifiable, it's pointless to spend any time on it

So what I'm getting from these three is:- 1. I don't understand 2. Science doesn't have an answer 3. Therefore God And they are scientists?

@donhaddix3770

4 жыл бұрын

Your atheist faith is showing.

@anandsuralkar2947

4 жыл бұрын

@@donhaddix3770 what

@jindrichsander9555

4 жыл бұрын

well, many things have been sort of confirmed by theories so...

@donhaddix3770

4 жыл бұрын

@Throbelisk Zero evidence supports atheism.

@donhaddix3770

4 жыл бұрын

@Throbelisk False

Summary: We exist - therefore God. Faulty human logic is so obvious that even humans recognize they have faulty logic.

@TheCyrix1

3 жыл бұрын

@Brandon Neifert Logic doesn't deny facts The existence of god(s) denies FACTS AND logic !

@TheMaskedThearpist

3 жыл бұрын

Doesn't that mean your logic for God not existing is also faulty? Because you are human and your thoughts also have error?

@TheCyrix1

3 жыл бұрын

@Brandon Neifert " I believe in meaning, I believe in good and evil, and I believe in God because He establishes those things" where are your evidence he did it ? NOwhere... just blind faith in what you have been told ! "Science cannot explain a lot of things." Not a reason to involve magic (aka god) to fill the gap ! That's TOTALLY anti-scientific ! "And when it attempts to, it denies other things that people commonly observe." NOTHING in science "denies what people observe". At least not what is FACTUALLY observed, but the vague feelings and emotion beLIEvers ARE NOT REAL OBSERVATIONS !

@TheCyrix1

3 жыл бұрын

@Brandon Neifert "Because good and evil exist. There's the proof of God's existence" Onlmy your crowd's (because you re not even able to have your one) O-PI-NION There is no correlation between good-evil and gods... specially your chosen one ! "And that's why faith is valid." Faith isd beLIEvng WITHOUT evidence and often ( as in your case) DESPITE evidence.. I9T s everything but "valid" ! "Because it substantiates good, and makes it beyond human definition." Blah, blah, blah ... As usual NOTHING FCATUAL just claims and regurgitated opinions !

@Kuumin

3 жыл бұрын

Good and evil is subjective. From the views of science, there's no good or evil at all, so it doesn't exist because nature doesn't give a fuck about what you're doing.

I despise the fine tuning argument. Like, the universe is almost the exact opposite of fine tuned, our asses can barely survive in the areas we do.

@raylessneptune451

3 жыл бұрын

I’m late but you’re so spot on with this. Fine tuned, yet I leave the earths atmosphere and I’m dead in seconds.

@idiot3412

3 жыл бұрын

I also like how no one who uses the fine tuning argument have ever noticed that we litterally change our environment to fit us.

@dudesayingthings

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. I never understand how people can say the universe is fine tuned for human life when more than 70% of our own planet is covered in salt water.

@ilvanasgobero8096

2 жыл бұрын

They also say that nature is perfect, bruh, you take out one animal of the enviroment and the whole thing collapses

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

We only survive for a minute fraction of the time the universe exists. We're more like an irrelevant whoops.

I almost cried myself laughing at that King Of The Hill clip. "Mother of God, it's all toilet sounds!"

@jameslovell405

3 жыл бұрын

@Brandon Neifert Who the fuck appointed you to pass judgement on "90% of America?" If a fictional character is what you use to discern what a better man is, perhaps you should join the theists. Dick.

Sometimes, whenever my blood pressure gets too low, I'll come to one of GMS's religion-related videos and read some theistic comments. It's better than any medication, I tell you.

@giratina6665

3 жыл бұрын

Too bad that significantly more people suffer from a too high blood pressure than a too low one.

@whereDoCarrotsComeFrom

2 жыл бұрын

@@giratina6665 just flip the phone

Three arguments from ignorance. *'I cannot explain, therefore God'* They should know better.

@Advisory_Vessel

5 жыл бұрын

I dont know what is holding galaxies together, therefore dark matter. Scientists and astronomers do this all the time. It seems to only be good when it's in your favor I guess

@Advisory_Vessel

5 жыл бұрын

@Jubei Yang Why are you sending me this?

@johnchesterfield9726

5 жыл бұрын

Donte Johnson More like: We have empirical evidence that tells us the amount of gravity in the universe is far too much to account for the observed amount of matter, therefore we will admit our ignorance of it, and label the enigma “dark matter” for the time being.

@Advisory_Vessel

5 жыл бұрын

@@johnchesterfield9726 That means that other formulas and equations for space have to be wrong because if we don't know that much then we really don't know as much as we think when it comes to anything other than Earth

@johnchesterfield9726

5 жыл бұрын

Donte Johnson No, I’m sorry, but that’s not how that works. You are speaking out of complete scientific ignorance, and you’ve made that apparent already judging from your first comment. I doubt you could even list one equation. I would sincerely appreciate you to not engage or speak about a field of science in which you have not even tried to understand, or for any subject you are ignorant of for that matter.

"Revealed in jesus christ". That quote always confuses. Do we have to dissect jesus to find our answer? 🤔🤔

@casp6132

3 жыл бұрын

Snip snip ✂️

@jaycreate7701

3 жыл бұрын

@AIFAHRA HORGGHRO Jesus and the boys getting drunk

@glennhandy7028

3 жыл бұрын

He would say Yes

You've articulated very well what i've been thinking for a while. When i first became an atheist i was a little angry at the people around me for being, as you put it, "irational". I'm from a country where over 98% of people are religious and over 80% are orthodox. Finding another atheist is like finding a unicorn and most people couldn't even comperhend that not believing in god is an option. We used to have religion as a compulsory subject in school. I used to argue a lot with people and it seemed very contradictory to me how very intelligent people can be so blind. Nowadays i've taken a step back and i don't really care what people believe anymore. I've accepted the fact that people can be irational even though they are smart and that maybe it's not my place to challenge their beliefs. If they are doubting themselves they can do the research on their own haha.

@percyreiling

3 жыл бұрын

Where are you from if I may ask? I also find it interesting that something like faith is not bound to a specific culture or social class, or even time for that matter. It appears like a social phenomenon that certain tribes or people make up stories of the origin of life. And it get äs closer to science the younger the religion is... also I like the fact that humans have an irrational, emotional side to them

@ismt9390

3 жыл бұрын

@@percyreiling I'm from Romania.

@pongotheorangutan6390

3 жыл бұрын

@@ismt9390 So am I, I get what you meab

@wpyoga

3 жыл бұрын

Where I live, religion is still a compulsory subject at school. The government even specifically endorses religions...

@akinlajaakinwande8177

3 жыл бұрын

This is Nigeria in a nutshell.

How the hell is an all powerful wizard the simplest answer? Especially when a theist key defense for not knowing anything about their deity is to say "God is too complex to comprehend." Completely contradicting the fact they declared to have knowledge on it mere moments ago.

@quantumaxe6468

5 жыл бұрын

It is just rationalization masquerading as reason, not explanation.

@djixi98

5 жыл бұрын

jason littleton It's the simplest answer because one doesn't need to know anything about science, one just needs to believe.

@nukiradio

5 жыл бұрын

jason littleton god is not the author of confusion, but he works in mysterious ways ;)

@diobrando6716

5 жыл бұрын

Bluemonsoon then I take it you can explain god to me in a way that makes sense? If so hop to it.

@diobrando6716

5 жыл бұрын

Bluemonsoon 😑 So we’re throwing out ad hominem attacks now? What are you 3 years old? Defend your position or shut the fuck up. PICK ONE!

7:13 “There is an unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” Why thank you, we mathematicians try quite hard.

@canwelook

3 жыл бұрын

Mathematics is the science of patterns. The universe has patterns. We're meant to be gobsmacked that the science of patterns explains patterns?

@gavinkidder1317

3 жыл бұрын

It’s almost as if Collins is suggesting that one day God went to the first mathematicians (who weren’t at the time) and said “here I wrote this book, it’s basically a guide for everything you need to know about a thing I invented called Math” and that suddenly everything made sense

@julzbehr6696

3 жыл бұрын

Well, math is used to describe the patterns in the universe, so of course it’s good at doing that. And also, you can technically mathematically finagle your way to any claim, so even god probably somehow. I know someone got „devil“ out of „corona“

@abrahamkibret1053

3 жыл бұрын

Mathematicians don't create math they discover it, same as astronomy doesn't create new systems just observes and names them.

@suryat5785

3 жыл бұрын

He later makes a point about the fine tuning of the universe, not realising that existence would not be possible in such a universe, and nobody would think it

It always boggles my mind that those who question how the universe could exist without a creator never seem to question how that supposed creator came to be itself. They just take for granted that this invisible being had always been there, but are not willing to entertain the idea that the *visible* universe could have always existed. It's just as plausible. And by the way, since we don't know anything about what was before the big bang, we can't make any claims about whether something was there beforehand or not. We simply don't know. We don't know that the universe came from nothing. That can't be proven either way.

@xAaeiynx

Жыл бұрын

If God has their own ruler, who created that ruler? And, who created that ruler? And then, who created their ruler? An ultimate God can exist outside of time and space.

@vulpes7079

Жыл бұрын

They just invent the idea of the "First Mover", i.e. God has fo be the start of the line. Obviously that has no backing whatsoever

I realize this is a 3 year old video but…thank you for your content Drew. You are an amazing human being from what I’ve gathered so far and I thank you.

"I don't believe in science unless I think it supports my position"

@djixi98

5 жыл бұрын

William yup, Confirmation Bias

@unit0033

5 жыл бұрын

@AH03 you sound like a typical foil helmet wearing nutter!

@xxMrBaldyxx

5 жыл бұрын

WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, and yet it also fell in freefall. It had to have been a controlled demolition.

@darkwind1812

5 жыл бұрын

Well, scientists do the same, multiverse, simulated reality but when it comes to God, "there's no evidence for God" don't they realize that when they mention simulated reality ,for example, it implies a designer as well?

@8698gil

4 жыл бұрын

KC Well said.

My personal view is that all three of these scientists' arguments for God are arguments from ignorance. In other words, "I don't know, therefore God."

@starfishsystems

5 жыл бұрын

Yes. It's a peculiar lapse in otherwise intelligent people, but then again human minds are not inherently rational. It doesn't make sense to infer from not knowing something that we therefore know something else. Hidden in this fallacy is some item of presupposed knowledge.

@reidbell4005

5 жыл бұрын

You'd like armoured skeptic

@tgstudio85

5 жыл бұрын

@RetroMan nope, science doesn't say that it knows everything like religious people and their omnipotent god, except science proves it's claims, not like religious people;)

@vinceknox4425

5 жыл бұрын

RetroMan No, scientists take the “I don’t know”s and try to find evidence and perform studies using the scientific method to find empirical data about something. And until they can say for sure, scientists just say “I don’t know because we don’t have the evidence.” Religions just claim their one God did everything and works “in mysterious ways” anytime they can’t come up with an answer.

@InanisNihil

4 жыл бұрын

though some religious people say "i don know.. so lets find out HOW god did it..." this way u have religious scientist fully able to go thru the scientific process and discover the nature of the universe.. as they accept nature the reality of nature... thus want to discover the processes of how god made it... rather then "we dont know... so god.."

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -No God said.

I believe that Star Trek is real. It gives me comfort.

@Emily-ye1rj

3 жыл бұрын

As in "currently real" or "will be real"?

@stevenwhite3.1415

3 жыл бұрын

I definitely want to believe that I could potentially have sexual relations with aliens and they didn't evolve in some crazy way where the female part digests the male part during penetration.

@marijancorluka4500

2 жыл бұрын

Aliens aren't real though.

@marijancorluka4500

2 жыл бұрын

@Ryandal Gilmore How? What would be proof to you? Can't prove something we cannot see (except for example air). We can only prove why it is more likely they aren't real. Just like I can prove that God is the more logical option but cannot 100% prove Him.

@lorekeeper685

2 жыл бұрын

@@marijancorluka4500 oh! You have proof for god? Can I read your thesis about it?(if you wrote one) I hope it won't be the old arguments that has been get to point that even kindergarten kids can disprove it!

What I hear religious people say: "This story comforts me and brings me hope, even though much of it is inexplicable, unverifiable and defies logic, whereas what atheists say makes me feel unimportant and scared and does not give me all the answers I require. Therefore I chose to accept the story as true and will fight to the teeth any misgivings I might have, because such are a test of my faith and I must not relent ." I find it the equivalent of self medicating with recreational drugs and alcohol. It's avoiding reality and giving up understanding the universe and yourself and dismissing the journey you've been given a chance to make, seemingly against all odds, to try and figure it all out.

@peteypablo2081

5 жыл бұрын

Good but why is self medicating with recreational drugs avoiding reality? I like to toke a little because it helps me with muscle spasms, insomnia which helps me enjoy life (reality) more.

@RoguishlyHandsome

5 жыл бұрын

Peter Antisin I knew someone would react this way. It is not all black or white. Not everyone lighting a bong once in a while lives in denial. But visit a rehab center and you'll see that most of those people did not simply over do it by accident then became addicted.

@RoguishlyHandsome

5 жыл бұрын

Peter Antisin I think I understand your objection. You took "self medicating" as taking drug as a medicine for a real medical reasons. I meant it as a way of coping with life, stress, to get out of your brain to forget your troubles, to make you feel differently because you can't stand how you feel without it. Just as there is a danger of becoming addicted to recreational drugs (can happen to almost anyone indulging), your religion becomes what keeps you together and help you cope with everything that threatens your inner peace.

@ninabusarac2806

5 жыл бұрын

Self medicating might not be the best analogy but still they made a point. It's really kinda like escapism.

@RoguishlyHandsome

5 жыл бұрын

Nina Busarac We can get on board with that

It's funny hearing smart people trying to justify stupidity.

@maicho25

5 жыл бұрын

You'd also agree that it's funny hearing stupid people trying to justify intelligence then?

@GoldSrc_

5 жыл бұрын

Francis Collins became a believer in god because he saw a frozen waterfall xD I mean, he's smart, he had something to do with the Human Genome Project if I'm not mistaken, but the frozen waterfall thing makes me laugh.

@corytracy8993

5 жыл бұрын

Yes smart people are right, like Einstein a Hawkins who see religion as a clinging to childhood delusions!

@CNCmachiningisfun

5 жыл бұрын

+Bluemoronsoon Are you just pretending to be a moron, or is such stupidity your normal state? Grow up!

@JoachimLarsen101

5 жыл бұрын

Anthony Gold - Smart does not equal right (= correct). Think about it.

Thank you for showing the arguments in full and then making your case. A lot of people on KZread go the shock jock route and take a couple phrases out of context to bash them. You actually give the people you're arguing against grace to speak and to give your audience their perspective and then you say why you believe they're flawed. I'm a huge Francis Collins fan and I'm glad to see you interacting with his views btw

This video contains 100% therapeutic grade scepticism. I confess that there was a time when I thrived on the broad-spectrum placebo of religion.

It's not even that they believe in a "supreme being" but the fact that they think THEIR god is the "supreme being". It's arrogance at its best. All the religions in the world and you think YOUR god is the only and true god in the world? All of those "proofs" can be "evidence" for any god not just Yahweh.

@WGHpanic

4 жыл бұрын

Some religions are more refined than others.

@chessandmathguy

4 жыл бұрын

@sluttyMapleSyrup speaking of more than one god, why has no one proposed that there is one god for each atom in the universe? That's it. That's what I'll propose. There is a distinct god for each atom.

@magnus_bane

4 жыл бұрын

@@chessandmathguy that's a lot of gods

Why do people think that “nothing” should be the default? We have no evidence for the concept of absolute nothing even being logically possible. But we have clear evidence the something exists. Nothing can only be logically defined in relationship to a something the lack of which the word “nothing” describes. There is no logical value to the word or concept of “nothingness” on its own.

@sunsetpalms1923

5 жыл бұрын

Nothing is the only thing we can say doesn't exist.

@karekarenohay4432

3 жыл бұрын

I always thought that way: "nothing" does not exists, by definition. So, there is no alternative to "being", and "why is something instead nothing?" is a false dicotomy.

@AlDunbar

3 жыл бұрын

Nothing, or the null set, is a relatively simple concept to understand in mathematics. At the same time, we argue about the existence of nothingness as if NOTHING could actually be a thing. This is a bit like how we discuss the existence of a god, so, perhaps nothingness and God are one and the same.

@marijancorluka4500

2 жыл бұрын

What is nothing? You can't even comprehend or imagine that. My philosophy and logic teacher said: "Imagine nothing". Shortly after that she said: "If you imagined a black color, you didn't imagine nothing. You imagined a black color." I assume all of us imagined either a black or a white void. So most people don't know what they are talking about. If there is nothing somehow, there is nothing and nothing can come out of that, however that looked. That's a singular 0. So scientists either have 2 options to prove since initial material matter before the Big Bang cannot come out of nothing. 1. How did that matter exist since ever. 2. What (material) preceeded that matter or where did that matter come from? But it is always material and not intelligent. It is affected by time, space and matter. So there has to be something which is not affected by those rules. That's where an uncomprehendable and intelligent creator we call God comes into play.

Collins has written about his embrace of faith, and he freely acknowledges that much of that impetus was a promise he made to his wife before her death. In a later part of his book, he describes the moment where he's walking through a park in winter, and comes upon a frozen waterfall: "Nobody gets argued all the way into becoming a believer on the sheer basis of logic and reason. That requires a leap of faith. And that leap of faith seemed very scary to me. After I had struggled with this for a couple of years, I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it -- also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth -- that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief." Certainly there's room for debate as to what, psychologically, Collins is experiencing at this moment, but it should be clear to any observer that his experience is an emotional experience, shorn of the rigor and effort that rational inquiry requires. For many people, I think there's a sense of "relief" and catharsis when they stop "resisting" the weight of emotions that are bearing on them, especially when the prospect of doing so has the perceived effect of honoring a loved one.

@averagejoe2232

Жыл бұрын

It still is a beautiful story, I think, regardless of whether or not his faith is true.

@snooganslestat2030

Жыл бұрын

That's a good way of describing how I felt when I believed. It was an emotional feeling of ok, good I can put my trust in this other thing that will help me & sort my life out essentially. When nothing actually changed & some things got worse I stopped believing. (I was a young teen & tho 'smart' academically I had no real understanding of evidence for god specifically, possibly because I grew up going to church).

@tma2001

11 ай бұрын

strange use of the word 'honour' by Collins when you dishonour yourself by abandoning intellectual honesty. There is no dishonour is declaring "I don't know" and there are questions we may never know for as long as humans exist.

“I don’t know the answers, and I can’t know the answers; therefore, god”. This is essentially the same argument that Sir Isaac Newton made, but, now, we know the answers to some of his unanswerables. Let’s see how Collins’ ignorance holds up in 350 years.

8:19 This argument REALLY bothers me because it comes down to people saying "look how perfect the universe is for life and mathematics". No,, stop. The universe didnt shift to change us,, life started somewhere on earth and WE had to shift and change to adapt to our pre-existing conditions. The universe isnt relatively simple for us,, its because every subsequent result of these laws are also relatively simple,, which implies that simplicity,, even in the greater instincts of the infinitely-encompassing universe,, is efficient. If our universe had come into being with much more impossible standards,, then the things that would come from those laws would find ways to operate as efficiently as possible,, OR nothing in the universe would remain physically stable as a result of such complex innerworkings of things. For example,, if in our universe,, gravity instead was based on mass as well as color,, heat energy,, age of the object and THEN some sort of factor with randomized 'calculations' running in order to compose each unique instant of the quality,, a function so outlandish and random that it would only align just right every 6 × 10^sextillionth case for gravity to properly be applied to something,, and assuming gravity would still end up serving the same function,, THEN FEW CHUNKS of the universe would be able to do things as our universe allow. But,, conversly,, if we also shift what "gravity" can achieve in that universe ((at which point it wouldnt even BE gravity as we know it but whatever)) so that it ends up carrying on the universe fairly in accordance to THAT universe,, than it would qualify as ALSO being "opportune" for mathematics to work out. And the cycle goes back and forth like that. Its not that we made up math,, inherently,, we just started out with basic numbers and came up with functions and such that could apply to the building blocks of everything. And even in our "simple" universe,, those things are only RELATIVELY simple. We cant even puzzle out,, into words or math or concept,, WHY every law is the way it is to begin with. I wouldnt call that a universe that seems so perfect for the patterns we pulled out of observing it. But whatever,, i dont see whats so hard to get about how not everything is about us,, and EPSECIALLY not about life.

@MrMrlosteruk

4 жыл бұрын

You just saved me 10 mins of typing. This is an area I think should have more focus. The idea that we were significant when all we knew was a small area near where we lived is understandable. But now we know how big the universe actually is thanks to science, the mental maths needed to place humans on a pedestal is harder and harder, and looks more and more odd. Anyway, you actually only saved me 1 min of typing thanks to this comment, lol

@descuddlebat

3 жыл бұрын

I think there is a misunderstaning, probably caused by the context in which the phenomenon is presented. No scientists are saying that the fundamental constants are fine tuned for life as we know it. The claim is that they are fine tuned for *anything* sufficiently complex to form. A simplified example: If the cosmological constant was higher, the universe would come to big rip before anything complex could form, and after the big rip no two particles can ever interact again.

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

Math, like all languages, is descriptive of experience.

From experience, I think too many people cling to faith from a place of fear. Fear of an afterlife, or lack thereof. Fear of lack of justice. Fear of the thought that there is no ultimate control to hold mankind responsible for their actions. I was guilty of a lot of these fears and I know how difficult it is to break free from these fears. But I realised that I was only holding onto my faith because of these fears. Not because of true belief. And after I let that fear go, everything else was a lot easier.

@Graeme_Lastname

5 жыл бұрын

Monius 13

@Monius13

5 жыл бұрын

@@Graeme_Lastname which is another way of looking at it also. Glad you're still with us. 😊👊

@quantumaxe6468

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, that is the final conclusion I have come to, too. There is no other reason to believe in God other than fear. When you accept the world as it is, with its apparent injustices and pain and stop justifying them for any grander purpose, there seems to be no other reason left to believe in God or afterlife.

@antediluvianatheist5262

5 жыл бұрын

When you give up fear, you have no reason to avoid reality.

@quantumaxe6468

5 жыл бұрын

@doge fm yes, the saying 'no atheists in foxholes' is not entirely wrong. And your statement clearly proved what I was saying. By the way, doubt is the beginning of wisdom. Fear of the Lord is beginning of gullibility.

13:00 Let's not just pick on believers, my dude. I'm a non-believer and also a scientist who smokes. I also know atheists who are incredibly superstitious. Stupidity isn't exclusive to the religious, and being a skeptic doesn't make you immune to cognitive dissonance. Peace to you, my brother.

In my opinion, the fine-tuning argument is the one that makes me face palm the hardest. They spend so much time giving examples of how it makes sense I wonder how that can't consider the possibility that the universe wasn't planned out with the future in mind, but rather things exist because they exist according to what they were able to form by? That is, life may not require earth's conditions in order to form but life formed according to earth's conditions.

"Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here?" Last I remember, these questions fall into the realm of cosmology. Remember, once upon a time we had no idea what caused lightning or earthquakes -- & we had no idea *how 2 figure those things out.*

@nickb1156

4 жыл бұрын

cosmology studies the universe but doesn't attribute any meaning to it.

@zenkim6709

4 жыл бұрын

@@nickb1156 > cosmology studies the universe but doesn't attribute any meaning 2 it. Of course it doesn't attribute meaning 2 the cosmos -- because that presumes a predetermined meaning 2 the existence of the cosmos, which is an unwarranted presumption. As the old saying goes, that would B trying 2 make too much stew out of 1 oyster. The problem is that the human brain is hardwired 2 search 4 patterns in everything -- & if it finds what appears 2 B a pattern, it automatically presumes that the pattern is meaningful. Witness how many Christians go absolutely gaga over what they claim R divine appearances of the face of Jesus Christ in mundane things ... like a piece of cheese toast. Talk about making *way* too much stew out of 1 oyster...

@nickb1156

4 жыл бұрын

@@zenkim6709 I'm a Christian myself and what I meant is that the many religions attribute different meanings to it. And even if you don't believe there is meaning then you are neither wrong or right because it's entirely subjective. I do cringe at "divine appearances" too, I don't believe God interferes with us.

@mism847

3 жыл бұрын

@@nickb1156 So you're one of the more rational theists. At least that's a step in the right direction.

@nickb1156

3 жыл бұрын

@@mism847 It's not a step in any direction 🙂

Why is there something instead of nothing? Good question. Does "because God" answer it? Not in the slightest. God is something. Why does he exist? Because he just does? Then why not just say that something just exists and not bother with this "God" concept? Believers claim that their religion answers questions when it really doesn't. The more I learn about the ways believers think, the harder it becomes to me to not just conclude that they are either stupid, crazy or both.

@pdoylemi

5 жыл бұрын

+WhiteScorpio2 I always respond to that silliness in two ways. First is, "Why should there be nothing rather than something?" Who determined that non-existence is a default state? And the second part is implied in your comment - "Why is there God rather than nothing? Unless your God IS nothing, and thus doesn't exist, then there NEVER WAS nothing!"

@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear

5 жыл бұрын

Well, here is a video that explains why people can start believing in all kind of things even if they aren't stupid nor crazy : kzread.info/dash/bejne/e5WJyrRmpLXReLw.html

@pdoylemi

5 жыл бұрын

+ hawklord2001 I agree and disagree. I agree that "how" is a better question, but I do not even see this as a valid question. The valid question (IMO) is, "Do we have any reason to think that 'nothing' rather than 'something' is a default state?"

@Phreemunny

5 жыл бұрын

My response to this is “is nothing even a possibility? The idea of “nothing” is incoherent to me; what does that even mean?”

@djixi98

5 жыл бұрын

Firstly, we should remind ourselves that universe prior to Big Bang was never "nothing", to us it may appear so, but to Physics it was something. (Same goes for vacuum and Outer Space for they are still something bc they contain particles.) In doing so we can avoid making Equivocation Fallacy where we use two definitions/ meanings for one term. Secondly, nonexistence IS the default position until proven otherwise, in other words it's Null Hypothesis. We cannot assume connection between anything (read god) and exiatence, until we prove that anything (read god) exists. Null Hypothesis is always assumed true until proven otherwise at white point another Null Hypothesis will be made. Thirdly, even if we proved anything from the bible, or indeed proved that there was really nothing before Big Bang and in doing so immediately claimed god right away, we'd be making a Slippery Slope Fallacy. Just because we prove one thing, it does not and cannot prove the whole thing.

"You see, doctor, God didn't kill that little girl. Fate didn't butcher her, and destiny didn't feed her to those dogs. If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on, I knew. God doesn't make the world this way. We do." -Rorschach, Watchmen (2009)

@nandoflorestan

Жыл бұрын

There exists a lot of suffering out there not inflicted by humans. For instance, if a newborn kitten is abandoned by his mother, he will suffer and die before opening his eyes, since his antibodies come from the mother's milk -- without her he is at the mercy of microbes. I could cite dozens of similar examples just off the top of my head. Therefore, Rorschach's view on suffering is tremendously incomplete.

@LineOfThy

Жыл бұрын

@@nandoflorestan yeah but a disproportionally huge chunk of it is

Videos like this are why I'm subscribed and why I'm a patron. You analyze things thoroughly, and you speak respectfully about those you disagree with. Well done. One minor correction: You say that Collins treats his hypothesis as confirmed, but that's not what he said. He said he thinks it's most likely, but not that it's confirmed.

How the hell can scientists base their entire livelihood around separating personal opinion from objective fact and logical reasoning, and not have the self-awareness to realize they have no justification for the existence of their god outside of their own personal feelings?

@Tasorius

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe they will stop when all scientists become agnostic...

@Thorbrine

3 жыл бұрын

i can,t wait till we create god AKA A.S.I and then it get rid of us (kills us Sends us to another place) because we are not needed after its created

@dendooz1059

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe it's because they attach God and religion to their identity, which really has a grip on it.

@mism847

3 жыл бұрын

Heavy indoctrination

i laughed when he said, "There's an infinite number of universes with different constants and we turned out to be in the right one or we wouldn't exist." Like how can he know that only this universe is the right one? There might be other universes out there that have their own set of constants that produced their own kind of life forms but are their universes wrong because we're not in there? The idea that the universe was created just for us really reeks of superiority complex to me.

@hurtighansen1

2 жыл бұрын

Well spoken, you just crushed those "scientist" with logic.

@baka9067

Жыл бұрын

@@hurtighansen1 pseudoscientist 🌚

@GhalidiusTrident

Жыл бұрын

I agree, If there are an infinite number of universes, there is also an infinite percentage of those universes that are inhabited, and another infinite percentage of those don't exist within the realm of our universe, as such don't have to follow our universes' natural laws. One could be actually created by a god, gods, or maybe even God hinself, another could have actual magic in it, and maybe even another universe that is filled with gods creating their own universes, However we can't comprehend physics beyond our own universe so according to our universe's natural laws the beings in those other universes cannot exist, however those other universes, as previously elaborated don't exist within the realm of ours.

@Fairbranksthecat

7 ай бұрын

Our universe is in constant expansion since it began and life on earth is in constant expansion since it began too. It seems to me that life ( at large not just humans ) goal is to cover the universe. Now were we created by God or did we created Him ? I don't know the answer to that but now that the universe and life are launched, they can't be stopped even when earth explode because it's time is up, life will still reborn somewhere because now that it's there, it can't disappear unless the universe disappear. Tbh I think the universe is a painting in the making with a painter or auto-painting doesn't change the beauty of it.

Most controversial part of this video is the take that Mathematics is not technically a science.

So i’m rewatching your video and realizing now that there is a piece of paper saying ‘bs’ pointing to the essential oils lol 😂

@savagechicken4518

3 жыл бұрын

Lol just noticed that too🤣

Yes God created the universe for us humans and then 13.7 billion years later evolved some primitive mammal to finally create us on an unbelievably small rock floating in space and made the rock 99% hostile to our existence Then a few thousand years later sent 5000+ different messiahs to vaguely spread his words around and then become his own son and impregnated a virgin and died for our sins, which even babies have btw (the sin) Makes total sense to me

@DAYBROK3

5 жыл бұрын

It’s amazing how often women are dismissed in logical commentary because they are female and therefore unable to “properly” think. You then read the comments the “intelligent” men make and find the men can not string one sentence together long enough to make their point. Being good at grammar does not make you smarter, it makes you easier to understand.

@ateoforever7434

5 жыл бұрын

@doge fm " you need a stronger knowledge, call it magic,call it whatever it is "..........well...just call it NATURE !

@ateoforever7434

5 жыл бұрын

@doge fm You don't need a scientist to tell you how gravity works.....the rotation of earth causes gravity, the moon does not rotate ( that's why we see only one side ) if there was no gravity, the moon would have gone away into space....the same works for the other planets in our system. Luckily our sun ( being the biggest ) does not pull us towards it...that gravity maintains the distance and orbit in our small part of the universe.

@ateoforever7434

5 жыл бұрын

@doge fm It's so simple......just change the word God , into NATURE and all is well.....

@ateoforever7434

5 жыл бұрын

@doge fm ' ask for forgiveness for your sins "..........WHY ?? sin is " invented " by your god, i live my life FREE of your dogma, if two adults want to have sex.....THAT'S THEIR PRIVATE BUSINESS ! no fucking sky daddy should interfere, and say...no, you can't do that..i might considered it, IF god comes and tell me in the face.....BUT until he does....i will live my life to the full ( happiness )...after all....we only live once. STOP DREAMING !!!

One of the last straws in my faith journey was the realization that I had no justification for Christian God versus some other deity. With having gotten more into philosophy, I can see some reason in the first cause sort of argument for why there might be at least a god in the philosophical sense. However, there are just too many other unanswered questions in that hypothesis for me to hold it. I remain in the agnostic "I don't know" group on the beginning of the universe because it's the honest one. There is just no way to know at this time. Perhaps there is some sort of creator to this universe, but what's to say that whoever created it has any of the omni traits? Why should we worship this potential creator? Because they brought about the universe and consequentially gave me life? Why? I don't worship my parents because they gave birth to me. Who is to say this creator is superior to us in all ways? There are many other questions similar to this that I've seen many Christians brush to the side with "God is beyond our comprehension, you cannot question God." Bullshit. If I cannot question him in such ways, then that god is just some narcissistic asshole. I think too many people want to think they have the answer. Humans tend to fear the unknown and would rather think that there's something out there that would benefit them than to have to face the turbulent life in this universe with no extra favor.

@xord1946

5 жыл бұрын

Just remember that the very idea that atheists and agnostics are two different groups is an idea spread by religious people in order to make atheism look like a religion. The truth is, atheists are almost all agnostics.

@xord1946

5 жыл бұрын

Besides, "God is beyond our comprehension" is supposed to mean that I can't question his moral standarts. But doesn't that mean christians can't assume either he is benevolent?

@LukeVilent

5 жыл бұрын

One of your last straws was one of my first. I was born to an atheist family in a country where atheism used to be enforced by the state, and even though being indoctrinated by a relative in childhood, had many books in our library, including those on religion. So, there were Christian vitas describing adolescent female martyrs of the first age of Christianity, who felt themselves so devoted to the Christ that they refused to get married, and went through terrible tortures while being present with attractive alternatives. Supposedly, this proved the superiority of this faith. And yet, I was familiar with a story of an Indian princess, who felt herself so devoted to Krishna that she refused to be married to anyone, and was eventually murdered by her father. Even at the height of my religious devotion, which happened between the ages of 20 and 28, I was comparing the stories and thinking: "So, is it a supernatural feature of Christianity, or more-or less natural one of early teen girls whatsoever?" So, here I am.

@xplane6693

4 жыл бұрын

@@xord1946 THIS👏👏👏

@loganleatherman7647

4 жыл бұрын

@doge fm Maybe wanna try again without all the presuppositions?

I think the most significant statement of this video was "being wrong doesn't mean you're dumb, and being right doesn't mean you're smart." This incorrect association of winning arguments to being smart or well informed must be corrected in order for people to have truly knowledge building conversation. The ability to understand we are wrong and to have no negative emotion associated with that allows us to better develope ideas towards completion even though we may never have a complete knowledge of anything.

After studying physics, I now consider infinite constructs (like the multiverse hypothesis) to often be less complex than finite ones (like the fine tuning argument). For example, I will say that an infinite rod is a simpler object than a finite rod. Odd as it may seem, let me explain. To describe the placement and orientation in space of a finite rod, I need to specify: a start point (3 variables, one per spatial dimension) and an end point (3 variables), a total of 6 independent variables. To describe an infinite rod, I need to specify: any one point along the rod (3 variables) and the direction it is pointing (2 variables: north-south angle and east-west angle), a total of 5 independent variables. So it actually takes more information to describe the finite rod than the infinite one. In the same way, the equations describing physical systems usually end up much more complicated when dealing with finite systems than infinite ones. Wave functions for a finite drum membrane almost always have infinitely many terms (because of wave reflections, etc.); wave functions for an infinite membrane often have only a few terms. So the Occam's Razor argument would have me conclude that the multiverse hypothesis is preferable to the fine tuning hypothesis, because an infinite set containing every possible universe is actually a simpler construct ("anything is possible" is literally no information) than a set containing only one very specific universe ("only this exact configuration is possible" is a lot of information).

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

An idea that it's limited is always simpler than one that is unlimited, even if the description of it isn't so. The unlimited thing doesn't necessarily not have a limit, just not one to us. It's a missing variable filled by an assumption of infinity, not a non-existing variable.

Lol I laughed at the second guy, his intro went so off track so quickly , like the facts care whether or not we are in pain

The first scientist is not only wrong for the reasons you state. He also makes several false claims of scientific knowledge. We do *not* know that the universe had a beginning. The laws that govern our universe are not only non-physical things.....they are not even ""things"". The laws of physics are human descriptions of what we see around us. Additionally; they did *not* necessarily ""exist"" prior to the universe.

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

*Additionally; they did not necessarily ""exist"" prior to the universe.* I'd go further and say they can't have existed prior to the universe. These laws (mostly) describe how matter interacts. The concept of describing how matter interacts when no matter exists is a meaningless concept. The law of gravity cannot possibly have existed prior to matter existing, for example.

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

*So how did the laws appear?* You ask that as if the laws are some tangible thing to be found out there in the universe. We're talking about descriptive laws here. Humans looked at the behaviour of objects in space and wrote laws that seem to describe the interactions between them. *Why? Because you wrote it on the internet and got X thumb ups?* What a strange comment. No. I've never heard anyone say "And I believe that because I read it on the Internet somewhere" or "It must be true because it has lots of thumbs up". I'm sure you intended it as a cutting comment, but I'm struggling to get past what sort of broken thought process led you to thinking that was in any way a clever or accurate rebuttal. Clearly you don't have a rebuttal. You've completely avoided addressing what I actually said. The reason what I said is true is because it would be a logical impossibility for it not to be. If you disagree then how would you go about creating descriptive laws for things that don't actually exist? And how would what you come up with be discernible from something totally made up?

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

In the context of describing it and the way it interacts with other things in the universe, I'd say "It manifests in a detectable way in the universe" is a good enough answer. Seriously though - do we actually need to define existence for you to understand why describing how a non-existent thing interacts with the universe is a meaningless concept? Seriously?

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

Wow. You start with a bogus "Oh you just think you're right because you got some thumbs up" claim, then when I point out you've done nothing to argue against what I said and set you a task that reveals why you are wrong you just want to play word games. Detectable is a simple word. If you honestly don't know what it means then look it up. If you honestly can't see why it's a meaningless concept to describe the interactions that something that doesn't exist has with the universe then don't feel like you have to reply. Take your time and give it some thought then come back when you have something intelligent to say.

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

I agree.

How could the scientific method be applied to prove or disprove a being who is, by description and definition, beyond the human understanding?

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

That's called igtheism.

In grad school, I had a young earth creationists Physics professor. He sent an email for a lecture he was going to give, and the department head had to send a second email clarifying that it is in no way associated with the department. During his talk he basically said the devil has manipulated by radioactive dating, and one of his colleagues who was an expert in radioactive dating, asked if the devil has manipulated his work.

I believe Collins misinterpreted Occam's Razor: it's not the most simple, but the one with the fewest assumptions that should be considered. The God hypothesis is everything but parsimonious.

@djixi98

5 жыл бұрын

Gunnson You are correct. But either way, one shouldn't use Occam's Razor excessively for it can lead to stagnation in the scientific/ technological advancement since people could always use the simplest of definitions and not develop them further.

@MrCmon113

5 жыл бұрын

It is the most simple and the "god hypothesis" is actually the most complex. You'll find that it can explain everything. It fits every data set, every possible world can be explained with an actor with limitless magical powers, who wanted things to be this way. And this power of the "god hypothesis" is precisely what makes it so utterly useless.

@Elite7555

4 жыл бұрын

It isn't because it requires a theory of god with all those assumptions about him.

@anjeevmaurya

3 жыл бұрын

@@djixi98 🙏

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

Occam doesn't say we should take the simplest explanation, but that given two alternatives that both explain the data, the simpler one is less complex and therefore less likely to be wrong. It's also pragmatically more efficient.

"What you haven't removed is the suffering and the pain." Nooooo... and that's the point. It's there. Deal with it.

@threethrushes

4 жыл бұрын

Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional. I am in pain listening to theistards.

@anandsuralkar2947

4 жыл бұрын

@@threethrushes lol

@doozy5184

3 жыл бұрын

@@threethrushes Theists are suffering listening to people disprove their beliefs.

6:53 I also saw a waterfall once. Just a single one so now I believe in the one almighty god, Zeus

I'd go with option 1 of Dr Collins universal constants options, there is a reason which we don't know yet, that the physical constants have to be as they are, hence no "tuning" is possible or necessary

4:00 (roughly). "Atheism doesn't work because it doesn't solve suffering" WHAT?? ok, then by that logic my perfectly functioning car brakes are responsible for me crashing because they didn't drive the car for me. just because something does not eliminate suffering does not undermine all the good it can achieve while minimizing suffering, but that's more to do with humanism that atheism I suppose. edited to clarify and rephrase

@ColinThePom

5 жыл бұрын

Of course Atheism doesn't "solve suffering", that is an absurd statement. One other thing it doesn't do, however, unlike much of religion is "cause suffering". Suffering is not something that can just be "solved". It is something we strive to assuage with actions which could be scientific discoveries (e.g. medical breakthroughs) and social actions.

@darkira2129

4 жыл бұрын

having perfectly car brake doesn't prevent you from crashing, it's because the one who driving or another reckless driver. So Ofc atheism doesn't solve suffering, human and sometimes nature cause suffering, ultimately just because they might.

@soubhikdutta9642

4 жыл бұрын

People:atheism doesn't solve suffering Medicines be like : 😒😒bruh....

@Phoenix-King-ozai

4 жыл бұрын

Says the "scientist" who believes in a worldview where People deserve to go to a literal hell and be tortured forever because their great great great great grandparents ate an Apple

They basically have the same fallacious reasoning, but stated in sexy language

@theultimatereductionist7592

5 жыл бұрын

There's nothing "sexy" about the verbose language they use.

@HazeAroundtheWorld

5 жыл бұрын

It's _fellatious_

A critic/debunker who actually understands what he's criticising/debunking, I'm very happy to have landed here.

but why would god lie about how everything was created and lie on how long it took, just for humans to disprove it with science?? make it make sense lmao. wouldn’t he just tell us how everything was really made cuz that woulda made me believe, if hundreds of years ago before science was as it is now, the bible said exactly how everything was created accurately

@kingmaoh5566

4 жыл бұрын

@@grimm3972 But why would he want the universe look older I get the we might be wrong thing as we are only human we don't understand everything their is still a lot of things we don't know about the universe. But Why would God make the Universe look older did he did it for the sake to confuse us or just for sh*ts and giggles (The reason I censored the curse word was for me feeling uncomfortable when cursing when typing or saying it outloud)

What's funny is that none of these scientists are philosophers and most philosophers. (I believe more than 85% or so) dont believe in a God.

I’d agree with Darkmatter2525 when he says a finely tuned universe would make god less likely, since it clearly functions without him

@antoniosmall4413

5 жыл бұрын

Lon Parcel wow, that’s poor reasoning.

@Gloomdrake

5 жыл бұрын

It is. Mostly because I’m bad at explaining

@fullup91

5 жыл бұрын

Eat your pasta!!!!

@rlinquishd3257

5 жыл бұрын

I would partially agree with you that the fine tuning argument is a weak one from a theistic perspective, however I don't think it necessarily states that god is irrelevant. I've long argued that in the fine tuning argument, Earth becomes nothing special from a theistic point of view, which is contrary to to the context most theists use the argument. The argument states that the fine tuning of the universe is the explanation that god made everything to interact just the way we know it to work. However, with god as the omnipotent creator, he could have chosen any celestial body to be the chosen body to support life. Meaning, god could have designed life to exist on any celestial body and the fine tuning argument still works, meaning if life existed solely on Neptune, the universe would be finely tuned to support life on Neptune and the theistic argument remains the same. From an evolutionary standpoint however, we understand that life as we currently know it can only exist on Earth because of the finely tuned properties of Earth. We are the proper distance from the sun, have the proper atmosphere to support life as we know it, and generally life is supported by the planet only to exist in the way we currently understand it. Those facts make Earth unique from a scientific perspective, rather than being the irrelevant planet explained from the theistic point of view. If life could have existed on any celestial body had god chosen that body, that points to Earth being entirely irrelevant to creation since it has no structural purpose. However, since life, as far as we know it at least, only exists on Earth, the fine tuning argument points more towards science's explanation of life rather than theistic or creationist explanations. At least that is the way I understand the argument.

@antediluvianatheist5262

5 жыл бұрын

Fine tuning is a requirement of limitations. Any omnipotent being needs no fine tuning. They just make it happen. We should expect to see god holding it all together. We don't. And the only explanation we get is 'Well maybe god wanted it that way!'

Great video. I love your point at the end about being right not making you an inherently better person. I am a lifelong liberal and skeptic, but sometimes it’s so hard to identify with our end of the intellectual spectrum because of how arrogant and tone deaf people in the scientific community can be when dealing with the religious. In the end, poor bedside manner is only going to turn away potential future skeptics.

Man, I would love to have a conversation with someone like you on these topics. Not in a confrontational way, but as an exchange of ideas and personal views on these topics. I consider myself an atheist - because the concept of "God" hasn't shown evidence to me and is ultimately irrelevant for me personally - but I practice and hold to Theravada Buddhist ideals and meditation in a secular personal development way. I'm so glad I found your channel because I've been starved of another person's intellectual views on the subjects in your videos.

"Is there a God?" Is not a philosophical question.

@kylexinye1990

3 жыл бұрын

WSDRevolutionary That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard, no offense.

@Wh40kFinatic

3 жыл бұрын

@@kylexinye1990 Is God in this context a thinking, conscious entity that affects reality? Performs miracles? Interacts with individuals in a discernable way?

@kylexinye1990

3 жыл бұрын

@@Wh40kFinatic Yes thinking conscious entity, at least in some sense, depending on what model of God you hold to (i.e. classical v neo-classical panentheist). And, although I don't know if you can get there by philosophy alone, yes I suspect such a being would interact and possibly preform miracles.

@seretith3513

3 жыл бұрын

"Is there a God?" is Philosophical for now, because there is no valid argument for AND against it. Right now i'd awnser "50/50 chance"

@MrFossil367ab45gfyth

3 жыл бұрын

It is a philosophical question.

I try as much as possible to be generous and not dismissive but....... Lennox's argument sounds like utter non-sense to me. Did I miss something? Atheism isn't supposed to "solve" anything.

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

I wasted an hour and a half once watching a debate Lennox had with an atheist after a theist commented how amazing his arguments were. What a waste of time. Every one of Lennox's arguments was an obvious fallacy. You missed nothing here. His argument was rubbish. The point of the problem of evil is that anyone claiming an all-powerful god capable of stopping evil AND that cares about the well-being of humans must explain why their god doesn't do something to stop it. Saying "Well suffering still exists under the atheist worldview" entirely misses the point.

@sir_charles1246

5 жыл бұрын

Basically he's saying, I don't like it because it doesn't make me feel good...

@Tsudico

5 жыл бұрын

As an atheist, I think by acknowledging suffering exists and realizing that there isn't any higher authority to do something about it I find I try to act more to reduce suffering where I can. I have heard christian reasoning as to why they shouldn't help those that are suffering and it seems to be due to their belief in a higher power. Either they think the higher power will take care of it (obviously not through them though) or they think suffering is a necessary part of the higher power's plan. So I would say believing in a higher power can allow people to shift responsibility or accountability for any suffering that might exist, while atheists do not have that excuse.

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

I think that's a very reasonable assessment Tsudico. I see the same thing. Climate change is one of the scarier topics. Some Christians think it doesn't matter because the rapture will come before we ruin the earth! I like that you made it clear that only some theists think this way, and that you just said that atheists don't have this excuse and didn't try to claim atheists were automatically superior because of this. It's sad, but seeing a fair post like yours in KZread comments is so rare that I felt the need to congratulate you!

@paulj6662

5 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih I agree also! It`s a rare treat.

Hearing a scientist say "there was nothing before the Big Bang" is like hearing a doctor say "there's something wrong with your heart." If a so-called expert starts using vague layman's terms, it immediately calls their expertise into question.

"You can't make something out of nothing, nature doesn't allow that" - Well, is "nothing" really even a valid state of the universe?

@ezekielanderson9055

3 жыл бұрын

So are you saying that the universe always existed? Impossible with the second law of thermodynamics.

@ezekielanderson9055

2 жыл бұрын

@Ryandal Gilmore Can you prove me wrong or not?

@ezekielanderson9055

2 жыл бұрын

@@trollge419 ^^

@ezekielanderson9055

2 жыл бұрын

@@trollge419 If the universe always existed, it would have reached entropy by now. Duh 🤦‍♂️

@ezekielanderson9055

2 жыл бұрын

@@trollge419 If the universe was never "nothing" like Rumble says, then it always has existed. The state it's in doesn't matter. And you believe in the big bang? If the big bang is true, then I would like to know what exploded? And where did it come from? And there did the energy come from? And where did the matter come from? And where did the time come from? And where did the space come from? And where did the information come from? And where did the organization come from? And where did the laws come from?

Jordan Peterson: *Talks- Me: Mother of God it's all toilet sounds!

@stanj85

5 жыл бұрын

Ha! Utterly perfect comment!

@titanicww2345

5 жыл бұрын

Narrative Boi

@covfefe7706

5 жыл бұрын

Mika Schumacher I don't agree him on religious issues. But he is still a decent philosopher/psychologist. Take a look at Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson debates on religion. They don't agree with each other. But they respect each other and have a civilized conversation.

@The1stMrJohn

5 жыл бұрын

Covfefe Peterson's language, or word soup is deliberately misleading he may be in it purely for the money and developing a decent pension fund, manipulating the not so bright into buying his book etcetera

@itsok6640

5 жыл бұрын

"Whatre your thoughts on Jordan Peterson ?" "Depends on what you mean by "Jordan Peterson " ..."

The first argument wasn't just flawed in its logic, even his explanation of that graphic was wrong. He wrongly represented the premise, thus no further discussion of his argument is even needed.

@Kuumin

3 жыл бұрын

basically a strawman

@ezekielanderson9055

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Drew is so dumb in his arguments

@dominikweber4305

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kuumin a strawman argument is something entirely different and it enrages me when people use the term "strawman" against anything they don't like. I too think what he said wasn't a valid argument at all, but it doesn't seem to me that you know what "strawman argument" even means. Just say that it's a stupid argument, you don't need smart-sounding words to prove it, especially if you don't even know their meaning

@scienceium5233

2 жыл бұрын

@@ezekielanderson9055 the fuck ?

@saintburnsy2468

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. We don't actually know if there was a beginning to the universe at all. Our model of reality breaks down at the earliest stage of the universe, when it was very small, very hot, and dense.

I really admire and appreciate your approach the to tackling these concepts. You speak without vitriol and afford people of faith dignity. I think your approach is necessary for ensuring that people feel comfortable listening to your videos, even if the subject matter itself makes them uncomfortable.

And the fourth possibility which I have completely avoided acknowledgement of my entire scientific career is that the appearance of life on earth is entirely random and that the replication of genomes through reproduction (icky gross evolution) suits this theory more than my personal favorite.

I’ve never understood the something from nothing argument. Isn’t it virtually everything, all matter and energy, compressed into a virtually infinite density at the Big Bang?

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

That's my understanding of it. Well, of our best guess at the moment. We can't look back far enough to know so it's all guesswork at this point. But as I understand it the mathematics says there was a singularity (a point smaller than an atom) of plasma/energy (but not matter; it was way to hot for matter to form. It took a few hundred thousand years after the bang before matter could form. Edit: I’m pretty sure I was wrong about this. It took a few hundred thousand years before anything could be seen. Before that the universe was opaque. I can’t remember how long it was before atoms could form but it was a lot shorter period of time). I've never heard an atheist claim that everything came from nothing, yet theists say that's what we think. And the thing that gets me is that everything from nothing is precisely what theists claim happened! God created everything from nothing using His word. This to me suggests that theists do view their God as a cosmic magician. "Something from nothing! That's crazy". But "God created everything from nothing. Of course, He's magic. He can do that".

@elaineandjohn9599

5 жыл бұрын

John Smith Thank you, I wasn’t sure it was a singularity like in a black hole. My point is space time may be compressed into virtually nothing but everything is in there! Everything that became matter, energy and space time, all the constituents of the universe crammed into nothing.

@antediluvianatheist5262

5 жыл бұрын

John Smith They also insist that atheism is the position that no gods exist. Because the real position is too hard to fight.

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

Yep. An impossible position to fight. I reject the claim that God exists because there is absolutely no good evidence to suggest that He does, and plenty of reasons to think He doesn't. The only way to change my belief is with evidence, but they have none hence the need to assert we're making a claim, the need to ignore evidence, the need to make accusations of arrogance or the classic "You just want to sin".

@stangacatalin591

4 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih Hey , buddy^^ , quick question , I am not good at chemistry and physics and it looks like you know a bit about it. I remember that matter can't be created or destroyed , only modified. Doesn't it work the same way with energy and plasma?

I remember making that first argument on an Armorgames forum post about belief when I was in elementary school.

Just got an ad by ‘get answers’ trying to explain how science and religion are complementary lmao.

True skepticism requires the statement of acceptable proof, and the subsequent adherence to the admission of that truth, if the burden of that statement of acceptable truth is met. The problem with skeptics, in general, is that they rarely have a statement of acceptable proof. Regardless, they proceed merrily without this, regardless of anything offered.

@Andrei-sg7lu

10 ай бұрын

Exactly, what proof do they want? The goal posts are always moving.

*NO NO NO.* IF you think science can't answer a question then first give me a reason *WHY* and secondly offer an alternate method to science for discerning what is true or likely to be true. Those that claim science can't answer questions always end up appealing to methods *we know* don't work and are fallible and fallacious. Like: *Appeals to authority* *Appeals to sacred scriptures and texts* *Appeal to intuition* *Appeals to popularity* *Appeals to tradition* *Appeals to revelation, visions, and dreams* *Appeals to mere logical analysis and definition without aby empirical evidence* _ontological arguments etc..._ and various other faulty methods.

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

*IF you think science can't answer a question then first give me a reason WHY and secondly offer an alternate method to science for discerning what is true or likely to be true.* This. Science is a methodology that takes into account evidence, and refuses to accept fallacious thinking that can lead to false answers. It always amazes me how many theists point to science and claim it is inadequate for answering certain questions (before, of course, inserting faith as being necessary). It also amazes me how infrequently they are pulled up on it. To say science is inadequate is to admit the thing you are proposing does not have a single scrap of evidence that can be taken seriously. That doesn't show science is inadequate. This is exactly why the scientific method works; it doesn't accept things with no evidence. If you have no evidence then drop the premise.

@KGrayD

5 жыл бұрын

Well some questions about the human experience cannot be answered by science because they cannot be defined in terms of objective, concrete reality. They are irrelevant to scientists because they do not tell you anything about the material world and what happens inside it. Questions like "is there a god ?" (for some suitable definition of the term), "is there an afterlife ?" or "is everything 'around me' a figment of my imagination ?" are not questions that can be settled through experimentation because answers to these questions do not entail anything about the universe as we perceive it. Yet, they still have some philosophical content.

@KGrayD

5 жыл бұрын

Just because a question cannot be answered in any objective sense does not mean that it should not be asked or has no value. Even admitting that the existence of god or the afterlife does not have any bearing upon our day to day life, there are other questions like moral questions that have a huge bearing on our lives (basic example: should abortions, murder, pedophilia be allowed ?) that can not be answered by analyzing a series of experiments, wouldn't you agree ? The answers to these questions depend on the kind of principles you want to promote, and the choice of those principles cannot be arrived at through pure logic. To clarify, this is not meant to push any kind of religion (I'm actually not religious), but to put forth the idea that there are some fundamental limitations as to what science can tell us about the world. Basically, it can only hope to tell us how it works, so any political or moral questions are out of its realm.

@jtveg

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih That is exactly my point. I too am amazed how infrequently they are pulled up on it.

@jtveg

2 жыл бұрын

@@KGrayD That is absolute nonsense. Questions like "is there a god" and "is there an afterlife" are no different to questions like "is there $5 in my pocket" except that, as you pointed out, the term is not defined clearly and theists have engaged in goalpost shifting. Now they are asking "is there an invisible $5 in my pocket". When a claim is unfalsifiable or untestable by the scientific method then you are admitting the question is virtually unanswerable in any truly objective sense. So any answer becomes mere opinion, conjecture and sophistry. All religious claims can be subjected to the scientific method and without good empirical evidence to support these claims, you aren't rationally justified to accept them as true. Text in a book that points to testimony of people on supernatural events in the distant past *is not good or compelling evidence*

"The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics." Hate to break it to you, but we made math to fit our world... That's a lot like saying, "I'm surprised my shirt fits!" when you made it based on your own measurements.

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

5 жыл бұрын

I think there's more to it than that. There's no apparent reason why mathematics can describe so much so well. Things like gravity, and the four dimensions (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space).

@jackdaniels9179

4 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih we assign numerical values to things to describe them...when we make an observation which we've never encountered we develop a maths system to explain it. The laws of the universe and thermodynamics are prescriptive not descriptive.

@JohnSmith-fz1ih

4 жыл бұрын

Jack Daniels I agree with your description, but not the labels. By definition when we come up with a law that explains something we’ve observed, that’s a descriptive law. That’s what descriptive laws are - they describe things we observe. Something is prescriptive if an authority has prescribed that it must be that way. When a doctor tells the nurse to administer a certain drug, that’s prescriptive. It only happened that way because an authority made sure it happened that way. The laws of physics are all descriptive.

@jackdaniels9179

4 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih thanks I accidentally flipped the labels. But yes this means that the laws of thermodynamics "exist" without an authority putting them in place. We describe the observations that we see and assign values to them.

"A delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully, and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. The experiment was designed to investigate peculiar consequences of the well-known double slit experiment in quantum mechanics as well as the consequences of quantum entanglement. The experiment supports the observer effect in quantum measurements. … "Further studies have shown that even observing the results after the experiment leads to collapsing the wave function and loading a back-history as shown by delayed choice quantum eraser." Basically, what causes the collapse is knowledge. And knowledge requires a knower. "The observer plays a key role in deciding the outcome of the quantum measurments - the answers, and the nature of reality, depend, in part on the questions asked." John Archibald Wheeler said: "It begins to look as if we ourselves, by a last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing...we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in shaping what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until it has been registered. Or put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present." A conscious choice affects the behavior of previously measured, but unobserved particles. Physicist Asher Peres, who elaborated the experimental results with his delayed choice for entanglement swapping, says: "If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded." Our choice affects how the particle acted in the past. The factor of time has nothing to do with quantum mechanincs. This was predicted by quantum mechanics and the exact same result is what we see when we put it to experimental test. … … … … Denial in the Physicist Community Many physicists try to deny these findings or give alternate readings of the results. Physicist Henry Stapp rightly points out physicists deny this philosophical conclusion because of "metaphysical prejudice" "...one must ask whether it is really beneficial for scientists to renounce for all time the aim of trying to understand the world in which we live, in order to maintain a metaphysical prejudice that arose from a theory..." (classical Newtonian mechanics and materialism) "---that is known to be fundamentally incorrect?" The fundamental role of the observer is even harder to deny with the experimental confirmation of the Kochen-Specker theorem in 2011. The Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem states that "the non-contextual theories (NCT) are incompatible with quantum mechanics. Non-contextuality means that the value for an observable predicted by such a theory does not depend on the experimental context..." So when we are performing experiments, we are not just passively observing how nature progresses, but are actively affecting what the outcome will be by how we observe things. "The values you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the context. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement." "Quantum theory denies the existence of a physically real world independent of its observation." The measurement problem is only a problem if one cannot accept that the observer plays a fundamental role in shaping physical reality. We are not passively observing the world, but actively involved. [1] Paul Davies and John Gribbin, The Matter Myth. [2] Davies and Brown, The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics [3] Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000). [4] Henry Stapp, Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Nature [5] A feasible "Kochen-Specker" experiment with single particles [6] : Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it. 6/22/2011. [7] Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, Quantum Enigma … … … … Any kind of measurement involves things that are part of the universe and these always interact, interfere with it or whatever, I don't think we have a super clear demonstration of how the consciousness determines the clump pattern instead of the interference pattern. But these experiments may potentially help us better understand consciousness or if we understood consciousness by other means we could better understand this experiment and ultimately more about quantum world. … "The observer gives the world the power to come into being, through the very act of giving meaning to that world; in brief, No consciousness; no communicating community to establish meaning? Then no world!" - Physicist John Wheeler

What does the cross and the resurrection have to do with mathematics?

The question of the origin dosent matter. No matter what they come up with, it still doesnt point to their god/ book being real. Its only the theists who believe the universe come from nothing ( magic ).

@djixi98

5 жыл бұрын

Thomas Ridley agreed, in doing so they make the Slippery Slope Fallacy. And also Equivocation Fallacy for using different definition of "nothing" to the one science does. Edit: typo.

@thomasridley8675

5 жыл бұрын

@@djixi98 agreed

@Tasorius

5 жыл бұрын

Too many people claim that the big bang was the beginning of time and space for that theory to be true. Not only theists believe that something came into existence out of nowhere.

Why do people listen to John Lennox? I've never heard anything but complete bollocks from him.

@JoeWhite3572

4 жыл бұрын

@buzz magister Annie Lennox SMH

@JoeWhite3572

4 жыл бұрын

@buzz magister 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

@JoeWhite3572

4 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/anWAxq5xn7nFo7w.html

@JoeWhite3572

4 жыл бұрын

Seemed the apprpriate song 🤣

1:49 This argument was way better than the classic watchmaker, and I like that he didn't assert a conclusion, but merely suggested it. It doesn't make his opinion right, the argument was inconclusive and there's a lot of other ways to disproof his religous texts, but we can recognize he is smart and I could understand a little why he's religious.

Hi, good videos! You're quite educated and respectful. Quick question (a little bit off topic though), if we should only believe on those theories that are testable within the scientific method, what is your position on evolutionary psichology? I think it's rational and reasonable (I believe on it) but I don't see how it's testable.

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

It's perfectly testable, but by translation and in a limited way because the passage of time has obscured most of the evidence.

An important thing to consider is that while these people are trotted out as "scientists" as to give them a boost of credibility, it really doesn't matter if one is a "scientist" when they're speaking outside their field. A biologist for instance, no matter how brilliant of a biologist he is, should be considered just as much of a random shmoe when he's talking about geology as the next guy, unless said next guy happens to be an actual geologist. "Real god study" (importantly distinct from "theology")? Not the career field of any of them.

@djixi98

5 жыл бұрын

Abdul Masaiev While yes it is the Appeal to the False Authority Fallacy to claim that just because someone is a scientist he's more suited to answer biblical dilemmas, i don't think that's why they use their "titles". It's more of a "see, even they believe, why don't you?" or to indirectly discredit scientific discovery.

@abdulmasaiev9024

5 жыл бұрын

Oh no they use their titles because they're legit scientists. It's just irrelevant to them being an authority. But anyway, that happens too, but not in situations like this. Consider that they're here to make "arguments", rather than just straight up declaring their faith. Why are we supposed to care about their arguments? Because they're scientists. As if that matters.

Thanks for this video. I have no answer except maybe they fear death? That was the answer in "Moon Struck."

@jtownants3215

5 жыл бұрын

It's mainly that, but I also heard somewhere on another athiest video that it's also the rewards the faithful receive for being faithful. This guy raised the thought about what if heaven was never in the bible, and God just plainly said obey me, because I said so. Would even Christian's still follow their book?

Dude I love watching/listening to you so much I'll start sceptically praying to you! :P

Collins argument is for a god, but what I like to point out to friends who use this argument is to ask how they justify their god

Without god and without meaning in life I'm freer than ever. Since there is no expectation I need to fulfill and thus there is no pressure. Live life the way you want to live it. And just ignore others.

@sultansaywell4038

3 жыл бұрын

But what if I want to believe in God? It makes me uncomfortable not believing and I am getting depressed without so called “expectations”. Does it mean I can be an egoist whenever I want. This feels bad to be an egoist.

@pumpkingamebox

3 жыл бұрын

@@sultansaywell4038 If you want to believe in God, who am I to stop you. It's just that I personally don't need him. I'm strong enough to make my own path. But on the subject of egoism. Forget altruism, it doesn't exist. We're all unbelievably selfish and there is no way around that. You partake in charity only because you want to, which men's charity is selfish. But that doesn't mean that it's bad or it doesn't help people. Its good to be selfish, not an asshole, people dislike those, but selfish nonetheless. Like being jealous that your significant other is having fun with someone else is a sign of selfishness that is healthy for a relationship. Sure, going over there and being an asshole about whether she can't talk to that person anymore isn't healthy. But is he/she notices that your jealous, it only tells her that you care. Or at least that's what I believe. I'm no expert, I just know things that worked for me.

@cristianomike6992

3 жыл бұрын

@@pumpkingamebox what religion you were born into ? Islam ?

@pumpkingamebox

3 жыл бұрын

@@cristianomike6992 Orthodox Christianity. Only slightly better than Islam

@pumpkingamebox

3 жыл бұрын

@ No what I display is moral nihilism. I'm not frivolously negating morals, so you can't use the word "vacuity" to describe my depravity. But I have come to a realization in the past year that my nihilism is closely tied with my infantilism, which I found out I have. And that my infatuation with nihilism comes from a desire to run away from responsibilities. So I'm rethinking my position in life atm. But I'm still pretty sure about my moral nihilism. And I'm also pretty sure life has no meaning no matter how much you look for it and how much denial you're in about having it. You can say that people choose their meanings in life. I disagree with that. People choose goals and reasons to stay alive. Which can be easily construed as your life's purpose, but they will never actually be it. Because you can always change it with another choice. And you can always change it because meaning/purpose in life doesn't actually exist.

It's one thing to ponder the reasons why there should be a universe at all and choosing to believe that there must be some sort of creator, but it''s a whole other thing, after concluding this, to say "therefore the god of the bible is real".

Great video Drew and your narration is excellent. I am in full agreement with your views Drew and from experience I've come to realize most people will simply believe what they want to believe. What these individuals presented are not fully accurate. "Science came along and taught us that we are not the measure of all things, ....that the Universe is not obliged to conform to what we consider comfortable or plausible." "If we crave cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal." Carl Sagan