"I don't know." Such an honest answer. Something that you will never hear from a religious person or a priest.

If any time soon a movie about Susskind is going to be made, John Malkovich should play him.

@SevenFootPelican

3 жыл бұрын

Oh yes.

@Meomega

3 жыл бұрын

This

@fattyarbuckle5001

2 жыл бұрын

Great casting.

@Muhsin.b

2 жыл бұрын

Jonathan Banks can an option as well.

@Sharperthanu1

Жыл бұрын

Nobody (at least nobody who wants to make any money) is going to make a movie about Susskind because most people out there are so uneducated in science that they've never heard of him.

Robert you are so adept at providing the required counterpoint in all of your interviews, taking us on a deep dive with the expert every time. Love your channel.

Well said, thanks for a nice video. Always big fan of Professor Susskind.

@Maxander2001

8 жыл бұрын

+Lolol Loler My feelings exactly! :)

@matthewclark1006

4 жыл бұрын

He’s so honest in his approach

@kimjongun5172

3 жыл бұрын

Mr suss

@statefarmjack6511

2 жыл бұрын

@@kimjongun5172 damogus 🐐

@evanjameson5437

2 жыл бұрын

Susskind may be the most rationale person ever.. I truly enjoy his desriptions and questions--he is the greatest mind currently alive. We are lucky to have him in this time and place in the world.

Leonard hit the nail in the head with that response, but I would add the additional argument - we simply may not be intelligent enough as a species to examine evidence for the existence of a higher being. Through research, we have identified multiple dimensions of reality that cannot be accessed by humans yet, and that by itself should be an indicator of how far we have to go until such an answer can be even remotely fulfilled. Religious ideals that proliferated in the past and present possibly serve as a coping mechanism to satisfy that part of the brain that wants to understand the answer now. At the heart of science, as implied by Dr. Susskind, is the art of questioning everything there is, and the time frame for this endeavor will continue onward forever.

@MohaMMaDiN55

5 жыл бұрын

This is the most perfect argument that I have read about the thing that I really want people either scientists or normal people to understand and put in mind.

could listen to Susskind all day with his refreshing laid back approach...

I find it interesting that he asks “what made God?” but not “what made the matter that formed the universe?” If one question is valid, the other must be.

@evanjameson5437

2 жыл бұрын

he doesn't deny that--he simply said there are questions that cannot be answered..

@johnjeffreys6440

5 ай бұрын

I think some scientists are just jealous that they didn't cause the Big Bang.

At last someone I can follow, speaking clearly, not lost in mental convolution.

What a great interview.

Very happy to find Mr Susskind. Such a good talker and rational individual.

My respects Mr. Susskind!

Great physicist. I'm a huge fan of susskind

A very interesting fellow is Leonard Susskind.

Anton Zeilinger made a good point: Conflict between the two comes from one trying to explain something it isn't really intended for. Religion was essentially a precurser of ethics and in a broader sense non analytic, intuitive philosophy. Science on the other hand was developed to broaden our understanding of totally different questions, that in turn had it's own different set of precursors in technology, measurement. So while physics can tell us absolutely nothing about ethics, religion can tell us absolutely nothing about gravity. A real dialoge about ethics can be argued between modern philosophers and religion, while a real dialoge about the relation and _implementation_ between/of our ethics and our technology can be discussed between natural scientists, engineers and politicians.

Whatever you say, it becomes a category itself and that's the limitation of the human mind that i can't go beyond a certain limit of rationality and irrationality both.

I'm enthralled by the beautiful answers of our beloved professor. But I want to ask whether there is any possibility for new scientific methods to come up in the future which will do away with the limitations of contemporary science and answer the unanswered questions. I am curious to know whether those 'limitations being done away with' will reduce the gap between contemporary science and the so called religion.

I love this guy

@AP-bo1if

5 жыл бұрын

yes he is a perfect example of why a physicist should not meddle in subject matter he doesn't understand. but I understand why they chose him.

@tantiwahopak101

5 жыл бұрын

@@AP-bo1if are you religious?

@AP-bo1if

5 жыл бұрын

@@tantiwahopak101 don't worry about it

@tantiwahopak101

5 жыл бұрын

@@AP-bo1if yes you are 😂

Great talk!

Very good to see my professor

4:25 I appreciate Dr. Susskind's response to this question. We are attempting to figure out the why and how of our existence, all possibilities should be considered until definitely disproven.

@jsar5409

Жыл бұрын

For something to be considered, there needs to be at least some sort of proof to make them worth considering.

A very curious paradox in the arguments regarding religion and science is that: God exists but science is capable of explaining all natural phenomena. It's curious because when you start talking about religion then most of the Abrahamic religions tell you that God is beyond anything, God has no beginning and has no end. The second part of the statement also is true if Leonard Susskind is right. The nature of God is unexplained and that several universes may exist in which the known laws of physics can't actually apply. If God exists then it is well beyond the parameters of science.

I love his capacity to so clearly state what seems obvious. I also agree that looking for answers is a whole lot more fun than fighting about theism. (I paraphrased) Refreshing.

@InPursuitOfCuriosity

Жыл бұрын

Answers are dependent on there first being questions - there would be no answers unless questions were first raised to steer one in the direction of the answer.

I dunno that it's accurate for him to say he's certain one can't pray cancer away. Certainly, praying to a God for your cancer to be cured won't cause God to cure it, but do we not have lots of evidence that optimism and belief in recovery has a significant impact on recovery? Do we not have proof that the placebo effect exists and actually contributes to different recoveries? This is why it's tough for me to abandon the idea of God and prayer, in spite of the fact that I dont believe in God. I feel like there's something there that is psychologically important and useful to humans, and we shouldn't be so quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater just because the idea isn't useful in science, or because different religions have been abused for power gain etc.

Admirable humility expressed by Dr. Susskind. His open mind and desire to seek the truth are inspirational.

The thing to remember is that once string theory becomes understood to a very high degree and allows for deeper understanding or even say for new technology etc, it will also be a theory on the way out; that things will be discovered that it does not address or which show it to be inconsistent or whatever; and that now from the end of time man will very likely keep finding newer and better models none of which will ever be the final word on truth or understanding; and that this of course is just the way of knowkedge for us and every other sentient species that is, has been or will ever be. It's an interesting (epistemological) question, I think, to ask why this is the way it is.

Thought-provoking interview. I'm not sure Susskind would be in a forth category, because his views seem consistent with an agnostic view - these questions are so beyond my capacity to understand that I cannot know the answer to these questions.

Love this guy and channel

@ccarson

3 жыл бұрын

Which of the two guys?

Professor Susskind is most excellent.

I am an agnostic theist, embracing both faith and doubt, and love the humility of this discussion. Who really knows if their is a Transcendant being? Or is it even a being? I love Paul Tillich and his concept of God as the ground of being.

@hypersonic6649

5 ай бұрын

i'm sorry but these labels like "agnostic theist" are getting confusing and all over the place, just like the lgbtq nonsense

Mr Susskind is rock star 🤟

I am absolutely comfortable with the idea that the Universe might have been created, though we don't have any compelling evidence for it. What bothers me is the idea that the creator of the the universe is the one who made bellicose religions, the one who takes sides in wars, the one who created a place for eternal torture, the one who allows millions of children to die from preventable causes every year in the world, etc.

This is a perfect invention... I mean YT. Just here you can freely contradict with yourself without being criticized by a genius like Leonard Suskind. Just because he doesn't know everything what your hearts desire you are entitled to comment on his wisdom, knowledge and experience in any way... whatever comes to your mind seems to be relevant and creative. Thanks guys... one of the most funny comment section I've ever read. Sure we can't know everything... all these guys of mathematical and physical background say the same. It doesn't mean that the folks down here are equally brainy as Mr Susskind is on the subject matter, me including of course. No way...I do not know a fraction of the theory having been discussed. Human beings are doomed... their living days are limited. That's the only reason some of us want to know everything, cherishing the thought that one day we may become immortal. Wishful and heart-warming idea. "You only live twice; once for yourself and once for your dreams". Cheers to you Mr Susskind !

The guy's actually smart. You find a lot of top notch physicists who are good at math but Mr. Susskind is not only good at math but smart too!

@khoanguyen5321

5 жыл бұрын

the best explanation in his lectures too

@edwardjones2202

3 жыл бұрын

Huh. Isn't he smart because he's good at math?

First off, I this man is amazing. He is great at explaining concepts to a layman like myself. As to the point that belief in a God leads to more and more questions, it seems we’re dancing around some more important immediate questions. Namely, why did it bring us into existence? What happens when we die? As to the question what came before God, there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, so there has to be something that existed eternally in the beginning. Otherwise we just go back endlessly which isn’t logical. As to the nature of this Designer, logic dictates it would have given clues to its Presence and its Nature. He revealed an infallible book that describes his Nature and sent Messengers. Logic also dictates we will be able to see clues that point to this Designers existence in the physical world. We often talk about how the universe is fine tuned for life in a general sense. But what about things like the fact the we all have unique fingerprints and every snowflake is unique? What about the fact that we can even come to these conclusions? The universe could be fine tuned for life without these things being the case?

תודה לך אדוני.....

Never thought I’d see Ian Malcolm and Leonard Susskind in the same room

Sometimes feel dumb when I hear guys like Sean Carroll and Leonard Susskind speak so eloquently about the universe, but I ALWAYS feel smart again after reading some of the god awful arguments in the youtube comments from people who think they know better.

@rovidius2006

4 жыл бұрын

God idea can put many scientist out of business there fore it is not a subject of a scientific analysis ,much more can be had without God .The scientist that presents the holy grail is a rich man .

Pretty simplistic for such an advanced thinker...

Pump up the volume!

Accidental with such perfection doesn't sound logical.

I like the way this man thinks.

Yes. Next question.

Very good account of himself

"I don't need that hypothesis" Very Laplacian response.

Leo, the ultimate questions are the patterns form a set of logical map

when i listen to such conversations i feel extremely happy i don't know why but it is a feeling a very strong feeling i have that we might live in a simulated universe and we might discover some day computer code in universal physics but we could never get out of this probably biocentric universal reality,probably that happens when each biological entity dies .People must start to believe in self-awareness and the power and importance of their consciousness because reality is an individual experience there is not such thing as collective consciousness but there is social interaction.

This is what humility looks like. Awesome stuff

That goes back to a fundamental misunderstanding of prayer. Is it something that if you put in more effort, you receive more? No! Are you begging God, controlling God, manipulating God? No! Thusly, he is correct. Pray all day, all night, forever, & it will not alter the electron flow. In that type of prayer (there are others), all your doing is presenting a request. If you are in faith, genuine, & steadfast, you should expect a return. It maybe a solid 'No', but a return. You have to remember you are talking to a thinking being, not an unthinking law. There is a difference. Not that you should believe in God for the material prizes he offers. That would be abusive, even to people who Love you & you know that. What makes you then think God should do that for you? Christ did not die to give you a big house, fine cars, & super powers. He died because we need forgiveness. He returns us to union with God. I encourage you to seek that, because the Greatest being of Maximal Good wants to know you. Read the Bible & see if you can understand that. I think he could know God, if he wanted to. Should you not want to? I hope you all use your gifts to Love & help each other. I hope you never believe for a second religion & science have to oppose each other. May you all have all you need, & a good bit of what you want. God Bless

If you don't know about something that is far beyond actual human knowledge or comprehension, just say : "i don't know" instead of taking an absolute position who is backed up by nothing logical.

@DIYDaveT

6 жыл бұрын

Liberals have an opinion about everything including stuff they never thought about before.

@amadexi

5 жыл бұрын

the modern muslim/christians are the most liberal snowflakes possible, they believe they're so special in the heart of their caring personal deity. That all their cults are so righteous and beyond the mere heathens, and the "you can't criticize my magical claims" are almost as annoying as the "you can't criticize my nth special gender".

@SeanONilbud

5 жыл бұрын

Everyone is in fact an atheist but some like to pretend they have a magic invisible friend.

@davida1b2c3d4c5

5 жыл бұрын

But a bird may know how to navigate over great distances using quantum mechanics. It doesn't need to understand how it does it, it just works. There may be something in the human brain that just knows that there is a god, so it may indeed be a genetic survival trait. No one will ever know how existence came to be because that involves a conundrum of time and what it actually is or means.

@anthonynorman7545

5 жыл бұрын

@@davida1b2c3d4c5 we've mapped the brain regions related to religious experiences and know how to duplicate or induce them.

How about the question...: how a mV electrical current in the neurons, translate in abstract thinking?🤔😉

@name1483

2 жыл бұрын

The answer is simple. they are identical

@justaguywithaturban6773

2 жыл бұрын

@@name1483 Unconscious neurons creating consciousness ?

I like very much the honesty of prof Susskind. His curious questions about the nature of God (if he exists) are actualy based on hiden assenptions, which are: God should be like the creation, God has a begining, God is materialictic. He implicitly rejects the idea of God as a transcendent bein!

@u.v.s.5583

5 жыл бұрын

Transcendent - with respect to what transcendent? That being might transcend our universe, the concepts of time, mass, good, bad and so on, but he still should be embedded in some other reality. There are major problems with the concept 'god transcends everything'.

KEVINFROMHEAVEN; I WONDER WHAT LEONARD SUSSKIND WOULD SAY IF HE HAD A NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE. IN MY OPINION, THAT WOULD BE A TRULY FASCINATING CONVERSATION.

Susskind is right, I'm going to use his philosophy on this subject. I can't tell you how much appreciate these talks with Robert Kuhn, I've seen a lot of em.

excellent

Throughout the history of theoretical physics there have been great minds on both sides of the materialists vs non materialists debate. Brain Green, Einstein, and Hawking on the materialists side vs Max Plank, David Bohm, and Heisenberg on the non materialists side.

@tnvol5331

2 жыл бұрын

@@lepidoptera9337 And of course the non materialists say the same of the materialists (lost their minds). Whose right I don't know and I suspect you dont either.

@tnvol5331

2 жыл бұрын

@@lepidoptera9337 How silly can you be.

@tnvol5331

2 жыл бұрын

@@lepidoptera9337 I was not arguing with you or anyone. I took neither side. I simply pointed out that there are great theoretical physicists on both sided of the issue. Even the legendary Brian Green (string theory) and noted materialist says the exact same thing I said.

Sort of a let down for Susskind to be in the 4th category of "undecided because its unknowable and I become uninterested" Would love for him to have been more interested and have given us some answers.

All fine if you believe that everything is ultimately meaningless and without purpose, otherwise not so good. If you have no interest in meaning and purpose then you’re on to a winner. And then there’s consciousness.

Well, he is honest - he is really captive to his curiosity. I am a Christian. Can I pray myself out of cancer - probably not but I would try - if it didn't work I would still be comforted in my faith - which is foolishness to scientismists - but thats ok.

What if when you pray you are giving your subconscious directions (or suggestions) that send helpful chemicals or cells to the needed spots in the body. Dr Susskind's last comments was "I don't think prayers will cure cancer" . I just suggest a way that prayer may help with Cancerous cells. The subconscious (or what some call unconscious mind) can in fact do amazing things in the human body when suggested or directed to.

Without going so far as to discuss the true meaning of a theologically understood "presence" of religion in scientifically empirical and objective terms (which I have no idea), I don't know why people keep missing this point: its very significant psychological element. Perhaps some would say his description of if being a kind of an obsession with irrationality is just that and only that. There are plenty of well respected sources reading into the merits of religion that can be considered being reasonable. For instance: praying for a cure for cancer doesn't have to be considered a denial of a best workable solution at present, because it could be instead a fixation on solutions that perhaps aren't obviously explained, but in the end are explained in more simple, reasonable, and altogether better terms.. That is to say, a willingness for "faith" (I.e. a denial of bias) actually freed curiosity to perform better than it could before. Opening the mind, connecting solutions never before considered. A useful study of the merits to better thinking by way of religious belief could be based on seeing how a person psychologically can produce different answers from those that only live within the echo chamber of the rules by which they are familiar. It really wouldn't be a difficult thing to demonstrate.

"Can I pray my way out of cancer"... I don't doubt that these guys are far more intellectual than I am, however, I don't think you can make a judgement without first defining prayer and defining God. God is defined in various ways, in different religions. The definition that I have come to relate to the word 'God', fundamentally, is that of 'Creator outside of creation'. That which falls outside of the spectrum of the laws of nature, due to the fact of being the legislator of those very laws. Being the one who has created the 'system', "He" has designed, and predetermined every event resulting from those conditions. Thus, when somebody prays, and feels that their prayers are 'answered', to my interpretation, that is the system expressing itself on the basis of the predetermined condition, having decided how a sequence of events will unfold. In other words, coincidences don't exist, and everything happens for a reason. These reasons, with due consideration to the scale of our universe, are by that nature beyond human comprehension, but still within an intelligent beings comprehension. So when a prayer is 'unanswered', it isn't because there is no wisdom in the act of praying, but the true wisdom lies in trusting the will of the one who has created, to answer that which is for the betterment of universal existence.

@boose8262

4 жыл бұрын

Ali Khalid you need to write a book about this. Before reading your comment, I was totally in the same boat as Susskind. The creator outside of creation is an incredible way of putting it. You’re onto something here... well done

@ngdnhtien

4 жыл бұрын

I’m still confused. If the system is predetermined, thus the prayers that are answered in fact just happen to be matched with what the system has decided already, wouldn’t it is a coincidence?

@alikhalid349

4 жыл бұрын

@@boose8262 I wish what you say were true, but the truth is everything I've stated has already been written..in the Qur'an. The predetermined state of existence, with the caveat of free will within the human being. The creator described as separate, and completely unlike from 'his' creation. It is unfortunate that, when such concepts are stated as part of Islam, they are simply shrugged off by those looking in from the outside. I wasn't always religious, in fact, I went through a period of dismissing all religions with the same shrug. If you look at quantum mechanics, in particular, the double slit experiment, and the quantum eraser experiment, the predetermined state of matter is reinforced. For example, the fact that photons from 13 billion light years away can be observed by us, meaning that 13 billion years ago the photons 'knew' they would be measured. Then there is the special theory of relativity, which states that due to time dilation, at the speed of light (highest speed of the universe), you no longer experience time, so if I travelled 13 billion light years at the speed of light, you would be dead 13 billion years ago, but no time would have passed for me. And then the Qur'an says Angel's are made of light. So where are Angel's? In the so called 4th dimension which is outside of the entropy of time? The Qur'an differentiates between the seen and the unseen (that which can never be known by mankind). I thought about why it is, that the Qur'an is in arabic, and yet claims to be for all of mankind. I then imagined how information is sent from one computer to another, especially through fibre optic. The data is converted into different forms of energy and then reverted into a readable message, in whichever language the receiver expresses it. So I thought, does that mean that the vibrational form in which the Qur'an often begins each chapter, is the vibration of the creators message, being sent through the Angel Gabriel (light) to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is an Arab, and when he received it, he expressed it as a package that was being unzipped? And why arabic? Then I came across videos of an American convert to Islam called Hamza Yusuf, who had studied and become fluent in classical and colloquial arabic. He explained these things better than any Arab could ever have. According to Hamza Yusuf, it is the language of revelation because of the many deeper meanings of arabic words, but that's too much to mention. I don't know if any of what I say makes sense to you, but the message I want to share, is to recommend anyone with an open mind and a sincere longing for truth, to read the Qur'an.

@alikhalid349

4 жыл бұрын

@@ngdnhtien I recommend you look at quantum eraser experiment, and what I say then may make sense to you. How does a photon from 13 billion years ago know that it will be measured, and therefore undertakes a 13 billion year journey? That is the question which would have to be answered.

@ranam.faizan2169

4 жыл бұрын

Salam brother...can I make contact with u??

I love this guy. He says it perfectly: The God hypothesis raises more questions than it answers.

@Fac3d

4 жыл бұрын

Peter Jackson only because he has no idea of what god is. I mean logically and philosophically...looking for answers for a material world on a material god is simply a very basic mistake...unfortunately he lacks philosophy lessons 101...

@Fac3d

4 жыл бұрын

Stephen Turner I don’t chose what I believe based on others people apparent IQ. You shouldn’t as well: smart doesn’t mean always right. Sometimes being so smart makes you arrogant which can blind you for some obvious truths...

@injesusname3732

4 жыл бұрын

Most debate revolving God's existence is laced in bias, and intellectual socialism. To discuss the topic, I don't bother with anyone who isn't humble enough to think beyond their insecurities and bias.

@Difcar

4 жыл бұрын

@@injesusname3732 If you ever met yourself you'd run away as fast as you could.

@Difcar

4 жыл бұрын

@@Fac3d God as a concept beyond the physical world is useless to us. We can only measure the physical, we have no reason or way to even get to a metaphysical god so why would we even discuss him let alone believe he exists. There are a million different gods in the world and you are an atheist to almost all of them, why would you fault us (or him) for being an atheist to your god as well? We simply have no reason to believe anyone with a theistic claim, whether they claim their deity is zeus buddha or the specific god of your christian denomination. You don't accept the arguments for all those other gods (which are often identical to the arguments for your god) so why would we?

"Always reserve belief in the absence of evidence".

Yes sir

THE MAN

Prof.Susskind has the calm of Mike from Breaking Bad

He said you can stand in front of an accelerator and pray for a specific change but never see it. Months ago I remember reading of a study from parapsychology about how thoughts can change the outcomes of certain situations. Also there's quantum physics where things appear to change by wether or not you are looking at them.

@kaigreen5641

3 жыл бұрын

"Also there's quantum physics where things appear to change by wether or not you are looking at them." No, that's not how it works, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. The act of measurement changes the outcome because to measure something requires you to interact with it in some way. When doing the double split experiment, you can look at it with your eyeballs all you like, the interference pattern will still appear unless you try to measure which slit the particle went through. To measure what slit it went through, you need to hit it with another particle and that is what changes the outcome. The problem with talking about quantum mechanics, as is often the case with high-level physics, words are not being used to mean the same thing as in everyday life. In quantum mechanics, an "observer" is anything that interacts with something else. To be fair, when physicists talk about quantum mechanics they have to rely on the use of analogies and analogies always fail to completely convey the reality of the actual phenomena.

@KM-leons

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaigreen5641 " To measure what slit it went through you need to hit with another particle and that is what changes outcome". The Quantum Entanglement is not simple as you think it is. I am sure you don't have much idea about it.

I often find myself wanting to believe, but I always run into a series of questions that to me must be satisfied in order to concretely believe in God, particularly of the sort as posited by Christianity. But I can never properly answer those questions. So I'm left just staring into the vastness of space and feeling that I am just drifting within the unknown. God or no God, I can't find myself making much sense of the universe. But I do feel that Christian Deism adds a lot of complication in the form of extra questions that I personally find are not or cannot be answered properly or at all by apologists, when I try to research. I also get highly put off by the agendas of some Christian apologists, be them political or otherwise. Sometimes I find them to be arrogant, dogmatic, unnuanced even at times incurious as to other perspectives and possibilities. I have to say I do not like what modern, mainstream Christianity has largely become by and large. But the early Christians interest me, because I feel that the religion had been "corrupted" over time. However, when I look at science from a purely materialist, atheistic perspective, I find that the world and universe makes a certain degree of sense (Occam's Razor and all that). I wish I could make sense of the universe in a way that I could feel relatively confident of. I should probably get in line, then. Sometimes I feel like I'm getting somewhere, but then I find a reasonably compelling counterpoint to what I've come to understand. Maybe that's just my problem. I used to be an atheist that felt quite comfortable with my doubt, to the point where I simply became bored with the whole "religion vs science" thing. I never wanted to disbelieve in God. Now for various reasons I find myself examining and researching religion and diesm again. I have to be careful not to let my biases cloud my thinking. All that being said - even though I am put off by dogmatic, rigidly-minded people, I envy their sense of certainty.

@MichaelJohnson-cw9qy

2 жыл бұрын

Ask God to show you be revealed to you, keep asking an you will receive 🙏 brother.

@brandonloschiavo8651

2 жыл бұрын

Check out William Lane Craig and CS Lewis to get you going in a different direction. 😊

@hypersonic6649

5 ай бұрын

People are making this way more difficult than it needs to be. Just wait until you die and you will find out. It's that simple. What I say to myself is that it doesn't hurt to believe or follow a religion. And when I die, I will find out if it was actually the truth.

A fantastic mind

@evanjameson5437

2 жыл бұрын

amen!!

Susskind strikes me as ignostic. With the question of "Does god exist?", the basic answers are: 1. Atheist - "No." 2. Theist - "Yes." 3. Agnostic - "The evidence isn't conclusive either way." 4. Ignostic - "Define 'god'." Ignosticism is the belief that you should only judge *specific* questions and statements about concepts like 'god'. After all, if you ask 100 people "what is the nature of god", then you will likely get dozens of answers. For instance, an ignostic could be asked "Does a benevolent, omnipotent being exist?" and have a resolute answer to that. Maybe they have thought about the problem of evil (and Epicurus' related riddle) and decided that, if a god exists, it is certainly not benevolent (or omni-benevolent, but that itself is an ambiguous term that requires clarification). Perhaps some of the pitfalls of logic - "Can god build a boulder that it can't move?" - will lead the ignostic to think that a god cannot be omnipotent. You can take this exercise as far as you want, getting as specific as you want. The point is that specific answers can only be obtained from specific, well-defined questions. Asking whether "god exists" is therefore pointless, as far as the ignostic is concerned.

@socksumi

5 жыл бұрын

A-theism essentially means: not a theist. Someone asks you , do you believe in god? If your answer is anything but yes then you are an atheist by definition. What you described is anti-theism or hard atheism.

@yoooyoyooo

4 жыл бұрын

He is an atheist ... that is what every atheist would say .. I don't take any gods in to account in anything I do same as I don't take rainbow unicorns

The curiosity is the testimoy about my humaness,and ignorance.Its a glory of God to conceal a thing .Pr.25.2

MR SUSKIND desire to find the meaning of the world is by itself a spritual journey.

@MikkelHojbak

5 жыл бұрын

Regardless of which path(s) you choose, it is all there to satisfy our curiosity. I believe that religion arose because there were *so many* questions that nobody could answer, that something supernatural had to be at the helm. Back in the times where you actually had to fight to survive, the incentive to steal, cheat, or whatever was much higher, the chances of getting caught were much lower, and as a result it was much more common. That results in a lot of infighting, and that keeps those societies back. Take another population and give them the belief that someone is watching and judging their actions and that the punishment is eternal and horrible, and the people will work better together. Fast forward a few hundred years, and large communities are working together instead of local infighting in smaller groups without religion. The religious beat the non-religious because they worked together around a common cause, and enforced their world view upon the others. From a purely scientific / evolutionary standpoint, religion being the winner makes sense - but really we don't *need* it any more. We can lock our valuables away, and we have the excess capacity to dedicate people and resources to solving the problems that we have instead of focusing on staying alive. If only people would be nice to each other from the start, so much anger could be avoided, and the money saved on not fighting and working together would bring us all much further - the money saved on not having to fix things and preparing for round two could are generally more than the cost of making sure that people don't fall low enough to justify their acts to make themselves better off.

@keramatebrahimi943

5 жыл бұрын

@@MikkelHojbak I am not talking about religion or better the religious stablishment.A spritual thinker might be curious ,but a curious person is not necessarily spritual.Man is a spritual being.From the moment he sat by the fireplace during the night in the plains of africa and looked at the sky till now he has always tried to seek the answer to the reason for his being here.thats what makes us different from other animals.his curiosity led to so many discoveries for betterment of his life buy his sprituality is yet to answer the reason for existance of himself and world.i do not know why every time i say someting about sprituality you scientist jump to explain it by putting down religion which is a manmade phenomenon

@bobs182

4 жыл бұрын

The problem with using the word spiritual is that for most people it involves external minds without brains in which they are interacting. Einstein's god created the same misunderstanding in people because Einstein's god is not separate from the world.

Praying is to ask for the betterment of others or to give thanks. Praying is not a magic wand or a spell. If he studied Christianity his life would be richer and his questions answered in time. They do not believe unless they see a mirical. Blessed are those who believe but do not see. These saying have a deeper meaning then just the words. The words talk to mans heart and soul.

Agnostic = “One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.” [OED] That seems like a description of Susskind’s position, except he specifically states he’s _not_ an agnostic. There seems little point debating with someone who doesn’t accept the Laws of Thought.

Poor Robert. He was hoping for a clean sweep😂

Based on what he says, I'd say he's actually an agnostic atheist (no, these aren't mutually exclusive). An atheist isn't necessarily someone who declares they know 100% there is no God/gods (hard atheism). It's enough if you have no active belief in a God/gods (soft atheism). Agnosticism pertains to your stance on whether the existence of a God/gods can be known. If you're gnostic, you believe this question can be resolved through reasoning/evidence. If you're agnostic, you think this question can never be resolved rationally and is a matter of faith. So, the options are: - gnostic theist (I believe there is a God/gods and it can be proven) - agnostic theist (I believe there is a God/gods but it can't be proven) - gnostic atheist (I don't believe there is a God/gods and it can be proven) - agnostic atheist (I don't believe there is a God/gods but it can't be proven) Susskind has no belief in a God/gods (soft atheism) and seems to think the question is beyond science and reason to answer, at least for now (soft agnosticism).

@ImVeryOriginal

2 жыл бұрын

@@lepidoptera9337 Maybe, maybe not. I'm just going by what he says in the video.

I think that Professor Susskind has pointed out something very important which is the possibility of our inability to comprehend the idea of "God". He said that it seems to him that this is beyond our abilities. I totally agree with this and I think this is true, but does not this contradict his opinion about him not believing in a super-intelligent presence unless he creates a scientific hypothesis about the nature of this super-intelligent presence? how can science explain the incomprehensible that is beyond its limits considering that science is nothing but our brains' product?

This may be simply stated but that's precisely the problem. It's always cringe when brilliant minds attempt to answer questions indirectly related to their field. Why? Not for the obvious reason that they're unqualified. Everyone has the right to express how, from their perspective and knowledge, they approach a subject matter indirectly related to their areas of specialty and competency. That's plain, not warranting any argument. It's the less obvious reason of bias selection, furnished by a model of reality, parading as pure knowledge that is at issue. Susskind lives and breathes within a specific methodological framework and existential orientation that cannot admit of the kind of nuance required to answer such questions adequately. The examples invoked as the religious orientation wind up being as paltry as the connections made. Most of us balk at the creation scientist's understanding of the interface question (science and/or religion). I believe we should do the same in circumstances as these. Far be it from me to compare Susskind to Henry M. Morris! However, his tactic is similar, if inversely so. Because he has a form of reason on his side, his version is much more respectable, especially to individuals of a similar constitution (science or religion). This contributes to a longer cycle of bias that needs to be curbed. If we want a more rounded perspective, we should turn neither to Susskind on questions of an existential nature nor to Morris on questions of scientific method--let alone religion (since religious literalism is historically and hermeneutically flawed and pernicious). None of this means that Closer to Truth should not ask these questions of its guests. And let's be frank, click-bait questions are, understandably, the order of the day. The point, rather, is that after the conversation is had, the door should not be seen as shut, which is the value of the comments area.

ধন্যবাদ, স্যার।

@of8155

2 жыл бұрын

Love u from India

In an infinite and eternal reality landscape reality is greater than the the human imagination and people should be able to believe and have faith in whatever they want so please respect our constitution.

I think you could boil Susskinds answer down to 'don't bother asking me that question because I am not fucking interested.' Fair enough

@soakedbearrd

8 жыл бұрын

+Kim Runic And "it brings more questions than it answers" which silly me, I thought science was about the question not the answer.

@nathanhopkins7976

8 жыл бұрын

+soakedbearrd I would add the caveat that "Science is about questions which are objectively, empirically answerable". Questions about God are not. They are by their definition untestable, because most religions make the claim that God is exempt from the laws that govern the natural world, and therefore cannot be tested from the purview of our sensory experience grounded in the physical world. God becomes a philosophic concept, and thus becomes divorced from many of the qualities people want to ascribe to a God.

@soakedbearrd

8 жыл бұрын

+Nathan Hopkins im not disagreeing with you at all. I like science, and certainly am not religious, but as an agnostic, I believe atheists make many claims based on supposed objectivity to further their own belief system which isnt based on scientific principle, mainly the dismissal of questions such as origin (all theory points to what happened after the big bang), and the problem of consciousness, as well as phenomenon which would be considered impossible in classical physics like non locality, and particle duality.

@soakedbearrd

8 жыл бұрын

There is nothing wrong with saying I see no evidence that god exists however, since I cannot at least at this moment, say with any authority, if he does or doesnt because I cannot explain the origin of matter or energy. Nor can I explain the blind forces or gravity. I have mathematical models which are incomplete, but which do a great job of explaining most phenomenon. What happened before the singularity? We dont know. What force or catalyst started the big bang? What is dark energy, dark matter and dark flow? Why is there a cosmological constant without which we wouldnt exist? Science is all about the question and answer, and its falsifiable. It the best tool we have, however people hold way too much weight and jump into conclusions based on its findings. My point here is that we should not replace one mythology with another. Recognise it for what it is, a limited tool, but a tool that is the best we have so far. When we equate science to the ultimate authority, it becomes no different than an ideology based on the beliefs.

@camelCased

7 жыл бұрын

I could say that I'm agnostic not only to religion but also to science because I can't find any prove that the Big Bang happened. To be more specific, I can't even find any prove that yesterday happened. Or that a second ago happened. I just have memories of the past, but I can never be 100% sure that the memories are of real events that happened and not something which was just created. Or maybe still is being created at this very moment. Like illusion, hologram, maya whatever. You see a skeleton of an animal, do some measurements, calculations and find out that the animal died hundred years ago... but that's just information, that is not a prove of the event. Maybe this animal did not exist at all but was (is being) created as a skeleton at once. Of course, we can't prove this, so we have nothing else to do except study the information available and assume it to be true because it is based on some other information or our experience (which also is just information about our memories). To do otherwise would mean to go insane or to stop our evolution (if evolution is not also an illusion). Ok, enough crazyness from me :D

At the end, the interviewer emotionally claims that, not having an opinion on whether there are universe creating gods, is an opinion. No, it's not. It's a lack of opinion, because the question is uninteresting to an unbiased mind. It's like a reporter on the streets of NY asking a random passerby, "what is your opinion on Turkmenistan local politics" - answering "I don't know nor care" is not a position on the subject.

Спасибо, сэр.

Why question never ends.

SO Susskind is of the religion/philosophy of "I don't care about the question of God's existence and I'm happy with where I'm at regarding this issue".

I need to understand Inflation much more than my current understanding.

If evidence for any deity were found, it would be the most interesting scientific question of all time.

It’s like we only have the key of the car but we don’t know how any of its many parts actually work.

Doubt is a place where hope dies

Going by suskind's sceptisism about god (which is acceptable) it must be asked, when universe began from zero point and expanded into everything, what was that point contained in? And then, what was that thing which contained everything was surrounded by or contained in.....and so on.... As he says about praying in front of CERN for electrons....first thing is....u don't pray to show off the power of prayer and secondly, a person having strong mind can turn electrons to wherever it wants, but he or she won't, and must not, do just as a fashion statement about the supernatural.

All the things we know about God is told by humans, not by himself. Reminds me of people who base their opinions on what the media tells them, not what their own eyes have seen.

Science and scientists are not only at war with religion.Scientists are at war with each other over scientific discoveries and what they mean.

Islam's explanation deals with these answers easily unlike other religions, because the preservation and richness of arabic language which a language living in it's early form until now and therefore has a unique preservation in Quran, Hadiths and other forms of literature unlike Aramaic, hebrew, old greek translations or Latin and therefore these question and there answers are spared in their pure form. The christian or jewish approach aren't that vast and it mixes with human gods and human attributes which formed the lenses of this scientist in early age and he sees every thing through these human attributes. God isn't human and doesn't need to put his fingers on this planet or the cosmos to finetune. He doesn't need to be in the atomsphere or on this earth with a human flesh. God a person which is bigger than all and is the ultimate source of every thing including life itself, justice and has not any humanlike attribute because god is not depedent like humans are dependent on other things to exist. * Surah Luqman 31:27 And if all trees that are on the earth were to be pens, and the ocean (converted into ink) is supported by seven seas following it, the words of Allah would not come to an end. Surely, Allah is Mighty, Wise. Sirah Kahf 8:109 Say, "If the sea were ink for [writing] the words of my Lord, the sea would be exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even if We brought the like of it as a supplement." * 1- God isn't indepedent of space and time. Indepedent of matter and need 2- God is beyond the imagination of the humanbeing. Language is not a tool suitable to define god exactly but can define god with general terms relative to our capacity and the capacity of language not even if seas are turned to ink and all trees into wood. Language is a little medium with generalizing some concepts and not approximation or exact definition 3- Allah/the God is the cause of all causes and as this term shows it is impossible that "the cause of all causes" can be a paradox as many people claim. Because it is clear that a bachelor is unmarried is a priori and in this case, the cause of all causes in arabic we call allah which means a priori which negates many other stuff which other languages can't. It is like a bachelor nagates to be a married man without even saying it. Though arabic is one of the greatest languages, one of the richest and broadest in literature and all sides of life, it is not able to capture 100% because god is greater than all of this. The list goes on but let him know that language is a slight glimpse or a light about the secret of existence but not enough. At the sametime we know that we are unable in this form to know many things because of our limit and our finite mind which can't take infinite amount of concepts or experience in this case seeing god or knowing all about god.

@misnik1986

5 жыл бұрын

islam is a human religion, exactly like judaism and christianity, its seemingly complexity is due only to the fact that it is recent, that's it, but it is as stupid as the others, and the lies about "i3jez" are just bullshit and don't relie on any scientific fact

@reembagadi7875

3 жыл бұрын

@@misnik1986 bullshit is defined by what you just wrote, can you proof it is a human made religion.

@misnik1986

3 жыл бұрын

@@reembagadi7875 Waw, your question is as stupid as asking can you proof that dragons don’t exist. By default dragons don’t exist and if someone pretends that they exist, it is up to him to bring irrefutable proofs, not just bringing few testimonies in an old book. Same thing for Islam, all what you have is a pity book full of scientific mistakes, wanna an example? In Quran it says literally that skys and earth were stuck to each others than they were separated, which is absolutely false, even if you will be saying that it is a metaphore to describe the big bang, this metaphore is impossible to hold because the earth wasn’t even existing at the start so you cannot talk about a thing which is separated from another thing where the first thing doesn’t even exist at that moment. And there is a myriad of other examples of mistakes like the hadith which says that the sun after the sunset goes under the throne and bow to god, which is bullshit because the sun never leaves its place, if there sunset here, the sun still shine in another place in the world, that primitive vision is understandable for someone who thinks earth is flat

What about the simulation hypothesis? The author of a simulation would not be bound by the physics of that simulation. Therefore, the absence of evidence *is not* evidence of absence in this case. At best, you can argue that the lack of evidence makes the whole question meaningless so we should ignore it. However, anyone who accepts the simulation hypothesis as a valid hypothesis should, by definition, be considered agnostic.

@smokinghorsey9

5 жыл бұрын

The simulation hypothesis is based on the assumption that, unless we go extinct, our own species will inevitably reach a point where we can use advanced computers to simulation new realities, or even our own. In this case, the simulated reality we create is in fact still underpinned by our laws of physics. Even if the simulation is constructed to appear to follow different laws, those laws are still operating on our laws. If we are base reality, then every other reality we construct is really just a part of our universe. These simulations would not and could not break our laws of physics as they are operating on them. If we are not base reality, then we and every other reality constructed are really just part of a larger universe. Our simulation would not and could not break the laws of physics of base reality as we are operating on them.

@smokinghorsey9

5 жыл бұрын

Phelan But the computer game we create is written on and exists within our laws of physics. When we create a computer game we can simulate magic but the universe does not temporarily suspend the laws of physics in order to allow us to do so. These games may break what is seen as the laws of physics in their own world, but in actual fact their world is just an emergent property of our world, and at its basis is a body of information which exists on a physical medium, in a universe written according to our laws of physics.

So against irrationality? What does Susskind see as rational in quantum mechanics or in the sheer impossibility of the theory of evolution, which has a probability that is simply not possible? The fact that religion raises more questions than answers does not make it impossible, but only mysterious. Susskind is a prisoner of himself when he thinks he can reach the unknown with a few equations. By praying he cannot change the route of an electron, he thinks, and this should be a starting point for his ideas! Ridiculous! The electron moves as it is prescribed for it and Susskind can pray as much as he wants! But you can feel that in spite of nonsensical pro-atheistic materialistic attitudes deep in his thoughts the faith in God is there. No personal God but an intelligent creator, a flawless and incomprehensible God. That is so. Science is there to get closer to God with every step, although every scientific discovery brings much of God closer to us, so many new questions arise that are almost impossible to answer.

Susskind's view reminds me a bit of what I understand of possibilianism a la David Eagleman..

Unique

So imagine if we could create a machine that would allow us to manipulate particles in a closed system in any way that we want. And let's assume that we could create a small-scale self-contained universe inside a box and manipulate the time inside it. There is a chance that one of these experiments would yield a formation of a planet with intelligent life on it. In that case we would indeed act as gods to those creatures, even though our intelligence or potential capabilites would not necessariily have to be bigger than theirs.

The Blackhole War book is a blast

Interesting, he did not even touch the essence of religious experience in this interview. As if he wasn't even aware of it. So many people seem to think that science and the core of religion are in opposition. But there is no overlap. Both target completely different aspects of being. Both are insufficient to probe the other. Science only addresses the question "how", religion only the question "what".