Are all the clips new or patched onto this channel from previous show interviews? If the latter, it would seem valuable to add to the description the date and episode of the interview in an effort to consider what scientific or philosophical developments have been made since the posted clip.

@infinitemonkey917

Жыл бұрын

The latter. This looks more than 20 yrs old.

@imaginaryuniverse632

Жыл бұрын

I hear we've evolved quite a bit since this was made. 🐈

What makes God super natural? Super natural seems to be nomenclature to describe things we don’t understand like multiple dimensions. It’s all natural in the end.

@jacksimpson-rogers1069

2 ай бұрын

There is no evidence for God, and a single Almighty God who must have defined the nature of Nature would have done a poor job if he later needed to override it. But we can grant that if there is a god, which I don't, He/She/It would be superior to their creations.

@yosemitejam

2 ай бұрын

@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 That depends on what you consider evidence. You can’t get something from nothing is the best evidence for a creator. As someone who subscribes to panentheism, there is nothing but God.

@degaussingatmosphericcharg575

Ай бұрын

​@@yosemitejamThat is not evidence for creators, only evidence that some things must have always existed.

@yosemitejam

Ай бұрын

@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 , To “always be” means there is no entropy in the universe and we know that is false. So maybe play with the idea you can’t get something from nothing.

@degaussingatmosphericcharg575

Ай бұрын

@@yosemitejam No, that would not negate entropy. (entropy is applied to closed systems, we have no idea if universe is closed.. I did not say something came from nothing, but that some such unknown things must have always existed. You already believe something has always existed, you said a creator, god or whatever. So we both believe there was always something.

In this matrix I can find reasons for the existence of every species both macro and micro: to keep sweet water flowing by the biodegrading, filtering and recycling of matter; using a food chain to maintain flow.

Religion is a matter of faith - period. Either you believe or not.

@cam553

Жыл бұрын

Matter of hope, is probably more accurate.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Faith is the excuse we use for believing things without evidence

Wow a much younger Sherm and Rob

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

Time travel confirmed

@imaginaryuniverse632

Жыл бұрын

Yea there's been a lot of discoveries since this was made. 🐈

"I fear, therefore God is"

As we all know, there are many proofs and mountains of evidence that my wife exists. And she has given me a list of 10 things she does not want me to do. As you can imagine, that is very inconvenient.

Another one is this: When good things happen, people give credit to God. But when bad things happen, they usually don't blame God. They used to blame the Devil when bad things would happen, but they don't do that anymore. Anyway, I'm not religious but I do think there is something more.

@jacksimpson-rogers1069

2 ай бұрын

There is something more. It's called Nature. Physics, which is the study of the basic rules of Nature, was called Natural Philosophy when the man who became Baron Kelvin was its professor at Glasgow University. The two words mean _the love of the study of Nature_ .

That’s why it’s called Faith.

@jsar5409

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, it's not based in logic but faith.

@benjamintrevino325

Жыл бұрын

Okay. Nothing wrong (usually) with faith, but that's all it is, faith. It's not proof of anything.

@itzed

Жыл бұрын

@@benjamintrevino325 but the fact that you can’t prove it came first, and hence that’s literally why it’s called faith - not the other way around. We’ve known you can’t prove the existence of God forever.

I've listened a lot to Michael, a level headed guy who always cuts to the chase.

@briansmith3791

7 ай бұрын

Shermer has in the last 10 days promoted the horrendous lie on X of " beheaded Israeli babies", without a shred of evidence. He's a strange kind of 'Skeptic'. He has consistently supported the genocide on the Palestinian people. When i challenged him he muted me - he also claims to be a champion of free-speech! lol. He's no "level-headed guy", he's a zionist fraud and an enabler of the murder of thousands of Palestinian children.

to me the more intriguing question still is: why do people want to believe anyway since it is not necessary to survive - more the contrary...

@wthomas5697

Жыл бұрын

Humans are social animals. Believers are cultists. Survival is still an issue.

I wish he hadn't used bacteria flagellum -- or at least clarified that this is NOT a gap in scientific understanding. Creationists perpetuate these misunderstandings for decades after the gap is filled.

Glad you interviewed Shermer, he deserves to be as well known as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Only problem I see here that only smart people tend to watch vids like this which lean towards the more intellectual side of things. Hopefully this goes mainstream.

@dadsonworldwide3238

Жыл бұрын

He and dawkins got to raise a generation the way they wanted and now they woke and will be economic dead weight problems for a long time to come. He should focus on the nilhism in his likeminded community.

@EverythingCameFromNothing

Жыл бұрын

@@dadsonworldwide3238 I hope you see the irony of using fallacious arguments within a video explaining fallacious arguments…try harder

@dadsonworldwide3238

Жыл бұрын

@@EverythingCameFromNothingthis may be old but its just ironic with all the trouble thats happening in his own wheelhouse. He's been trying to self govern the typical rise in the occult that his evolutionary mythology always creates. I support him in his recent endeavors but he should learn from it also.

@dadsonworldwide3238

Жыл бұрын

@@EverythingCameFromNothing Mike is dogmatic but he does know how to use the polemics of skepticism . I don't have any issue with different schools of thought. I love debate and decmocratic peer review where the best ideas prevail.

@ItsDazYT

Жыл бұрын

Are you assuming ‘intellectual = atheist”?

Forget about the word God for a moment - the term is simply too confusing and controversial to argue about - so let's try to simplify things. Shermer admits that there is evidence of design in nature, but attributes that design merely to natural evolution rather than some mysterious supernatural force. So basically, this is the question at hand folks: Is the design we observe everywhere in nature the result of blind, random chance (in the form of the physical processes of evolution) or is it the result of a fundamental (supernatural) intelligent mind behind everything? Of course, this question can never be 'proven' scientifically either way, so we can forget about the idea of any 'proof'. But still, the question clearly remains: Why should someone prefer one answer over the other? Indeed, ask yourself that very question and see if there's any genuine reason why you personally favour one side of the argument.

@BeardslapRadio

Жыл бұрын

Evolution by natural selection is not ‘blind random chance’. It is an ongoing process that keeps what works and usually discards that which does not.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Shermer *does not admit* there is any evidence if design . On the contrary - he argues that there is no evidence for design . You’ve completely misunderstood the argument . If there was evidence for design then weed inky be arguing about who designed it

@mikefoster5277

Жыл бұрын

@@BeardslapRadio But surely, that _is_ blind, random chance? In other words, there's no fundamental intelligence behind the process?

@mikefoster5277

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 I was merely going by what Shermer himself says in this clip. Perhaps you need to rewatch the final minute?

@wthomas5697

Жыл бұрын

Did you listen to the guy's talk? It doesn't appear that you did, or maybe you just didn't understand it.

What year was this interview conducted.

@nynjgreekcapo4430

Жыл бұрын

Look at that monitor back there, this has to be nearly 20 years old.. but since then, no breakthrough discoveries on the topic

The more important question for me is whether MInd exists....and all the implications and questions that raises.

First question and we're already pivoting to creationism. I feel that Shermer is what boxing fans call a "can crusher", he quite rightly debunks ridiculous claims but never really engages with serious apologists.

@laugustam

Жыл бұрын

He's putting intelligent design together in the same category as creationism. It grinds me that people spend time in talking in such a way amd think they're right. Surely they can do better than that. There's not much honesty and modesty in putting it all in the same bag and vaguely choosing some vague argument to refute.

@aaronbeall1527

Жыл бұрын

I mean, he was asked for an example of how people use "god of the gaps fallacy" and that's what he gave, he wasn't saying the failure of intelligent design arguments is an exhaustive disproof of god, just an example of one of the most common fallacies. I don't see how this is a pivot. He's even making the case for believers against using god of the gaps, because it's damaging to faith in the long term.

@a.i.l1074

Жыл бұрын

@@aaronbeall1527 He was asked for an example of how God of the Gaps is used to prove God. There are interesting and difficult things to be discussed there with the moral, teleological, and cosmological arguments: Michael chose to go after creationists I'm not sure I even agree that this is God of the Gaps. Creationists claim the likes of flagella are examples of "irreducible complexity", and attempt to show that it cannot be explained by naturalism. It's essentially trying (and failing) to falsify evolution

@aaronbeall1527

Жыл бұрын

@@a.i.l1074 Agreed, but a lot of people do use creationism and ID to argue for god, no? That's all I took him to be saying.

@laugustam

Жыл бұрын

@@aaronbeall1527 ID uses evidence to make a case for God not that if we can't explain it must be God.

I like and respect Shermer however he still failed to point out and say how the fallacies in proving God works.

If you are not calm enough you will only continue to bring fragments together. You also know how expensive it is to do so.

Aristotle proved a god exists many thousands of years ago. And here we are, having another go at the problem. This can only mean one thing. We can't do it !

The universe is the mind of God

@rand5

Жыл бұрын

the universe is a result of the mind of God

@degaussingatmosphericcharg575

Ай бұрын

First prove any exist before you can say anything else about them.

It's the same thing people do with aliens & ghosts. If they can't explain something their minds automatically go to the supernatural to explain things

@User-jr7vf

Жыл бұрын

I see where you are coming from, but at least in the case of aliens, they are natural beings. Although there is a catch: they are natural, assuming that they exist in the first place!

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

@@User-jr7vf Well that goes for ghosts and god too. If they exist even as just energies they're factually natural yknow

@User-jr7vf

Жыл бұрын

@@SamoaVsEverybody814 hmm... not really. Ghosts and gods are more appropriately treated as supernatural because they are giving rise to supernatural phenomena all the time. Just think about the Christian god and all his alleged great creations, or think about the spirit of a dead person... it is something that has the power to be here and there in no time.

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

@@User-jr7vf As Michael was saying in the video, the supernatural doesn't exist. If these ghosts and gods exist then they have to be natural being to do so by definition of "existing" If that's the case then their powers can't be supernatural if they're using natural processes to exhibit them "Supernatural" is just something we say when we can't explain natural processes

@mpagirobin3805

Жыл бұрын

@@User-jr7vf still, that doesn't make it not natural, it just makes it undocumented. Take quantum behaviour of particles. There's nothing unnatural about it, it's just not understood.

Set aside anger, hate, greed, envy, jealousy, lust,and desire. Still the mind, and then just be.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

I like your comments. Peace to you from Florida.

Shermer more than clears up or cleans out poor arguments for God, he asks people to look into their hearts/brains on why they're being so stubborn to not look for real answers...smart guy

I appreciate logic and science but I like believing in things that are wonderous. I believe in God, I simply must. I have had experiences that are inexplicable by logic or science. I know there are greater things that we don't understand or know. Some things cannot be proven with evidence to mankind but the event is proven through the individual experience. It's that special.

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

Sorry but no

@judemorales4U

Жыл бұрын

@@notanemoprog haha. It's a no from you, but not me! My world would be boring without believing in great, unproved mysteries.

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

@@judemorales4U That's cool!

@tschorsch

Жыл бұрын

@@judemorales4U unexplained mysteries are interesting, filling them in with god is boring

@mistert8775

Жыл бұрын

You should go listen to the Quran. Put in the KZread search, Quran Surah Sajdah Omar Hisham. Give it a shot and come back and tell me what you thought of it.

As a believer even I'll admit it's a fool's errand to prove duality to a materialist. Unless someone is willing to open themselves up to experience the kind of evidence that is not confined to the material world there is nothing to discuss.

@tubelube71

Жыл бұрын

Drivel

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

Everything is the material world. Either you exist or you don't Only protonic energy fluctuations have been proven to be able to exist outside the boundaries of space & time Same fluctuations that abruptly gave birth to the innerworkings of the great Singularity pre-Big Bang If you have any facts more fundamental than that to prove your "god" then I'm sure humanity would love you to share

@wthomas5697

Жыл бұрын

"Experience evidence"...? Such as?

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

@@wthomas5697 They feel pretty stuff inside and it proves "god" to them lol

@andreasplosky8516

Жыл бұрын

"As a believer even I'll admit it's a fool's errand to prove duality to a materialist. Unless someone is willing to open themselves up to experience evidence not confined to the material world there is nothing to discuss." In other words, one needs to be gullible and easily placated by magical fantasies.

Fallacies but you can't help it. Duh? Why? 1st: 5:30 Explaining/Describing how it works is a little different from what causes/ why it happens. Science can definitely describe/recreate a chemical reaction, it still doesn't explain why it has to be that way in the first place. 2nd: I think people are scared of the unknown. Having a god who is moral comforts a lot of people. I always feel scientists argue and win arguments a lot, but at the end of the day, deep inside scientists also want morals/gods to exist. It's the nature of humans to hope for the better world, and god/moral is a logical way.

Agenticity fallacy. Cmon Shermer that's your ace

I doubt Shermer can prove the world exists.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Nobody can . It’s philosophy 101

@PaulHoward108

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 Ashish Dalela does it in "How to Debate a Skeptic" at Shabda Blog.

@deanodebo

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 Can you prove anything? Better yet, do you know anything with 100% certainty?

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@deanodebo nope.

@deanodebo

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 So when you made the claim “nobody can”, you don’t know that do you?

The Abrahamic "God" is a human invention, but current science does not close the book on some sort of Creator.

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

No need to postulate any sort of creator

@tschorsch

Жыл бұрын

no one is saying that

@judemorales4U

Жыл бұрын

Good point Samoa.

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

@@judemorales4U Thank you 💜

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

@@tschorsch Saying what? Most of the ppl in these comments defending a "god" are Christians or Muslims

Does curse exist?

is the gap situation in science similar to emergence?

@andreasplosky8516

Жыл бұрын

The difference is, you will not be tortured for eternety, if you do not believe in it.

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

No, it isn't similar. Emergence is just talking about properties that occur when you collect a large number of things and try to describe it in simple terms. It isn't miraculous.

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

@@uninspired3583 for emergence to have sense you need to have whole algorithm how it emerges.Like you know how building emerged from bricks. In case of consciousness emerging from neurons there is no single hint. Therefore miraculous.

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

@@antimaterialworld2717 not the case. We use several types of AI these days where the algorithms can't be explained mechanistically. Neural networks are awesome, but you can't take them apart to see how they work.

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

@@uninspired3583 what you mean by mechanistically?probability is also mechanical.

A mystical experience of a god would be plenty proof. btw Sceptic should also investigate the supernatural origins of the universe since from nothing comes nothing..and while he is at it he should also investigate his own origin since he himself comes out of nothing.

@Joe-lb8qn

Жыл бұрын

"... since from nothing comes nothing". How do you know that? What's your experience of "nothing" , describe an example, and how you know that 'nothing' can exist?

@mpagirobin3805

Жыл бұрын

@@Joe-lb8qn the denial of being insignificant is strong in many.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

What is “the supernatural “ and please explain how science could falsify supernatural claims

@fortynine3225

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 A supernatural that is a non physical world that must have played a part in this universe coming into being.. You can not falsify this scientifically..all you can do is be real about it since it is the only sane explanation.

@fortynine3225

Жыл бұрын

@@Joe-lb8qn Seriously what is the deal with these dumb questions? The universe has beginning and a end, it is the life death circle that you can see everywhere in this universe. Before the beginning obviously there was nothing. Where where you before your mother was impregnated? YOU WHERE NOTHING.

If you have no solid evidence for something don't push your views and beliefs on people

@kin9dub898

Жыл бұрын

What, like the majority of theoretical physics.

@wthomas5697

Жыл бұрын

@@kin9dub898 You don't really understand physics, do you?

@richardsoto278

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.. 🤣 it would be nice if it did.

@fortynine3225

Жыл бұрын

What does that even mean ''solid evidence''?

@ianwaltham1854

Жыл бұрын

You could say that to people on both sides of the argument.

Actually, that "burden of proof" thing doesnt make any sense to me. Why would their side have to prove and never your side, isnt that egocentric and hypocritical?

considered the technological advancements made by humanity the past few hundred years and likely continuing into future; humans from just a few thousand years ago could have also made technological advances, maybe even some greater than ours? by the same token, technological advancements made by current civilization could wane and even disappear?

I think Stephen Meyer has all this covered in Return Of The God Hypothesis

@andreasplosky8516

Жыл бұрын

Alas, not. No apologist ever had anything covered. In theism, it is fallacies all the way down.

@vintagetrikesandquads4012

Жыл бұрын

An excellent book--if only for the history of science. I plan on reading it again.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

One big fallacy from incredulity . Worthless book

@stevewturnbull

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 On the contrary, it's a very sophisticated argument from design.

@vintagetrikesandquads4012

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 Coming from a moron who never read it. Even Shermer gave Meyer props for the book in a long interview he did on youtube.

In an alternate version of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, Michael Shermer simply doesn't understand that he is not conscious enough to realize that he is not conscious enough to fathom the level of being of the Creator of this universe. Shermer and Kuhn are the metaphorical equivalent of two amoebas trying to discern the ontological status of the creator of the petri dish in which they swim.

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

That's fair. But then on what basis could such amoeba make any kind of firm claim about said creator? They would just be making things up.

@talleyhoe846

Жыл бұрын

The idiocy of that comment adequately demonstrates the DKE without any need for an alternative version. To make it a valid comment, just substitute 'deluded' for 'conscious'.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Shermer isn’t saying there are no gods . He’s saying there is no evidence for gods.He would not assert that some sort of super intelligent alien can’t detect evidence for gods . He’s saying we can’t . He accepts we are amoeba.

@judemorales4U

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 good point

@dustinellerbe4125

Жыл бұрын

In another case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you think humans are unable to establish logic and reasoning to determine things, while you're trying to reason and use logic to determine that your creator exists. If you can't use logic and reason to establish there is no creator, you can't use it to establish that there is one. You can't have it both ways.

09:00 using circular reasoning to prove human mind as a product of evolution

I love Shermer. Could listen to him discuss these things all day. It struck me that science searches for the mechanics of how things work. No matter the question, science will look for the how's, why's and what's behind it in a never-ending search for the physical thing behind and within and from it. In this respect, the notion of God only poses another question to science, not an answer, and therefore, science will never "find" God. If you wish to believe in a God, I have no issue with that, but I think it wise to place that idea in an all-encompassing fundamental aspect to the whole of reality and not something within it, because doing so will only have you moving your proof back, until you ultimately wind up placing your God there anyway.

Why is he talking about a x that can’t be explained? It’s the y that has to be explained by the x 😅 besides that I agree

CTT, could you interview Deirdre Carabine, concering Negative Theology and here book, 'The Unknown God'.

One from the vault. Michael doesn't look like that anymore! He's 1 or 2 years shy of 70.

@pappapiccolino9572

Жыл бұрын

Yes, this is definitely an oldie. I wonder when it was filmed ?

Fallacies in "proving" that God exist? Is the euphemism of the word "fallacy" offered in courtesy or in cowardice? There has been little in the way of such "proof" that is not sophistry at best or twaddle at worst. Descartes offered that we should believe in God because the Scriptures say so, and that we should believe in the Scriptures because they were written by God. He seemed dimly aware that some might consider this to be a "circular argument", but he waved it away by claiming that "the effects prove the causes". This is an example of how religion can rot the finest minds.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

I agree that a circular argument is not appropriate for reasoning that God exists. But I think if we study both the sciences and scriptures, we can appreciate the correlation in a different way. Religions seemingly offer a multitude of fallacies, but these don't negate the questions regarding God's existence. I appreciate your comments because I like to listen and learn. Peace from Florida.

Gaps have not been filled by truth, but theories that can't be proven.

You know creationism is bunk because it proceeds in the exact opposite direction as the scientific method.

how did physical nature happen?

@andreasplosky8516

Жыл бұрын

Smurfs, it's smurfs.

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

Well, a mommy nature and a daddy nature loved each other very much, so they got together and made a physical nature.

@benjamintrevino325

Жыл бұрын

No one knows. That's the point. We don't even know if it happened or simply always has been.

What Closer to the Truth has revealed is that scientists should stay away from the question of God. They should stick to science.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

You don’t think this is a question that might interest scientists ?

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

But what if the question of God's existence points to a reality that can be found within Science? However the desire to understand purpose and meaning to life is an aspect of an individual's journey, and the path of such a journey may or may not be found in science. If however the question of God becomes confrontational and judgemental of others, then indeed " they should stick to science".

If someone is explaining God by answering "How" things happan then that is definitely a fallacy. God created everything through a process that He has asked human beings to go and discover. God comes into the picture when you try to answer the "Why". Religion's answer is God is behind it as He has claimed it in religious scriptures. Science answer is "by chance". You don't need a genius to choose the sensible answer between the two.

Michael asserts 'We evolved to find design in nature' What scientific evidence is there for this claim?

Is this like asking ... How does the value set in vivid dream states translate as similar values for truths in the awake state? Almost like asking ... What is the field or ground God lays out first before setting the rules to be played within? Sounds like philosophy would have done alot of that. So I guess the questions would be how to science from that field. Hmm... is this when string theory steps in?

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

question is why everyone wants to play on God's playfield but not with God.

@missh1774

Жыл бұрын

@@antimaterialworld2717 Great question. Can I try to rephrase what you have proposed but maybe only if for instance, Associativity Equation in Quantum Mechanics could be one of the bases for inquiry. If a principle organism were an invisible force and it's function was to sway choices. I'd want to ask: How would it work? Say for example someone has a lucid encounter which correlate to past and present day events. Nothing too woowoo, just a low-key strangeness about a series of events. Months pass by and suddenly that strange event returns almost as though it were happening again. But different because the remembering is in another time. But the pattern is showing up in the present. "Hold my spade mate" I think I'm digging myself a nice hole here 🤭 I know, tis a poor attempt at rephrasing your question but that last bit is too good. Nice one mate! ...

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

@@missh1774 if you play football, rules are there only to supplie for the enjoyment of the players. The play itself is more important then mechanics... But we can suggest that mechanics are that of observation between individual and God. Observation than leads to loving actions.

@missh1774

Жыл бұрын

@@antimaterialworld2717 When people design, rewrite or invent new things, how is it actually disrupting human emotional developmental processes? To ponder the last part of your question, I would say it grr still so hard to land. Dammit again 😅 I give up again. I'm not afraid to edit or delete later. How annoying though.

@missh1774

Жыл бұрын

@@antimaterialworld2717 so true. I agree.

Egyptians didn't build the pyramids or sculpt from granite, not possible

does design in nature come from mathematics? is mathematics part of physical nature, or abstraction? if mathematics is abstraction, where from?

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

There _is no_ "design" in nature

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

That's an interesting question. I guess it all depends on how physical consciousness is ... Can you literally hold a thought? Lol

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

@@notanemoprog Yea in order for somthing to be a design it needs to have a designer. Natural processes aren't a designer they're natural processes

@wthomas5697

Жыл бұрын

Mathematics is simply an accurate means of describing patterns in nature. It's a form of language.

@r2c3

Жыл бұрын

how come reality is expressed very accurately by mathematics... if you had the ability to create an atom then the only way to form a more complex shape is only by application of mathematics... the same applies to any abstraction layer... it just seems as mathematics is a requirement for the existence of everything we know 🤔

Lawrence Kuhn recycles interviews a lot, no surprise, I suppose. This interview is at least 20 years old.

@IndianCanadian0

Жыл бұрын

The ideas are still relevant, and perhaps it deserves more views, I think it's fine but he should add in the original airing date so people don't think it was done recently.

@stanh24

Жыл бұрын

@@IndianCanadian0 in my opinion Kuhn deliberately does not add in the original interview date. It would for sure reduce viewer interest.

Interesting conversation. New Atheists bash religion because of it's authoritativeness. But ironically religious authority protected the order of society which allowed for the advancement of thought. What always gets lost in this is the failure to recognize religions as social systems. Newton never would have existed if there were no monarchy, Church of England and the entire educational system they created.

It doesn't matter how logical you are...That is irrelevant What I have concluded... that the human in general terms...cannot survive without the concept of God Love it or hate it; that is truth Now if you manage to convince them; they will become so terrified that they are willing to accept any lie yes...terror dumbs people down. Believe in God bring "peace" of mind

Why can’t someone be spiritual and scientific? Both approaches can’t exist? Why throw either one out? Open ended question 🙋🏾

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

You’d have to define what you mean by spiritual .

@erickmorales4312

Жыл бұрын

At around 5:17 he begins saying something along the lines that “God” molded the universe . Then wouldn’t you want to question how he did it , which then brings you back to science. Then he continues by saying , and I’m paraphrasing , “ throw out the idea of God”. Personally I believe a majority of the population believe in the monotheistic style of GOD , but I a believer that we are the “Universe” trying to understand itself. To me the universe is like a “Brain”. I got that idea when i saw a picture the neuron synapses inside a brain and picture representation of the universe. To me maybe the universe doesn’t understand what it is just like we don’t know what consciousness is. So that why science comes in the save the day

@erickmorales4312

Жыл бұрын

@tonyatkinson2210

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@erickmorales4312 Your assuming a god exists . The whole point is that we just don’t know .

@erickmorales4312

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I could say that but then when a atheist talks , logically , they make sense. So I decided I can die happily agnostic :)

There is no way to prove there is or isn't a GOD. It also begs the question not covered in this video; if there is a GOD where did he, she, or it come from, etc and so on and on. Some things like this and consciousness are unknowable. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to figure these things out.

@1974jrod

Жыл бұрын

There is no way to prove is or isn't? Can you prove that claim?

@ianwaltham1854

Жыл бұрын

I would say defining God as a timeless intelligent consciousness solves the something from nothing problem. Also the Fine tuning and Mind body problems.

He coughed zoom in on him…..

How do you explain conscious and why do we live or purpose, why does society matter if we live 80 plus years and we pass away, why is if we do something bad why should it matter? Belief in the unseen after death is the ultimate goal for believers of the hereafter however if we live just once in this world again i would question why would a human being life matter or any living thing because science will give us certain degree of answers but how are we going forward? It's a dead end for the non believers as human die in this world and that's the goal fortunately believers have reason behind why we live in this world as we believe in the seen and the unseen

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Why would I do bad things just because i don’t believe ? The fact that we only have one short life is why the universe inspires me . I want to leave it a better place

@kos-mos1127

Жыл бұрын

No one lives their life in practice like there is an unseen reward after death. People live their life on a day to day basis and reflect on wether they could have made better decisions.

@hamzahamza49

Жыл бұрын

@Tony Atkinson yes universes is inspiring and should be to anyone as its an incredible creation which we can ponder but I do get back to a question why does it matter to leave this world in a better place? Who cares if you do bad things in this world heaven and hell dont exist for you im assuming? Humans are not perfect with decisions and as living overall and to be honest wondering what happens after death is actually a far more greater purpose as we can accumulated through out our life have we done majority of our lives to do good in this world so that people for the next generation or any generation learn rationally of life and as a believer of afterlife its far more a ultimate destination or goal to achieve and leave this world in a better place

@kos-mos1127

Жыл бұрын

@@hamzahamza49 There is no reason to assume the universe was created. Anyone with knowledge of the Big Banh beyond a High School level knows science does not say the universe was created. Creation is a theological statement not a scientific statement. The only thing science says is the Cosmos was once in a dense uniform state everywhere and evolved into a sparse uniform state. It does not say where the dense state of the Cosmos came from it does not say there was nothing before the dense state. Humans already have a hard time projecting 5 years into the future let alone predict how their decisions will effect a supposed afterlife. The only reason people want to leave the world a better place then it was before is because that is the legacy they want to leave behind. An afterlife does not factor into people's daily decision making.

@hamzahamza49

Жыл бұрын

@KOS - MOS yes true however the big bang must of come from somewhere? Also science does change too so its not an absolute also the way the universe has been designed is pretty much easy to say something must be there especially the order, beauty, elegance and simplicity. The universe didn't have to be this way, it could of been ugly and chaotic, in short the order that we see in the universe is proof of god. Believe me everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.

As a design engineer, I'm a bit miffed at his assertion that evolution designs anything. Design requires intelligence and it requires requirements and everything else that goes into creating requirements and requirement satisfaction. If there is no real design, then our lives have no real purpose and therefore no real worth and if no worth, how can our lives be worth living?

@Theo_Skeptomai

Жыл бұрын

My life has purpose and meaning and is definitely worth living to its fullest.

@matthewtenney2898

Жыл бұрын

@@Theo_Skeptomai The definition of purpose is why something exists or what something was designed to do. Purpose both assumes and requires an intelligent designer. Do you think your life has an intelligent designer?

@OfficialGOD

Жыл бұрын

No purpose is true freedom. Not worth is subjective. It is worth itself.

@matthewtenney2898

Жыл бұрын

@@OfficialGOD You have no purpose? What is it that you live for?

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

He doesn’t mean design as in top down design . He means undirected design from the bottom up

5:25 Interesting he used "she" when referring to God in his argument.

@heartfeltteaching

Жыл бұрын

So edgy 😂

@kos-mos1127

Жыл бұрын

Science has usually referred to God as she in their arguments because from a scientific point of view the power of creation intrinsically belong to the female.

@heartfeltteaching

Жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 The better viewpoint, you’ll agree, is that God is neither male nor female-simply the supremely perfect being devoid of sex or gender

#80

The guy that in every conversation tries to get scientists to conclude because Einstein’s E=MC2 is small then there is a supernatural somewhere, interviews Michael

One of ur best Video

I think god could be gravity, or according to quantum field theory, it might be more accurate to say whatever is the inverse of gravity that's causing it to exist out of nothing like virtual particles do. And by god I mean the creator of this computer/sim we live in more than a heavenly being, but the heavenly being could be a thing, too. I think the more we learn about science the more both of those things kinda tend to merge. It's just what that "god" or creator looks like, and it's probably an eternal force that always was and always will be, and I think the underlying energy that creates gravity fits that well.

If God exists... Well, if God exists, then we wouldn't need to be here having this conversation.

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

yes there is no need, just accept

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

I'm reluctant to agree with you but I do find your statement as interesting and thought-provoking. I would say rather that if we had "proof" for God's existence, then these conversations would not be necessary. But even if we had "proofs", I wonder if humans would still struggle to obey God? Would humanity become self-destructing? If that would be the case, God's existence would solve nothing. I'm not trying to negate what you said. I like to listen and learn. Peace to you from Florida.

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 God existence is not about solving the necessity. Its about abundance of Love. Lack of proof is not that big problem. There is much of theological work, which is subjective proof more valuable then some mathematical superficial empiricism. Problem is that we cannot digest that someone else is owner of all opulences and beauty. Psychologicaly we have problem to accept becouse that means there is someone better then us which goes against our ego.

I usually LOVE these conversations, but this one was incredibly weak and not well thought out. I'm sorry guys. Love you but just not this time

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic.

Wth is goin on with your editing!?

I like this video because it brings up good questions. Who Authored The Laws of Nature?

@cthoadmin7458

Жыл бұрын

Who says they were authored? That's question begging. Maybe they couldn't have been any other way.

@talleyhoe846

Жыл бұрын

The question is not ‘who authored’ but ‘what is the explanation’. Humans have developed with an innate tendency to ascribe agency to things because doing so aligns with human activity in the world. Hence agency is psychologically comforting and compelling in providing a compatible explanation. However agency an anthropocentric hangover from ancient times dominated by ignorance and superstition when invented conceptual frameworks of understanding of the world of human experience was projected beyond human experience and taken as the basis for understanding all reality. Contemporary explanations of reality beyond human experience founded in GR and QM have revealed how utterly irrelevant these ancient concepts are and hence how utterly worthless they are as a valid basis for understanding reality beyond human experience.

@drbuckley1

Жыл бұрын

@@talleyhoe846 That which cannot be observed cannot be explained.

@talleyhoe846

Жыл бұрын

@@drbuckley1 There is no rational justification for positing the existence of that which cannot be detected as absent detection there is nothing to be explained. However explanation can be rationally justified for that which can be indirectly inferred through related detection absent direct observation as contemporary particle physics confirms. That for which existence can be verified through credible objective evidence qualifies for need of explanation - anything else is speculation.

@drbuckley1

Жыл бұрын

@@talleyhoe846 I include indirect observations. No observation, no explanation.

I'm mostly in full agreement with Shermer but I also find Shermer pretty much a one trick pony. Anytime I see him in an interview, typically there is nothing new. And once again.....

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

That’s not his fault . He’s not a scientist . Blame the scientists not the science communicators

According to Bible God Is An Independent Existecne from subject, e.g. God's name is I AM THAT I AM, AND THE EXISTENCE IS STARTING POINT OF EVERY BEING, the visible (detectable) & the invisible (undetectable). Therefore, LORD God Selection (His Purpose Dominion) is better than natural selction. I really think it's done to reconcile contemporary science and Word of God, Whose Existence Is Self-Evident!

@jsar5409

Жыл бұрын

Lmao

@samreh6156

Жыл бұрын

And who produced the Bible?

So how did the hermit knew the eight numbers that will appear a month later that will win the lottery? By chance?

@User-jr7vf

Жыл бұрын

yes, without a doubt. It is what lottery players do all the time (even though some of them may think that they received hints from the divine). I don't know where you live, but in some countries this is quite popular.

I'm just curious what if one day science finds a coded message somewhere/somehow in the quantum field of information which describes how we were created by God and for what purpose, will the God of the gaps argument still apply because that could also ultimately be argued with complicated processes and coincidences that took billions of years. For me ultimately science is the study of a creation because we are here and if it can be created it can be destroyed but as we know energy cannot be destroyed so the energy is infinite but the matter is not. Now what is more logical a self aware energy that created the universe into existence or energy without a will creating it. The self aware is self explanatory and a universe being created from infinite energy with no will can never will something into existence in the same way a paper can't fold itself into a paper airplane.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Why would it need to be self aware ? If it’s self aware then it’s not an explanation . This is because in order to be self aware it will require a level of complexity . Deep complexity . What created that complexity ? Your just kicking the can further down the field . Your not explaining anything

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 problem is that from less-complex cannot emerge more complex. If there is only one reality where would those other things come from? From nothign? therefore original cause must be most complex. And if we ,as cognizant entities are present in the effect. Cause must be also cognizant entity.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@antimaterialworld2717 “from less complex cannot emerge more complex “ . Utterly wrong . We see simple to complex in many systems all the time in physics , biology , chemistry , climatology , geology etc all the time . The universe has a propensity for complexity ti emerge from simpler initial conditions . You are just wrong about that . Also. I don’t know why you insist a universe without a creator could only emerging from nothing. I don’t think that’s the only option.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 I really like how you said " the universe has a propensity for complexity to emerge from simpler initial conditions ". That's excellent.

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 "he universe has a propensity for complexity ti emerge from simpler initial conditions ." but those intital conditions contains, in encrypted format, algorythms as to how more complex thing emerge. Like for example seed is simpler then tree, but that tree is already present in subtle manner there. It just takes lot of energy of sun and soil to manifest but it not coming out of nowhere. " don’t know why you insist a universe without a creator could only emerging from nothing. I don’t think that’s the only option." - so what is your suggestion?

How can you say we haven't had any experience of someone coming back from the dead? Especially when there are reports of people being pronounced dead, and then being alive. Even the fact that Lazarus was dead for four days. Plus Jesus was dead, especially when water and blood came out of his side. Was seen of 500 plus witnesses.

@jszlauko

Жыл бұрын

500 witnesses? The "story" says there were witnesses, but it's just a story. Did each of the 500 witnesses write a document detailing the resurrection of Jesus? Plus, why was the account of Jesus dying not written until decades after the event? How could something written on the order of 50 years after he died possibly be accurate? It's all fiction.

@jeremycrofutt7322

Жыл бұрын

@@jszlauko then you might as well say Alexander is fiction.

@jeremycrofutt7322

Жыл бұрын

@Jeff Szlauko how else do you get a story about Jesus in the teenage years of being lost, then found in the synagogue, other than by interviewing mother, brother, sister, or some type of kin. John the disciple lived to roughly 98AD. Who is to say there aren't earlier manuscripts, especially since there was OT manuscripts copies. These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out. Proverbs 25:1 KJV

@jeremycrofutt7322

Жыл бұрын

@@jszlauko And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31 KJV

@abelincoln8885

Жыл бұрын

All of these fallacies are inventions of Atheists. Because all evidence for Creation ... is based on the fact that that only an Intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates or fine tunes ... Functions. Universal Functions ... is the Hypothesis ... that explains that explains Sir Issac Newtons' Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago, and any Machine Analogy used to explain "Intelligent Design. Newton was essentially saying, everything is a function and can only be made a (very powerful) intelligence. And was correct ... because all Systems are functions ... with purpose, form, properties & processes ... which are INFORMATION that every Sytem possesses to exist & to function. Information, knowledge & design ... are abstract constructs .. from the mind of an intelligence. And Man ... is an intelligence with an intellect ... and will always deduce from observation that anything with purpose, form, design, function ... can only be made by an entity like Man ( intelligence). This is why Man ... will always believe in "the gods" and a spirit/soul. Thermodynamic Systems ... prove ... an UNNATURAL intelligence made the Universe ... because all thermodynamic Systems (eg Universe) originate from the SURROUNDING System which must prove the space, time, laws of NATURE, energy, matter and INTELLIGENCE to exist and to function. The surrounding System ... of the Universe with the laws of thermodynamics ... must be UNNATURAL, timeless, infinite, with unnatural laws and an unnatural intelligence ... otherwise this system would be a thermodynamic System that originates from the surrounding System. Again. At the core any evidence for Creation .... are Functions ... that can only be made by an Intelligence. There is zero evidence that nature & natural processes can make & operate the simplest physical function ... 13.7 or 4 billion years ago ... or ... today. Man believes in "the gods" because everything is a function .. including Man. Atheism is a religion just like Theism .. but believes in something not someone responsible for the Universe & life. Science is simply a method(function) created by Man(function) to explain natural phenomena (function) using fixed laws of nature (functions) ... and ... prove "scientifically" a firm belief or hypothesis about a phenomena like the Universe or Life. There are not fallacies proving God created the Universe & Life. Because God is an intelligence ... and the Universe & Life are Functions.

Oh man, they addressed my design argument. Still. Isn't observation a fundamental of science? Can't we observe that every organ in every living thing has a design and function that fulfills purpose? And then doesn't that suggest a designer? Whatever that is. It may be hard to see what purpose the human organism serves but when we study eco-systems we do find evidence of purposes for species in the balance of what we call life. To speculate whether it's design or not goes way off into philosophy and seems ignorant of science to me. But not to consider the possibility that it really isn't design would also be ignorant wouldn't it? Still, the evidence seems to be way on the side that it is what could be correctly defined as design.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

I see no evidence of design in biology . I see the opposite in fact - systems that are too complex or inefficient bony to shove formed bottom - up rather that top- down . For example . Why would anyone design the The recurrent laryngeal nerve the way it is ? Or design humans with a too small birth canal resulting in high mortality rates ? or the way the optical nerve sits in all mammals creating a blind spot . The truth is l- evolution is extraordinarily wasteful . 99% of species go extinct and are evolutionary dead ends

@spheriscope

Жыл бұрын

Some valid questions. I have seen some similar examples and reasoning brought forth. Like the dentist seeing bad teeth deciding to lean atheist or the examples of micro-organisms so diverse one might conclude it's just willy nilly. Then at different scales there's order, chaos then order again. I'm not really subscribing to theism or atheism necessarily. I don't know why it has to be either bottom up or top down. One or the other. Either way seems to end up being a very speculative religion of its own. I seem to be here typing this and I seem to be alive somehow. I want to understand it all too. I've always liked the idea that ultimately science and spirituality are the same. Gene Roddenberry had some interesting concepts that caught my attention. Besides infinite diversity in infinite combinations there was a concept called "Infinite Correlation" spoken of in Earth Final Conflict that supposes everything is imperfect in itself but that everything together is perfection itself. Even in scripture God is subject to the laws of nature. Whatever God is. Intelligent, sentient or otherwise. Whatever causes life to exist would seem to be correctly defined as such.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

@@spheriscope I like your comments. Interesting and thought-provoking.

@spheriscope

Жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Thank you so much for your complimentary reply. It's a tough subject. I'm glad someone got something positive out of what I had to say.❤.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

@@spheriscope Thanks and you deserve a positive feedback because I see so many negative comments on KZread. Not just on this channel but on other channels I watch. I basically come here to listen and learn. I don't know it all. In fact, the more I learn, it seems like the less I know! Peace to you from Florida.

I really respect all your work. Regarding God; 1) It is 100% correct that there is no proof God exists. So, you conclude God does not exist. But, there is no proof of any other solution to creation /existence answer, but it seems you do not hold that to the same "proof" test . It seems that no answer can be proved, so logically you conclude there is no answer at all. But, that is a position without merit. If someone came to you and said everything was created by non-God, say blue aliens in an alternative universe, I would assume, you would be skeptical, and as without proof, deduce this is not true. But, some answer has to be true. Currently no answer is provable. But, one cannot dismiss the possibility of any being true. Including God. To me, It seems that a God answer is more likely than an answer that life created itself. or intelligent beings created everything and all the complexity in all things. 2) Evil and suffering; Can God exist if there is evil and suffering ? Seems inconsistent, for sure. Yet, using the same logic, does God therefore exist because there is good, kindness and happiness ? Schopenhauer asks "Is the world is actually a prison ? " But, can we dismiss asking also "Is the world actually a kind of heaven?" Concluding that existence of God is unlikely /not reasonable because there is evil and suffering in the world, is a conclusion based on postulating what one assumes God must be like. But, this is very presumptuous. You argue that science currently cant answer all, but don't seem to use this in the case of not understanding why a potential God, would allow evil and suffering (even if implausible, like quantum mechanics (lol) ) 3} Synchronicities: Again, they cant prove anything, but seems to tilt likelihood to something vs nothing. Your radio example. Statistically very remote. Not proof, but it did happen. Not sure the odds on that happening. Not proving something works well in skepticism about scams, claimed tricks, etc, but does it apply to the unprovable ? Respectfully please satisfy yourself as to the skeptical rigor from both perspectives. How can you dismiss a God solution without proof of another solution?

@maylingng4107

6 ай бұрын

By your own admission "nobody has any evidence" for a god. Of course the absence of evidence does not disprove god, simply because negatives cannot be proven. I cannot prove that there is no pink unicorn either. However, we can prove the following 100%: 1. There is no evidence (nobody has found a single one) for any god. 2. The only logical position (in absence of evidence) is that a god does not exist. 3. Until evidence for a god is found, it is foolish to claim that there is one. 4. The claims of religions (all those depending on a god or gods) are even more foolish without evidence for god. 5. The god stories of religions are beyond foolish and childishly illogical.

@ToTheMaxGaming1

15 күн бұрын

‘Nobody has evidence that god isn’t real so he must be real’ did you even watch the video?😂

What obligation does one have to be intellectually curious? Inshallah is a term many use when things don’t go they way one wants them to. Accepting an external entity to explain things one don’t understand or care to understand is fine as long as one doesn’t reject the truth.

could there be explanations different than both science and God?

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

No

@andreasplosky8516

Жыл бұрын

Science is just a method of gathering trustworthy knowledge about our surroundings. This explanation can include a god, if there is trustworthy evidence for it. Obviously there is not. Therefore, if it is another explanation, that explanation would still be arrived at via the methods of science, because that is the only trustworthy method we have.

@judemorales4U

Жыл бұрын

Yes James, in fact I suspect that one day in a very far future, we may realize exactly that.

@tschorsch

Жыл бұрын

Science is the process of understanding reality, so no.

@ianwaltham1854

Жыл бұрын

If God exists then that would be science.

Michael Shermer looks like a kid to me😆

yay for feeling we are greater than our sums. We can feel oneness with God but Our brains can not think it yet. Someday hopefully with the help of AI we can scientifically research feelings.

“Skeptical” has come to mean the skeptic has faith in scientism/naturalism. However, let’s recall the classic skeptic asked the questions like, how can you justify logic? The classical skeptic knew that science cannot prove anything. The modern skeptic just blindly has faith in provisional scientific theories. Ironic

@Theo_Skeptomai

Жыл бұрын

I disagree. I am a skeptic and do not adhere to scientism or naturalism.

@deanodebo

Жыл бұрын

@@Theo_Skeptomai Do you think science can prove anything? Is science the foundation of your belief system?

@Theo_Skeptomai

Жыл бұрын

@@deanodebo Science doesn't even attempt to prove anything. It attempts to disprove Theories. Have you never attended a science class?

@Theo_Skeptomai

Жыл бұрын

@@deanodebo I don't have a belief system.

@deanodebo

Жыл бұрын

@@Theo_Skeptomai “I don’t have a belief system” Thanks for the irony. That is a belief system. Yes I attended my share of science classes on my way to my bachelor of sciences degree. Not sure why that’s relevant. Since you asked, how about you? So I assume you don’t believe any scientific theories, right? What makes you a skeptic?

You can not prove God the Life or it wouldn't be! You can not have a proof for future realm of absolute freedom, or it couldn't evolve..

Quantum physics is counter-intuitive, the theory or rather various theories of evolution are by comparison very intuitive. After all, evolution is very observable - not least in science. Look, for instance, at Newton's law of gravity, still probably applicable to civil engineering, but not exactly the cutting edge of our understanding of science or even technology. Eisenstein's theories of relativity changed all that - they also rendered Galileo's arguments with Cardinal Robert Bellarmine irrelevant because such is is nature of scientific investigation. It should always be open-minded and treated with humility. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is right to point out that in many centuries past the vast majority of people, including those who built the pyramids, did believe in God or gods, supreme beings - presumably that was the rational approach to take. And the argument for the existence of God certainly doesn't boil down to the flagellum of bacteria, nano-scale machines, protein motors, microtubules, whatever. The intelligent design argument is very recent, and probably not fully thought through because its scientific. The evidence for God is everywhere, it's simply always existed. The contingency argument is also relatively recent, we can go back to the Bible, to the ram caught by its horns in a thicket - in the thorns. As I said, the argument is timeless.

Worthless arguments.

you can see that michael shermer is not a philosopher, design by evolution? lol,,

They are not all spitting in the same direction. There's one planet going counterclockwise. And I believe there are a couple of moons That spin counter clockwise. Explain the conservation of motion on that one Mike.

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

Well it certainly doesn't mean "God" exists

@wthomas5697

Жыл бұрын

So this is the basis for your logic re the existence of god? Incredible.

@andreasplosky8516

Жыл бұрын

"They are not all spitting in the same direction. There's one planet going counterclockwise. And I believe there are a couple of moons That spin counter clockwise. Explain the conservation of motion on that one Mike." Conservation of motion does not demand a direction of motion. It also has nothing to do with invisible magical god-daddy-friends. This is once more an example of theistic irrationality.

The God of the gaps fallacy was something I’ve always used as a counter argument against those who have no good evidence for god and I found out that there’s a term for it! Wow!

@damienkilcannonvryce

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/YpeAk9OTd8m0c8Y.html

@talleyhoe846

Жыл бұрын

A more technical term is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. All theist arguments are basically founded on (at least) one logical fallacy and argument from ignorance is one of the more common ones.

If, for argument sake, we treated any or all of these discussed arguments for god as sound, then the theist remains no closer to proving their particular god exists. Theists look on all gods of other religions, and possible religions, as man-made fabrications - despite these same arguments being equally applicable to those other gods.

There is no logical fallacy that is not employed when it comes to the defense of God.

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

you just started the opposite with ad hominem. good job

"Gap of the gods" more like

6:29 Debunks Christianity

@talleyhoe846

Жыл бұрын

Application of reason applied to objective evaluation of evidence debunks Christianity

so he doesnt believe in a supernatural cause element ,cause element call it what you will next

Isn't he contradicting himself in the end? I mean he says himself that if God created something, don't you wanna know how He did it. And in the end to reject the argument of a designer of 'the design', we see he gives the argument of evolution. Can't still God have designed 'the design' through evolution?

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

So god invented the mechanism of evolution to diversify his initial spark ? The question then arises is that if this is the case then the universe will be indistinguishable from one in which god does not exist

@danish.imran10

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 what does it matter? P.S. I was just perplexed by the contradiction there and wasn't inclined toward any sort of arguments for God.

@antimaterialworld2717

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 how would that universe without God get initial spark? And where would evolutionary mechanism came from? Both must be beyond what we currently know, so withtout that we have no real concept of universe in which God does not exist. But anyway there is not such thing as evolution only permutation of inert matter. Still more important in equation is active observer..and its hard to explain that with mechanism. SO you can say that evolutionary permutation are in fact only supplying enjoyment of observer.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@antimaterialworld2717 “how would a universe without god get that initial spark “ I have no idea, but that doesn’t mean you get to insert a god in there . Why do we need an initial spark , maybe the universe has always existed in some form or other . Maybe is cyclical . Maybe the initial spark is just that - a simple brute fact that there has to be something than nothing because nothing can’t exist . Maybe energy is infinite and just cycles though configurations of matter in interesting patterns without guidance . Sort of how complex snowflakes form .

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

@@danish.imran10 I personally believe that God may have decided to use "evolution" in His process of creation. I could be wrong. I see no problem with God's use of a evolutionary process. Your comments are thought - provoking.

mother nature could'nt talk@speak@teach us about wrong doing/righteous/pray/good will/emphatic etc. Its clear then all our thought came@based on revelation@prophet..Would "isolated" newborn@baby developed speaking/language/linguistic ability by itself without "mimicking" parents/anothet human back till the early first human couple !!?? peace be upon us all

Hey Micheal--you also cannot prove that God doesn't exist--PUSH

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Neither can he prove rainbow farting pink ponies don’t exist . Your point?

Where do the natural forces come from? Evidently something above natural, which entails supernatural. God, Jesus Christ, is above natural, in charge of the natural, to let things happen naturally. King of natural.

@klausfiedler64

Жыл бұрын

Nobody knows. That's not a reason to make up a God. Nobody knows, period.

@jeremycrofutt7322

Жыл бұрын

@klaus rules and laws don't form by themselves. How is that making up a God? Plus he gave us his word, the Bible, which tells of Jesus in OT and reveals him in the NT.

@klausfiedler64

Жыл бұрын

@@jeremycrofutt7322 Grow up. If rules and laws can't form by themselves then God's can't form by themselves either. If you say it's God, then the next question is who created God, and so on. God doesn't solve the problem. As to your ridiculous bible, don't get me started.

@jeremycrofutt7322

Жыл бұрын

@@klausfiedler64 a being that is eternal and infinite is, just is.

@klausfiedler64

Жыл бұрын

@@jeremycrofutt7322 Like I said. Grow up. It's bad enough you conjure up eternal beings imbued with your wishful thinking, but then you go and hang a morality interpretation around it. Stop believing in nothing.

Leave everything just take for example flys and mosquitoes, who is the designer, manufacturer, founder, and creator.

@tschorsch

Жыл бұрын

There is no designer, founder or creator. They manufacture their own offspring.

@AhmedSalah-lx3lm

Жыл бұрын

@@tschorsch Oh ya, just the Iphone designed by Apple and assembled in China. We human, all mammals and every living species are biological machines founded, designed, and manufactured by the one snd only one the creator of everything.

What if da Universe,da Living Universe was what our spirituality names God?🤔😲👍