"I hope this is not it... is this is?!" Julia Bishop sounds unsatisfied with her existence in this beautiful country when ironically the previous topic of conversation was about people risking their lives and children's lives in hope to start a new life in Australia.

I must say I'm pretty impressed with the format this show uses. I stumbled upon it being interested in Dawkins. But this show has a very lively dynamic debate structure, i hope to see something like this in my country sometime. Also i thought it quite interesting how Dawkins singlehandedly, takes on 4 professional debaters (politicians) and the critical parts of the audience with great success. I always seen Dawkins as a sort of softy in his direct interactions with others. Good stuff.

7:15 "I'd like to think that", what a great way to distinguish what is true from what is false: just ask yourself if you like it or not and there's your answer.

@Glorfendal

3 жыл бұрын

Just because people like to think something it doesn't mean it's true. Everyone would like there to be an afterlife, religious or not. But given our understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology it seems extremely improbable

Richard Dawkins is the man.

Thank you for sharing. Dawkins is fantastic as always.

@allthatisrealislove I agree. Found Hitchens on here about a year ago (because of Dawkins), and sought out every word he's said since. Really sad news about his cancer though!

Thanks for posting. That was an interesting discussion to see a bit of what our Aussie friends are thinking.

brilliant ending.

Another good question, and your right, we don't know. It's one of those things we are exploring and its not easy. To know for certain you got to have a state before the big bang and experiment with it. Which is seemingly impossible. Our laws are generated with the big bang. We can do a thought experiment however, First maybe they are linked, if you raise the values of one, the other value changes proportionately. Also you can work with infinity and the anthropic principle.

Thanks for sharing, my friend ; )

I'm going to lean towards 'Yes, they are really THAT brainwashed'. A question I would have loved to hear in this debate: What would it take for you to change your belief - or lack thereof - in a God? I'm willing to bet, for the vast majority of scientifically minded folks, it would take some form of evidence; whereas I don't think any evidence can/will ever convince someone who believes whole-heartedly that their belief-without-evidence (faith) is incorrect.

Notice how Dawkins PASSED. I mean think about it - he PASSED his answer!!! Can you imagine a pious Christian or politican allowing a question to go unanswered?!

The way i meant in crystals, you can seed a small crystal and because of bonding they turnout in the same form as the parent. I'm not saying a crystalline shape is what formed DNA, just that there are more molecules out there that can form copies. DNA is like a crystal in the way that its just a reaction. DNA forms proteins which in turn act as a catalyst to bond elements and create usable "product". Only difference is DNA has a way of slowing down due to its own decay.

The fact that we live on the only planet (that we know of) that can support life would also lead us to consider the possibility it has been designed that way. There are hundreds of parameters that if altered only slightly would make Earth uninhabitable. You're assumption is that if there is a designer his intention was to create the world to last for ever. What if his intention was to create it to last for a finite period of time.

It was basically a bunch of chemicals getting mashed around in a chemical sea underneath the intense UV rays the sun gave out, and somewhere in there, there was a special combination that distinguished itself from all the other chemical mixtures by starting to reproduce itself. I think this probably happened quite a few times before the organic compound of our origin was spawned from the steamy gloop, but they didn't face up so well to the harsh conditions of the early earth. Ours just got lucky

This is exactly where some people make a mistake. DNA in its current form, is not the molecule that started it all. DNA is simply put a self replicating chemical process. That could start off like a crystalline molecule. A simple molecule that replicates itself under the right conditions. In the early stages it didn't have the adaptability like it has today, a 2nd stage could have been RNA or something similar, a very weak form of DNA, then lastly really simple DNA forms to become complex.

Your right bro, i stand corrected. Because its so highly likely i used the word inevitable. But like you state that's wrong.

You're obviously not afraid to ask questions and get a deeper understanding. My point is: If you introduce a designer it leads nowhere unless you have proof of design. NOT knowing how something works is no proof of anything, just that we don't understand it. X can be anything, but unless we can validate X we can't take X to be true. And be assured there are enough zealots out there trying to confirm their X but fail. Also the age old "who designed the designer" question always stands.

@shteve77 That's a solid question. First of all: why if there is a intelligent designer, can't we see, test and examine this? From a design point of view the universe is a mess, why would it need chaos and energy decay? From our point of view it doesn't matter whether we live in a stable or chaotic universe. A chaotic design makes no sense. Closer to us: Why are deep sea fish designed to have eyes but can not see? Who designed the designer? And there is more i can't answer with a designer.

I meant in the way of for example: A god listing to you (or anyone) personally, and influencing the natural world. Something like god acting on prayer to heal or improve certain aspects of life. Or maybe even preform miracles. Things that are outside nature, and can't be explained by science.

@Adavidson100 - I have never claimed or used the words "perfect design". Whilst there are large areas of Earth hostile to humans, people are still living in them (but I concede certainly not in large numbers). The Arctic, the Sahara, etc. Regardless there are very few places where there is not some kind of life on Earth. Just because we think that something could have been designed differently or in a better way doesn't prove that it wasn't designed.

For the arrogant meecrobs that think Dawkins isn't humble...I don't think a strictly arrogant man would have admitted he doesn't know something, and pass a question. That's class.

The formation of the first strand of DNA of that first organic creature WAS chance, but with the massive time scales involved it was only a matter of time. So in that sense it was incredibly likely but not inevitable. Say you play the lottery every week of your life, you have better chances of winning that someone who plays once a week. Then say you play the (theoretical) lottery weekly for 4 billion years or so, your chances of winning increase dramatically, but it is still not a sure thing

The simplest known living thing is the microbe mycoplasma genitalium which has a genetic code of about 570,000 base pairs. Granted that maybe earlier forms of life had less, but even the simplest DNA still would need to have a lot of information. You need to have just the right sequence of around 100 amino acids to form just one protein, of which simple cells have more than 100 proteins. You need lipids, Deoxyribose, phosphate groups and organic bases (ACUG in RNA, ACTG in DNA)...cont..

It depends on your view as to how the universe began. If you are sure there is no designer & everything is here purely by natural means then to believe a miracle could happen or something supernatural would be ridiculous. But for the sake of arguement assume that there is a designer who put into place the laws of phyisics, who caused the big bang, who brought life into existence. If he wanted to intervene at times in the universe he made & change something then he would be capable of doing this.

A big 5 Star thanks to AtheistPlanet2 for posting this.

@TheSokwe - Sure, I agree that a designer could be used as an excuse for not knowing. But that doesn't rule out the possibilty of a designer. As for what does a designer in science solve. My view is that science is the quest to know the facts and to know the truth. Science should be looking for the truth, whether that turns out to be that the universe was designed, or was not designed, it shouldn't matter. It should seek to uncover what really happened and why things are as they are.

As is evident here in this show, and in so many other parts of the world... religious text is now only partially beleived in, evolution has a strong hold in many religious views, and sciences are largely respected in place of religion in healthcare and answers to most questions put forth. Religion is being relegated, too fast for some and too slowly for others, but it is losing face and respect and it is only a matter of time before it goes the way of every other god man has beleived in...

@TheSokwe "Why would the universe need to be around 13 billion years old and exist for a lot more". Yes, I see what you are asking and I can't really give a good answer, but I guess in a universe governed by time, it must be some finite age. Why the age it is? Equally, why not? It must be some age. But also, if there is a being who existed "before" time, who actually created time, then time is meaningless for that being. What seems like a huge amount of "wasted" time for us is nothing.

@TheSokwe - Crystals are really molecules bonding together in a continuous reaction. The crystal isn't replicating itself. I cell literally has the instructions inside it's DNA to make a duplicate copy of itself. Anyway, you say that you would rather examine all the data and make your own conclusions and I completely agree and respect your view. I too wish to do the same thing. I certainly don't want to believe a lie. Thanks for the civil and honest discussion.

pause at 2:38 the stare lmao

Dawkins is great

@ThunderGodFlash - Peoples "definitions" of God doesn't really matter. My point is simply that seeing we don't know how the universe came into existence then to outright dimiss the possibiltity that an intelligent being caused it is not something science can honestly do.

@dietermauer - I have not said anything about the specific characteristics of a designer. A "Gigantic invisible bee" is just a ridiculous example of something that you have made up. Why a giant bee? It is something that is familiar and would have specific physical characteristics. Just because no one would believe that a giant invisible bee created the universe doesn't mean that it automatically follows that no type of designer can exist.

My point there is from a design view it just makes no sense, if a designer can create something as elaborate as a chaotic universe that comes to something eventually and decay's short after. Then that same designer could just make a simple purposeful universe. The only way i see this working, is a intelligence doing experiments based on what he thinks might work. And at one of his experiments exceeding in what he's trying to accomplish, even if it is for a short period of time.

2:38 LMAO

@stefanmalinowksy6603

3 жыл бұрын

Her face kills me

Just think about probabilities. The chances of dealing 52 cards in a particular order are 8.065817517 x 10^67 You could have 1Billion people, each with a separate deck of cards, dealing out 52 cards, and repeating this 1Billion times everyday, and doing this for 1Billion years and the chances of one of these people getting a particular sequence of 52 cards you want would still be 2.2 x10^38.. More than one in a trillion, trillion, trillion....cont...

Like a true smart man, never get into a debate that you know nothing about because you're going to make a fool out of yourself. Only Richard Dawkins knows that.

@TheSokwe - It could be my calculation is also used in creationist propaganda, but I can assure you that I worked this out for myself. I was challenged by someone to consider the chances for amino acids coming together in just the right way to form a protein. His argument was it was like dealing out 52 cards and needing to get them in a specific sequence. It is very unlikely, but over billions of years if you do it enough times it will eventually happen. So I worked out the probabilities..cont..

Everyone has a soul, an r-soul that is.

@bullwhipjesus Damn! Great comment! Actually one of the best anti-afterlife arguments I've heard and yet so simple! Thanks!

of what he suggested and discovered that 1Billion people doing this 1Billion times a day for a Billion years would still have almost no chance of this happening. Less the 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillion. To form a protein you need some 100 amino acids in the right sequence. A cell needs many proteins. My point is just that if you examine the probability I don't think it is at all likely this will eventually happen.

I rather liked this debate. It of course goes without saying that most of the politicians were complete morons, but they're actually substantially more intelligent than their neanderthal cousins in America. I laud Dawkins for his incisiveness and "stridence", and also the rabbi for being a dear.

@shteve77 Indeed i agree with you, at our current development in time we cannot explain everything fully. But seeing how logically unlikely the idea of a intelligent being controlling the universe is, i don't see a reason to keep that option open. Its like you look outside and see the rain, but because you don't interact with it directly, you make the statement it could be dry and sunny outside.

What was the point of having an audience to ask questions, when it seemed like he asked most questions read from off the web? Many people had their hands raised but only few got a chance to ask and most questions were apparently off the web...

God and Spider-man are my favorite fictional characters.

@TheSokwe - Can you rephrase your question? I think you are asking that if I believe in a personal God how does that fit with the rest of science?? I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? What do you mean by the "rest of science" or maybe you can give an example? Thanks

@TheSokwe - But on what do you base your claim that an intelligent being is "logically unlikely"? And how do you quantify how "unlikely" it is, and at what point do you decide that something "unlikely enough" to be dismissed? I'm just saying that until science can explain how the universe came into existence, (which it can't at the moment) then surely science must at least consider the possibility of an intelligent designer.

@TheSokwe Yeah I love that part, he created absolutely everything in 6 days and then he was completely worn out. Anyway, none of that matters anymore. Religion is on its way down, the enlightenment and reason is on the rise. It will continue to do so until either religious leaders and followers destroy the planet with the combo of WMD and apocalyptic prophecy `s, or secular humanists manage to suppress this madness and rationality and cooperation can be the leading consensus.

So the fact that we, by the process of careless natural selection, live on the only planet, which is 14.4-6 bn y.o, that can support life on some of its surfaces some of the time in an expanding universe full of dying and collapsing stars and planets causing the Andromeda galaxy to come our way to crash into us shortly after our star dies killing any possibility for life in some way supports the belief in a almighty God that hears our thoughts and constantly watches us? Too--many-questions.

I want to ask you something more personal, i think you made yourself clear in your desire for science to be open to a "designer". But in daily life, do you "believe" in a personal god? A being you can talk to and who listens? A being who can influence the natural world? And if so, how does it fit in with the rest of science? Also i want to apologize for making the "creationist propaganda" connection to your own calculations.

@ThunderGodFlash - You say science is open to any answer, but by definition, an athiest has allready ruled out one possible answer. I guess my point is just that I don't understand how someone can say (about the origins of the universe), that we simply don't know, but we do know that it wasn't caused by a designer.

Damn my bad man, sorry! That was meant to tear the very essence out of some other dude, all is forgiven? =) Hi5;)

The more I hear about Souls, the less i believe in it... :|

This was a very lopsided panel, unfavourable against Dawkins, but he still mopped the floor with them.

The formation of a cell by chance seems much less likely than dealing out 52 cards. ..... And this could only happen on a planet with just the right conditions, and if a cell did evolve but didnt have the genetic information to reproduce itself it would die, and life would be over. All I am suggesting is that considering the staggering odds, shouldnt science atleast consider the possibility that this happened not by chance but by design. PS, Sorry for such a long reply.

@TheSokwe Your totally right what was I thinking.. There goes my damn rational mind again, always searching for answers when they are already there, in the wonderful book. I love the fact that religious people actually believe that their God, the creator of the universe and everything in it, is an author, and that all the crap in the book is his spoken verbatim word! Why didnt he just invent the internet and put out a podcast and create his own homepage, would have got a lot more views;) hehe

@deconverts "And yes, you can get something from nothing but I think this would take far too much time to explain to you here." You have evidence for this? My question simply was, how is it irrational to believe an intelligent being may have been the cause of the universe, but it's perfectly rational to beleieve that from complete emptiness from, nothing, with no apparent cause, the universe came into existence? It's quite an honest question.

@philthy122 I have a capital-R soul.

@Adavidson100 Have you ever used Windows 95?

whats Richard doin all the way down under?

"I hope this is not it!??" Damn scrubs don't appreciate what we have.

Poor Richard, must be thinking WTF is Tony doing there, what an awesome platform for a show, what a waste on these idiots, lololol. No in fact I have seen many incredible Q & A's, the plateform uses a mixed bunch and to have Julie and Steve on his left was unfortunate but the other lot were not too bad 8). Greatseries, TY

@Adavidson100 - But by what standard do you measure if the universe is perfect? Your assumption is that if humans don't think it is perfect, then it could not have been designed, because we would have designed it "perfectly" As for Occums Razor is a theoretical principal, not a law of physics, and how can we decide what is most probable when we cannot explain how the universe (or God), came to be in existence. On what basis do we decide which is more probable?

Ah but you see, If you are willing to concede that the universe is imperfect, that must makes God incompetent? Which I`m afraid you will find most if not all religious people will disagree with. This is a "being" that is claimed to be omnipotent and omniscient, along with all-loving all at the same time. There is no room for "imperfect" there. This is why I said we need to apply Occums Razor, "do not multiply beyond necessity", or in effect "what is most probable".

@deconverts - I understand where you are coming from. There is no "before" the big bang, as time didn't exist. But equally I could argue, that if a being did exist "before" time&space, by nature that being would be eternal. I am just pointing out that both sides have the same problem. Until science can explain how the universe came into existence I don't believe it can honestly dismiss the posibilty of an intelligent being as the cause. Would you mind sending me a PM with that TED link? Thanks

@magnusjsolberg Try living here.

I would dispute that the universe is a mess from a design point. Look at just some of the physical rules of the universe: Gravitational/Strong nuclear/Electroweak force. Why are these things the way they are? We don't know. But we do know that if some of these things were even slightly different our universe, & life could not exist. These can't be explained by Darwinism. Wouldn't it be prudent to atleast consider the possibility that a designer put these rules in place so that life could exist?

There's no after-life. And no such thing as a soul or any mystical energy of any kind.

We live on the only planet that can support life in the entire observable universe, on some of its surfaces. Most of our planet is uninhabitable. To propose a supernatural designer, i.e. a God, you have to give it responsibility of the dying stars an planets and collapsing galaxies and failing solar systems and engulfing black holes. The Andromeda galaxy is on collision course within 5 billion years, before then our sun will have died and us along with it. Really the result of celestial design?

@TheSokwe - Yes, I don't disagree, but I would despute there is no proof of design. If we look at DNA, the complexity, order & amount of information is staggering. When we see the detailed instructions stored in DNA surely we should atleast consider the possibility that an intelligent being put the instructions there. The odds of this information occuring by chance surely are very, very low.

Every time they go to the girl to the right of the moderator I think... DERP DERP DERP

@thebadger587 - I've never said that beacuse biological evolution can't explain the laws of physics then creation must be true. I am simply saying seeing science cannot explain the origin of the universe then honest science should not dismiss it as a possibility.

@Adavidson100 "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?" We are on the same side bro. Ill just assume its a mis click.

I wonder from your point of view, what does the idea of a designer in science solve? And i even want to go further, it will harm science. Its to easy to use a designer (higher being) as a excuse for not knowing. In your reply to Adavidson100. Why would the universe need to be around 13 billion years old and exist for a lot more? if the purpose was a infinite time, it could have been a million years or a thousand.

The devil incarnate 2:39

@stefanmalinowksy6603

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@carminelupertazzijr3512

3 жыл бұрын

Now there's an image

go dawkins, kicked faithhead backside again. unreasoned cannot defeat reason, truth must prevail and there is no truth without reason, rationality, evidence and knowledge

@Adavidson100 Hehe rip em a new one! I love your Andromeda comment btw. But in some views its probably just satan trying to deceive us. Got to love religion man, they got a answer for everything, doesn't really matter if science has a better (read logical) answer.

@ThunderGodFlash - Yeah, I leave a comment on atheist channel questioning atheism and everyone wants to reply. Funny about that. lol.

@ThunderGodFlash "Scientists don't say the universe came from nothing" So what was there before the big bang? And how did that come into existence? I don't deny the existence of God is a problem. I am saying both have something they cannot explain. Until science can explain how the universe came into existence surely true science should atleast consider the possibility an intelligent being could have been the cause.

@ThunderGodFlash people make your point of 'god' being as justifiable as 'fairies' but this comparison is based on an assumption that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Have you looked at the historical evidence for god? Or fairies for that matter? What about the philosophical justification for an 'uncaused cause' behind all causes? Or don't you think that far back? It's very easy to mock 'God' as a belief in fairies, but don't try to pretend you're being objective about it.

The formation of DNA (self replicating molecules) is NOT chance, its inevitable under the right conditions and with our natural laws. Again Crystals do the same, as some very rare proteins self replicate. I am familiar with your calculation, directly taken from creationist propaganda. And if it was up to chance it might be right, but its NOT chance. If you ask how did the natural laws come in to existence, then you have a valid question, however the answer doesn't require a designer.

why have they invited dawkins? only to ambush him like this? this is so rude.

Yes, sure, I understand you use evolution to explain how life developed from the first cell. But you can't explain how the first cell came to be or how matter came to be. So what I am saying is that both sides have a problem. An athiest must believe that before space/time/matter, somehow, in complete emptiness, with no apparent cause, a huge explosion occurred creating the matter in the universe. How is that more rational than to believe it could have been caused by an intelligent being?

Here's an idea don't bother with politicians on Q & A because all they do is dodge questions. It's like trying to get milk from a bull.

People need to learn that "intelligent" does not mean the same thing as "agrees with me." I don't particularly believe in God, and I disagree with the politics of the Family First senator, and I like Dawkins a lot, but I find the comments on these videos insufferable. Give people who disagree with you a chance or we'll never make progress.

@minestrone3 DKing Richard, being the only rational person there, was more than equipped to handle the fools beside him. The gullible fools didn't have the sense to be embarrassed or the mental faculty to grasp simple logic. But no doubt like you, i was astounded by the infantile responses that they actually thought were deep and meaningful. It was stultifyingly cringing. God B.Less

I thought Australians were more intelligent. Richard Dawkins was the ONLY one (besides maybe the interviewer) that was rationally minded. All those people, and not ONE of them I would trust my kids with to babysit, except for Dawkins. Shame on Australia.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. This is crude propaganda. Regarding your question: please look up quantum fluctuations. there's a great talk by lawrence krauss on youtube - it's an hour long. Search for 'a universe from nothing'.

Rude audience.

Forget the ludicrous creationist on this panel. He's a textbook example of a deluded person in the psychiatric sense--no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince him. What I find so lame about the believers in this panel is their charge of disrespect and ridicule in the face of Dawkins' unassailable critique. Apparently, once they can't rebut or can no longer deny the evidence against their beliefs they whip out the "you are mocking my belief" card. Pathetic.