17:43 - Wishful thinking still explains why humans invented hell. We want justice and if you get away with it in life, you won't in the afterlife. Checkmate, Dinesh!

@leandrotristian8229

2 жыл бұрын

I know im asking the wrong place but does anyone know a tool to get back into an Instagram account?? I stupidly lost the account password. I love any assistance you can offer me!

@kylanalexzander2449

2 жыл бұрын

@Leandro Tristian instablaster =)

@leandrotristian8229

2 жыл бұрын

@Kylan Alexzander Thanks for your reply. I found the site thru google and im in the hacking process now. I see it takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.

@leandrotristian8229

2 жыл бұрын

@Kylan Alexzander it worked and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy! Thank you so much, you saved my ass !

@kylanalexzander2449

2 жыл бұрын

@Leandro Tristian you are welcome :D

This debate should be called: "Science refutes Christianity".

Religion and science will never get along. Science looks for truth. Religion tries to cover truth up.

@Cindy-ls3dj

9 жыл бұрын

Mark Edwards Except science is built on proof and facts and things that actually exist in reality, like elements and atoms. The world has been warming up since the last ice age... duh. That's why its not a real topic to real scientists. Global climate change has been happening without humanity for over 4 billion years dumbo. Hot to cold, cold to hot. It will do the same with or without humanity. Just one volcano blowing up, like Pompeii, spits out more global pollutants in a few days than humanity can in thousands of years. Let's just stick with reality and go from there. Wishful fantasy land and ancient ignorant cult books talking about superstitions and invisible demons isn't a higher anything and helps nothing.

@AlienAirMusic

9 жыл бұрын

Cindy Bet you got an 'A" from the crackpot Marxist academic who held a failing grade over your head, but both of you lack common sense, along with civility.

Far too many times did both sides ignore the actual topic of the debate. Regardless of anyone's religious or secular stance, they should agree that science refutes (the idea of) god. Science is evidence based. Theism is faith based. (lack of evidence) They are fundamentally incompatible. It was fantastic to hear the debate about morality and such but it was all digression. Dinesh D'Souza was miserably arrogant during this entire debate. Quite literally placing theists on an intellectual mountain peak above everyone else simply because of their faith. That is arrogant and closed-minded thinking. The "theists are morally smarter and superior because they are theists" argument is an insulting one. No one can claim to have such fantastic knowledge of the origin of the Universe. It bothers me when theists of any religion say, "I know that... etc." No, you do not know. There is no possible way you could know. You only THINK, you only BELIEVE or FEEL a certain way. Scientists use words like "may" and "could" because they are honest (as Krauss said.) Krauss and Shermer both had the courage and humbleness to admit they could be wrong. The opposition did not.

@donn333

10 жыл бұрын

Well said, I agree fully with you.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

@loganbrown3565

Ай бұрын

The thing is, evidence for creation life itself.

Any legitimate rational debate must begin with defining the terms or words of the thesis that is being debated. Krauss correctly begins by defining "refute". His opponents don't agree or disagree with Krauss's proposed definition and make arguments that don't address the thesis Science refutes God. Whereas Shermer in his opening talk reiterates the criteria for deciding whether science refutes God is what is "likely." D'Souza doesn't even know the thesis he thinks he is debating. He begins by stating that science can't answer Why questions such as what is the first beginning point, what is our purpose and what happens after we die, all of which have nothing to do with the thesis being debated. "Why" are deterministic questions which mean what results are produced by which causes and conditions. The questions D'Souza asks are not "Why" questions but are at present speculative views that science may or may not be able to answer in the future. I suspect this may be partially why Krauss began by distinguishing between "disproving" and "refuting" and was careful to define refute as he did and discusses the meaning of "Why" in his closing argument. That D'Souza and his supporters won't even notice this or quite possibly even understand the criteria for a rational debate using logic and reasoning supports the thesis that religious people are less intelligent than atheists, which has also been shown in IQ tests. If you blindly believe in a book that continually contradicts itself and you lack the minimal intelligence to recognize this then you are easily manipulated because you do not distinguish between opinion, facts and lies when they oppose your religious view, or possibly don't even know what those words mean. So the thesis being debated behind Does science refute God? may be Does believing in God make you more stupid?, with stupid being defined in the context of this debate as not able to distinguish between what are or are not deterministic or "Why" questions.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

if god implanted values in humans, why did he need to remind us of the ten commandments.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

@skepticus123

8 ай бұрын

@@afsar_gunner5271The fact he is short is an irrelevant ad hominem (Fermi, Einstein, Pauli were all short), and 93% of scientists in the American National Academy of Sciences have no religious belief.

That Shermer guy's sleeves are just ridiculous. I can't concentrate on the debate showing that much sleeve should be akin to public indecency.

These debates should be longer, though; the talking in the middle especially is so f*cking gooooooooooood

I encourage someone to re-post this debate with Dinesh's remarks removed. In all the debates I have seen, and in all the editorials I have read, he has never offered an original thought or a well-reasoned argument. He is a snake oil salesman, not a legitimate academician, and certainly not an intellectual.

@AlienAirMusic

8 жыл бұрын

Noam Chomsky Appropriate screen name for an intolerant secularist who demands censorship on anyone daring to disagree with his indoctrination

@noamchomsky1040

8 жыл бұрын

Made a demand, did I? Of censorship? Read it again. Perhaps you should turn that laser beam of criticism inward. "Daring to disagree," I think psychologists call that "projecting."

@AlienAirMusic

8 жыл бұрын

+Noam Chomsky ...Dime store psychology on your part; try reading your own comment. As to Chomsky, your Marxist idol, he's a bigoted hypocrite, just like the pseudo-science mindset of secular crackpots you're carrying water for.

@noamchomsky1040

8 жыл бұрын

@Pat How unbelievably judgmental you are! You know nothing about be, but you judge: the MIT professor to be Marxist, judge me to idolize him, judge what you don't understand as "pseudo science," judge me as "secular" (actually you guessed right on that, for once), and use the ad hominem pejorative "crackpot." You probably don't know what that means. So, buy a thesaurus, and if you don't know what a thesaurus is, buy a dictionary, and work your way forwards.

@AlienAirMusic

8 жыл бұрын

+Noam Chomsky Speaking of being 'judgmental', you're pithy rant reflects that, along with the defensive reaction typical for those indoctrinated with extremist views. I correctly pegged you as a secularist because you're buying into a mindset which denies the murderous and tyrannical results of secular governments. This is inevitably followed by ad hominem attacks (snide insults) against people of faith, especially Christians; few secularists ever confront Muslims because they're cowards. Marxism and its bastard offshoots are the love of secularists. I don't need need a dictionary, but you need to read history books to understand Marxism's disastrous results. Same goes for repackaged and sugar-coated versions like socialism and progressivism. But if you want to wallow in your anti-God thing and lame attempts to disprove any deistic existence, that's your choice. A few facts about Chomsky. He is and always was a fraud. To this day he draws his fat retirement checks from the Pentagon, while having publicly trashed the U.S. Defense Dept. for decades He loves forced busing, except he moved to the only county in Massachusetts that didn't have it so his own daughter didn't have to go to school with Blacks. He hates wealth being passed on to family heirs and thinks government should confiscate all assets upon death, but he set up an offshore trust for his daughterso she can gain his millions, tax-free. In a 1970 speech, Chomsky praised North Vietnam as 'workers' paradise' ... just after he bought a $1.4 million ocean view estate in Cape Cod. He's an unabashed hater of the free market, but his website demands royalties and prohibits use of his speeches without payment that include threats of severe legal action against violators.

“If God exists, I hope he has a good excuse.” ― Woody Allen

Trying to stand on Dinesh's arguments is like trying to ride a hover board"Hmm,looks solid enough" whoooop,bang!

The thing that I dislike about religious people debating is that they never make an argument that is ON POINT but they always tend to be biased and have to prove that it is their God that is true. I don't understand why they cannot just try to make arguments for God from a Deistic standpoint.

When I was young, knowing and understanding less, I believed in the god I was told to believe in. I've since grown up.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

@skepticus123

8 ай бұрын

@@afsar_gunner5271 The fact he is short is an irrelevant ad hominem (Fermi, Einstein, Pauli were all short), and 93% of scientists in the American National Academy of Sciences have no religious belief.

Not to knock the Christians, but I feel like this debate could've been pulled off better had they brought agnostics/deistic scientists going up against the atheistic ones on this topic.

@grantkohler7612

9 жыл бұрын

I would have preferred non-judaic ( += christian/muslim) speakers to argue that science does not refute the existence of god(s)/spiritual matters. I don't think it does.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

Thank you so much for this debate. I had my 8 and 9 year watch it as much as they could stand, for the following reasons despite being a topic that people get very passionate about, it remained intelligent, civil and on message. Well done, very well done.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

This was covered by Lawrence from the start. That's the only argument left, rationally at least, by theologians. The problem he pointed out is that there isn't a need for a super natural cause for any of this. It works independently. If there is no evidence to support this super natural being that we cannot understand then you simply have to ask yourself: What is more likely?

How's that "campaign finance fraud" trial working out for you Dinesh???

@angetpanget

3 жыл бұрын

That's right-wing self-righteousness corelating with corruption for all of us to see. 🤣 Sorry Dsouza. I like Mr. Bean better.

Three great minds and one intellectually challenged charlatan fighting out of his weight class.

@godalmighty7106

9 жыл бұрын

Yes, poor Dinesh; and his credibility is now utterly gone: he's pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws, and an article he wrote about Obama has been verified to contain an out-of-context quote from Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father," in order to make Obama look like an angry black man ready to do damage to whites, when the full context conveyed just the opposite meaning. That, and the fact that he cheated on and then dumped his wife of 20 years for a 26-year-old girlfriend, and then got kicked-off as Prez of the tiny but religious Kings College Board of Directors. The "man" is a total hypocritical sleazeball, and therefore the perfect spokesperson for the religious right. D'Souza is now the poster child for why religion fails to help make anyone a better person, so why do that?

@joeruf6526

9 жыл бұрын

More like zero great minds and one jester.

@kayem3824

4 жыл бұрын

But he draws people for entertainment.

thanks for the footnote.

1) Everyone is agnostic on this issue. A/Gnosticim speaks to knowledge. No one "knows." 2) A/Theism speaks to belief. You either believe or you don't. 3) Agnosticism is not some middle-ground between belief and disbelief.

I'm sorry but this whole debate is incredibly primitive. Both sides have an infantile understanding of the god concept. When are people going to start understanding that we're all trying to say the same thing, we just argue about the words we use to say it.

Should have been science refutes the need for god. Also Dinesh is suffering from severe cognitive dissonance. I doubt he even hears himself anymore, So much circular logic.... Seems dangerous to the mind to make a legit effort to combine reality and religion, he should seek help.

@JM-zg2jg

8 жыл бұрын

+M Esmail You are operating under an assumption. You are claiming that consciousness is somehow separated, from the observable universe. Unfortunately for you, and any other that would wish to believe this, there simply is no evidence for your claim, and frankly I find it most likely to be a result of hubris.

@IamNeighborlee

8 жыл бұрын

+John Mears Sorry,no,he is intellectually and convincingly, saying, mankinds hubris and arrogance to 'demand' there is no god because science says so, is both incorrect,and laughable, because we can BARELY send a man , to the moon. So much for science to prove the infinite

@JM-zg2jg

8 жыл бұрын

Right, and yet he fails to acknowledge his own hubris and arrogance in proclaiming that there is a god. Only it gets even worse then that, see, he actually claims that his "god" for which he has no actual evidence, is the only god. Science has its strength in making actual discoveries, rather then blindly following the "wisdom" of a bunch of ignorant intolerant warmongering tribesmen. Oh, and i like how you throw the capitalized BARELY in there, as though you could diminish the remarkable accomplishment, made by NASA. Get real, the only thing the big three have ever accomplished, is bigotry, intolerance, social injustice and war. Their charities pale, in comparison to their travesties.

@IamNeighborlee

8 жыл бұрын

John Mears Your denial and arrogant tone is no substitute for proof, from science,that god doesn't , and to arrogantly refer to all religions as 'tribesman' shows you aren't here to debate but throw around insults. I said 'barely', because its true isn't it ? We can barely do those things, so what gives us the wisdom to declare from a position of weak science, that god surely doesn't exist ? Not one person on earth is advanced enough, to even remotely comprehend something that far beyond our current imagining,and that you try to do that, shows your immaturity.

@JM-zg2jg

8 жыл бұрын

Actually I haven't denied the existence of god, nor does this debate cover, whether or not god exists. I posit, that there is no need for god. I do not claim that there is not one, just no evidence of it's existence or need, but I would bet my ass, that if there is, It is nothing like the pathetic tyrants that we imagine for ourselves. Also, do not try to alter my arguments to suit your own, that's just lazy. I said the "big three" , meaning that it is, Muslims, Jews and Christians, that blindly follow the wisdom of ignorant, warmongering, tribesmen.

Why do people insist on giving Dinesh access to microphones?

Whenever I watch these debates I always want to give the other side a chance to be fair to their arguments... then after about 5 mins when it's clear they aren't offering anything new I skip past the white noise.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

@skepticus123

8 ай бұрын

@@afsar_gunner5271 The fact he is short is an irrelevant ad hominem (Fermi, Einstein, Pauli were all short), and 93% of scientists in the American National Academy of Sciences have no religious belief.

Its scarey to think an MIT professor thinks the fundamental laws of nature can be manipulated by a supernatural being who couldnt even tell humanity how to progress but rather kill himself for other peoples sins.

@armanisim7791

8 жыл бұрын

+mk17173n childhood indoctrination is strong my friend.

@pearlgirl6563

8 жыл бұрын

+mk17173n it's more scary that you can post such an unrelated and incoherent comment and it doesn't bother you.

@mk17173n

8 жыл бұрын

+Pearl Girl please explain how its unrelated when its his christian phloosophy that compels him to think this way. Loser

@pearlgirl6563

8 жыл бұрын

mk17173n another baseless comment, are you related? To believe there is a cause makes MORE sense than it's negation, to them look for revelation of that cause and comparing it to reality as we know it..is not 'indoctrination' it's rational. Your arrogance..indoctrination?? maybe!

@mk17173n

8 жыл бұрын

+Pearl Girl causation doesnt imply a singular creator more so than multiple creators. Your religious beliefs are therefore irrelevant because they are baseless and without evidence. Read a science book maybe you will wake up one day.

Science cant refute God because the idea of God keeps changing.

@jTech50

10 жыл бұрын

eh, not so much. science keeps changing, but in a different way. science typically keeps building on itself and compounding information. whereas religion typically either sticks to its founding guns, or gives up on a few issues when they become obviously insane to current people

Dinesh d’Souza, not surprisingly, was dishonest in responding to Krauss’ suggestion that it is often an accident of where a person is born as to which religion they adhere. Dinesh retorted - not true I was born in India (where Christianity is not the major religion). He was raised by Roman Catholic parents and he attended a Jesuit high school. So much for honesty.

the believer side : lallalalaala god, is he on the first page of the argument? no? then lalalala god the atheist side : completely utter sense

"Theist - Nuclear Scientist" gives me the creeps! MIT's reputation went down in my mind as well.

I find this debate so hard to watch. Not just because my beliefs are challenged, but mostly because Dinesh D'Souza spouts illogical, nonsensical, fallacious and facile garbage.

@Djorgal

9 жыл бұрын

"Not just because my beliefs are challenged" That's a very good thing. You should always seek for your belief to be challenged. That's how you make sure your belief are sound and coherent.

I am a devout Catholic and I enjoyed watching this. It didn't change my mind, but it's always interesting to learn of the opposition's reasoning. I don't understand why so many people get angry at the other side of this argument.

@HoJoXo

10 жыл бұрын

You might be interested in the I2 debate about why Catholicism is a negative impact on the world.

@onefodderunit

10 жыл бұрын

Honor, Freedom and life are sacred. Literally nothing's sacred to believers that there is no God. The more Godless the USofA gets, the more conditions deteriorate. Atheists dispirit children as soulless animated meat sacks destined to become nothing someday. Atheism enables suicide.

@onefodderunit

10 жыл бұрын

Christopher Ivey Fanatical Atheist, who murdered a tenth the number of civilians last century, mainly Christian, as Bolshevik Atheists murdered?

@cerebraldreams4738

10 жыл бұрын

***** I do admit that between Italy, Spain, Greece, Syria, Israel, Egypt, and Libya, the Mediterranean region has most definitely seen some better years - look a bit further north to England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, things are going pretty well. Socialist policies in Europe are working everywhere except the Mediterranean. Right now the Mediterranean just... they have seen better years.

@onefodderunit

10 жыл бұрын

Christopher Ivey During the 20th century, who murdered a tenth as many civilians as Bolshevik Atheists murdered?

I think they missed the point of the debate. They focused on the christian interpretation of god. If I was arguing against this motion, I'd argue, forget all the beliefs of religions and their views about god ( creationism,afterlife etc) and focus on the notion that their may be a force out there that we don't understand, what various cultures interpret as "god" who may use the laws of nature and physics as his method of creation. Not some old guy in the sky but a force we do not understand yet.

the debate should be renamed Science refutes Christian God

science doesn't absolve us of purpose - it just gives us the knowledge that the purpose is ours to command

I am impressed by the format of these debates. The involvement of the moderator adds a dimension that is missing in many debates without devolving into a free-for-all.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

Not that it is a damning thing, but at 33:00 or so, ALL of the Occams razor violations. Essentially, Dinesh and Ian both said "while science *might* explain those things (morals etc) we believe that God is directing it." WHY? If science can account for it, why add the unnecessary entity?

Is causing pain to a dog something you shouldn't do based on biblical morality? Thou shalt not cause pain to animals? I must have missed that one.

Have you seen Dawkins' lecture on YT "The purpose of purpose" ? Very interesting.

What were the two things you banged your head about?

So did Dinesh just basically say we should accept science if it supports god and dismiss it if it doesn't?

Look, you guys should definetely change the title to "Debate" in the beginning. This debate (aswell as all of the other ones that you have) is excellent and it has 42k views!! Look at other debates like this; they are very popular because People want to see it; however finding this one was pretty hard...

If God can be said to work through evolution, why could It not be said to work through all science? It could be thought that revelations are now made to scientists through their discoveries in the lab. Science is now the leading force of moral progress.

The moderator is soo f*cking good, best one I have ever seen in any debate.

The scary thing is that its only 50%. If it was a tough issue where there's good arguments on both sides or a lot of undetermined grey spots then 50% would be good but its on a subject that's plainly obvious as this and we only get 50%. Its like arguing that leprechauns don't exist and only getting 50% of the people to agree with you and that is scary. I mean, you don't have to make a good argument and most people should still agree with you that they don't exist just from their own rationality but apparently not.

@AQGOAT24

9 жыл бұрын

People are really tied towards their religious beliefs.

I honestly came to watch this debate with an open mind, but I just came away thinking that all that the Christians had to offer was a god of the gaps concerning emotive subjects that we don't yet fully understand (i.e. morality, life after death and the origin of the universe). These all (admittedly) *may* have some kind of involvement by an agency transcending the known universe (I can't prove they don't) but the Christians had the onus on them to show why this was necessary and not to just assume (via Ockham's razor) that a simpler, natural explanation was more likely. They completely failed to do so, IMHO. I was also annoyed that they were presuming the subject of the debate was the Christian god and not any other agency such as Brahman, Allah, Zeus or The Force.

My phone needs a delete Dinesh button.

@johnv5527

2 жыл бұрын

Personally, I like to study these kind of individuals more... to understand the mixture of practical, studied yet dishonest, disingenuous, prejudiced ideas that they put into words - that reflect the unspoken worldviews of many more.

"what would change your minds" it's such a cliche question.

"matter is not able to make itself programmable" evidence please.

sound of crickets at 40:41

Good debate.

Is this debate edited? It feeld like the speeches are cut t shorten the episode, editing pauses. It feels disoriented and unnatural :/

I absolutely love that Children are present for this debate. Giving them the option to see both arguments and think for themselves, that is the most important thing to give a child. Thought, not Dogma.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

Are they really debating about this? the group that defends what they belief against the group that defends another belief. If you watch this whole video you can actually see how childish it is to hold your belief against others. People should respect each other and understand there is no right side

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

Holy jesus just AMAZING. "Lets go one god further" and "god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself" maaan you just did it jaja

@fiveSolas879

3 жыл бұрын

Wrong try again

owned by logic and science once again. How many times do us Atheists need to win these debates before the world realizes their is no reason to believe in any religion or any dogmatic God?

I'm atheist and I say both sides made great arguments.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

Damn, this debate is too short.

The scientific method (e.g. sense perception) is one way to investigate truth. There are also logic, reason, insight, intuition and inspiration. All are fallible. But, when they all agree on a "truth," it probably is true. - Abdul-Baha, Baha'i Concept

3:36 "Science doesn't disprove God, science refutes God." Merriam-Webster's Refute 1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous 2: to deny the truth or accuracy of

@HiFugly

5 жыл бұрын

According to a quick Google search, the second definition of "refute" is to disagree with, while to disprove is to objectively prove that something is false.

when i saw this posted on Feb 1, i saw this is like a new debate...but it's just a re-post of the old one :(

Danish does really more harm than good. Which doesn't really surprise me, but does make me happy.

Just curious... Why was god created?

IT is top-down versus bottom-up might makes right vs. right makes might

It never ceases to amaze me how some scientist have no problem with the proposition, and discussion, of worm holes, warp drive, higher dimensions, multiverses; all of which there is no evidence to support the existence of but if you bring God, and an afterlife, into the discussion, then they have a fit, demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

I'm about to find time to get completely through the debate. Did they use the analogy the if atheism is a religion then abstinence is a sex position.

Yeah you can pretty much skip Dinesh's parts.

Just tell me what your point is...

So what about simulation theory?

God is a mysterious multidimensional being made of incomprehensible working parts... What sort of designer built the designer? And how far down the rabbit hole does this go? Infinitely? Are there an infinite number of Gods increasingly more powerful than the ones they create? Perhaps the God that made us has doubts about an even more supreme being that created "him" (Although technically, to us God is an "it").

science says "don't have a clue, don't have a clue, don't have a clue", and religion says let me guess, this happen because I think so and I feel it in my heart! sadly a majority of the people in the world thinks this way! Disgusting!

I should have said "its method of creation" not "his", apologies.

It seems one of religions' primary questions is "why are we here?" and the other one "what happens after we die?". I find it interesting because humans have evolved to a stage where they think that there somehow needs to be a greater reason (philosophical) for our existence. That we cannot just exist without any deep or profound meaning. And then the follow-up is always: "Then what is the point in living if there is nothing beyond the veil?". And that's it! You can LIVE, your OWN life.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

Everybody's right!

....let me try again. 1)We forget 2)We want to forget....generally

Yes!

one doesn't look at a sprocket(for example) and merely deduce that it was just a random splat of art or just came out of the factory that way for no reason.

I don't believe Science refutes Spirituality. Religious Dogma often refutes itself, but that's not a matter of science.Various aspects of religious events can be tested with our current understandings of archaeology, which can determine a likelihood of such individual issues to be true as well as how much of that "Big Fish Story" of any given religion or myth is true.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

1:14 we have four superbly qualified master debaters

I like the "God is mostly not a scientific question." quote the best. Science is the measurement and understanding of the universe of real things. Finally, something I can agree with a Christian about! Imaginary things have no place in science!

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

Shermer makes an excellent point starting at 49:40 about the "bubble" the christian world bubble - but it can the bubble of any religion...

@thesprawl2361

9 жыл бұрын

Mark Edwards My, my, you are prickly.

Dr Ehrman @ 2:23

I agree. It's quite egocentric to assume we should have any other purpose than that which we allocate ourselves throughout life.

32:17...Andie MacDowell??

I think that the fact that Ian Huntchinson assumes Newton was Christian is foolish. His thoughts led into what we call Deism. To me, debates between theism and atheism should be between a Deist (The only God that would really make sense) and an Atheist. All other organized religions are foolish and idiotic.

No plausible scientific assumption can refute God as an alternative theory of cosmology; an atheist believes there is no God, a theologist believes there is a God... However, both can't refute the other with the scientific method, and both believe in a theory they care to prove one day; whilst paradoxically, an a-gnostic does not refute God, and can't scientifically do so, while he can claim his belief is the most modern scientifically aligned perspective.

The statement "science refutes God" does not only require the definition of the term "refute" (as per Lawrence Krause). It is shorthand for a statement something like "science refutes the claim that God exists". It is the claim that is being refuted, not God himself/itself. We do have a bunch of stuff that describes what we could mean when we use the word "God", such as an entity that has the ability and power to instantaneously create and destroy universes, to suspend their natural laws, to have thoughts without needing a mechanism for doing so and to communicate instantly across the vastness of space with any creature capable of receiving such communication, to name a few properties. But what we have not defined is what we mean when we say something exists. What conditions does something have to meet to fulfil the requirements of such a claim? Normally, we would require that such a something is detectable, that it has a definable unambiguous impact on something else, and that it can be convincingly determined to at least be continuously extant from some beginning observation moment to some later observation moment. I am sure that we could determine other properties that an object or phenomenon would normally need to exhibit to satisfy the claim that it exists. AJ Ayer did some excellent thinking around this idea. When it comes to the concept of God, what properties could he/it be defined as possessing that would serve as demonstrable indicators that he/it does in fact exist? He is defined as being undetectable, as adding nothing to a given scientific explanation, as occurring outside of time. None of these can be offered as such indicators. Indeed, logically, they would suggest he/it is defined as not existing. The assertion that "science refutes (the existence of) God" is in fact the assertion that no such properties can be determined. He/it "exists" purely via the belief of those with faith. I wonder, if an isolated population were to develop which had no concept of God whatsoever, only science based knowledge, for example one which grew in a spaceship on the way to populate some distant planet with no experience of life on earth, would they independently come up with the idea of a God? May I suggest they wouldn't.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

41:31 - He didn't mention the Bible either, Dinesh. Way to answer a different question than the one posed.

I am surprised they are even having a debate on this topic. Science requires something to test..since God is supposedly outside the realm of space&time, the debate is silly...

Indeed I agree, but I think Knob Twiddling Gods are more supportable than other arguments for a deities existence if a debate is to be had about them.

I love how when religious people want to make fun of atheism, they call it 'a religion'

That's an insightful question indeed. I think that the desire to understand how everything started (generally speaking) both Secular and Non-Secular; implies what role does our planet play in the grand scheme of the universe. Just knowing what our position is in the game of the universe means something to us, even if it is small.

@afsar_gunner5271

Жыл бұрын

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

As much as I paradoxically believe that “Merry Christmas” is really merry, but likewise resonate upon the argument of “seasonal greetings”, as it ‘convert’ and generally refurbish to a merry social celebration rather than a religious one!!! As much as I also believe and campaign the importance of personal convictions and the right of every individual to believe in what he wants to believe and practice what cares to practice -as long as he doesn’t hurt the other members of his community-… Yet, as communities gain a momentum of herd moralities; are atheist gaining or losing ground like Muslims?? Is it only a minority problem, or do minorities also cause a problem with ‘pressuring herds’? Deliberating, I also believe a lot of atheists -and other minorities- are seeing the picture from the specifics of the ‘flawing’ inconsistencies, even when they paradoxically prohibit to an atheist disposition… Grateful to the debates they can invigorate our rational assessment with, but also obliged with my stand in this debate, I wrote this digest hoping it will help us reach a better understanding of each other’s existence, if not a profounder understanding of our ‘being’; jmp.sh/M3JMdnB * *This is kindof like my second edition; I look forward to receiving any comment or a further debate premise… point of view or furthermore, a correction…

25:07 Serious question 27:43 Determinism

No, because bleach reacting is not an example of a directed working mechanism. How can you not see the difference? Nothing about the universe is able to sequence any directed working mechanisms of any kind. No physical thing is able to account for the sequenced directed mechanisms that we see in life forms. Bleach doesn't make any sequenced anything without a maker doing tie dye.

I _smell_ it that way too, but, I don't think 'it' was responsible for the beginning of all time, maybe just an architect of planets. 'I won an award for my fjords' - Slartibartfast

Dinesh has a few standard 'arguments' that that so childish that Krauss and Sherman just don't bother reacting to. One of which is the 'Tea Making' story. D'Souza doesn't realise that, yes, a Physicist will tell you all about the physics going on, but bring in a Psychologist (who is as much a science practitioner) and he will tell you that not only is d'souza probably trying to make tea, but also that he is an idiot to try to use this as an example of religion explaining something science cant.

A bit frustrating debate. The theist duo placed their arguments on a broader idea of god to make the argumentation easier so later they can validate their christian god by forced syllogism ("You can't prove god doesn't exist therefore he exists AND he's the christian god.") I mean, in that context even I am a bit open to the idea that some super-advanced being banged the big bang (after all we got new theories considering the existence of multiverses right?) But by no means by a christian god. That one's bollocks.

@Djorgal

9 жыл бұрын

Yes, Pr Krauss actually clarified it. He tried to suppose a desistic God, the most charitable assumption to the other side.

Ohh that's good, I may steal that.

They missed the main philosophical argument in concerns to the refutation of either God (supernatural intelligent being) or the refutation of an abstract contemporary science as a comprehensive means of understanding reality entirely in natural terms (not involving a God or gods, spirits, or other supernatural forces); and that is the cosmological argument. {Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.}

Dinesh says science can't tell us our purpose. Do we have to have a purpose? There are many things that have no purpose, they just are.