Even if science never does explain the origins of the universe, it doesn't mean whatever idea some random person came up with has to be correct.

@beinghimself

3 ай бұрын

Except when it’s a theory approved by every single information we have, being way more true than most of our knowledge

@lVideoWatcherl

3 ай бұрын

@@beinghimself Which there is none currently. There is no *theory* about the origin of the universe. There are hypotheses, and for none of those there is currently enough evidence to be certain about one specific one concretely. And I sincerely hope you didn't try to imply that any one specific religion has an actually respectable, well-founded and robust theory about the origin of the universe. Because that is laughably ridiculous.

@miguelbarahona6636

3 ай бұрын

Even if that idea comes from Dawkins. I agree with you.

@colrxd

3 ай бұрын

Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior✝ Romans 10:9-12

@jovazquez6102

3 ай бұрын

⁠@@beinghimselfIt's easy to believe that god created the universe via the big bang. That doesn't make it true though. I wouldn't be surprised if we understand the origin of the universe by the end of the century

Any god worth believing in would forgive us for not believing in him.

@guaporeturns9472

3 ай бұрын

Nailed it

@SageVaughn

3 ай бұрын

Especially when said God never reveals himself in any indisputable way.

@jonatasmachado7217

3 ай бұрын

The evidence for God"s existence is beyond reasoable doubt

@daftgowk1

3 ай бұрын

​@@jonatasmachado7217Nobody truly believes in a god though. Blind faith can't be "belief". Belief should have a basis in fact, otherwise it's opinion at best. I despair at that word being hijacked to give credibility to kidding yourself and conning others.

@cyberflightfpv4184

3 ай бұрын

Exactly! Once i realized i was more kind and forgiving than the Christian god is when i realized even if the Christian god were real, it wouldn’t be worthy of worshipping. The abrahamic god is an evil and depraved entity.

These are arguably the most important minutes of the podcast.

I know that this is totally off topic, BUT- my first thought after clicking this video: wine glasses with water in it, how British of them to be THAT fancy. 😂

@anarchords1905

3 ай бұрын

Indeed. As we speak, I am myself, drinking whisky from a china teacup, with my pinky finger sticking out. Why? Because I AM a fancy boy.😊

Alex has a very good point about the category error. This is well illustrated by cosmological models with an actual beginning, where the universe pops into existence virtually from nothing. Such as in Alexandre Vilenkin's work, where our universe resulted from the quantum tunneling from an universe of size zero, which is a possible definition of "nothing". But Vilenkin acknowledges that his model requires the pre-existence of the laws of quantum mechanics. I frankly do not know any physicist who has any serious proposal for explaining the laws of physics themselves. Sometimes people throw the idea of the multiverse: inflation models tend to produce an infinity of bubble universe completely separated from each others, and if one then adds superstrings, each of those universes could have wildly different alternatives to the Standard Model of particle physics that rules our universe. But this does simply move the question one step further: where would superstring theory come from? And where would the quantum fields driving cosmic inflation come from? Nobody has even remotely an answer to such questions.

@ShuggieEdvaldson

3 ай бұрын

Au contraire, mon ami, some of us are currently in the priviliged position of being able to answer these questions not only accurately, but also, with some degree of certainty ; "In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the word was God." - John 1:1 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." - John 1:3 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." - Rev 22:13 Jesus is Lord!

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

​@@ShuggieEdvaldson Lmao I thought this was a satire comment until you actually started quoting scripture. Like yeah, of course theists think they can answer the question. And they'll keep swearing their God did it until science comes up with an actual answer, in which case they'll do what they've been doing for centuries. Kick the answer one more rung up the ladder. "Ah, but who do you think made [thing that made the universe], hmmm??? That thing MUST have had an origin, because all things have origins (except for my God, obviously)."

@MrBsehratmaannking

3 ай бұрын

​​@@JD-wu5pfthat's technically already what they're doing. They don't have to wait for the answer to the origin of the universe to say that. The whole idea is that no matter how much up the chain you go, they believe that whatever you find at the end of that chain must be an existence and an existence with a will and ultimate power. They cannot comprehend that the chain can start with nothing , or that it's a loop. And that's a good argument imo. It's why I'm just agnostic to it all.. it can be either way we won't know Edit: or at least my instinct says we won't ever know.. I won't rule out that we can know. Just feels more unlikely than likely to me

@lucbourhis3142

3 ай бұрын

@@ShuggieEdvaldson 1. You confuse knowledge and belief. 2. Why do you believe in the Christian creation myth and not in one of the thousand other creation myths that some people have believed in at one point or another throughout human History? 3. In physics, the word is mathematics. Where in the Bible can I find the postulates and equations of quantum mechanics, general relativity, the Standard Model, etc? In lieu of that, the Bible is indistinguishable from all the other mythological writings of the Bronze Age and Antiquity. Not a good start.

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

@@MrBsehratmaannking It's not a good argument because it's not "oh this chain must have a first link" it's "this chain has a beginning, therefore it MUST have been created by magic". I see no reason as to why the chain needs a creator and couldn't just have always existed.

Science will NOT explain the big questions in life. Not all of them

did anyone realize that Dawkins would rather believe that Hamlet wrote itself than being written by Shakespeare? Or that at least he sees such a thing as a possibility? And that some day we might find the explanation for how the book came into existence? I will give him that that is more likely than the idea that an extremely fine tuned Universe created itself without an author. Amazing how stubborn humans can be in order not to acknowledge the truth.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

Yeah I find when you hear people's thoughts that humanity may be the universe's evolution of self awareness to be able to see itself through photons, they are mostly willing to accept it as a concept but nearly always find it conciliatory at the very least..

@petervonbergen5364

3 ай бұрын

@@DemainIronfalcon weird.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

@@petervonbergen5364 I don't mean to be expecting, but could you expand slightly on your reply. It's a compliment I think more feel now than before as a label, but I'd rather some reasoning 8f I'm worth your time.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

@@petervonbergen5364 I was just agreeing with you in relation to people not being able to except truths. All good.✌️

@petervonbergen5364

3 ай бұрын

@@DemainIronfalcon I did not mean to attack you. I find the reasoning of the atheists very weird. Not yours

Love these two guys. Brilliant! Just brilliant.

@billwalton4571

2 ай бұрын

yet theyre so dumb, evolution is for low IQ people

Dawkins pointed out the key problem about the origin of life, without elaborating: we don't have even remotely enough data about prebiotic Earth to validate any model we could come with. Plate tectonics and life itself destroyed the evidence we would need. So at best, we can build a plausibility argument. Of course, I am ignoring the possibility that we find life elsewhere in our solar system. This is a possibility in the foreseeable future. Beyond our solar system, no chance.

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

All you need is a plausible naturalistic explanation. A very rare natural explanation is infinitely more likely than a supernatural explanation.

@lucbourhis3142

3 ай бұрын

Sure but the scientific standard is lower than for evolution then. Dawkins understand that and researchers too: the field of abiogenesis is small. However it will surely open the possibility of creating artificial life, which is huge!

@jaywoodside0731

3 ай бұрын

​@@JD-wu5pf with both of those concepts being impossible to validate isn't your statement just an opinion? I understand leaning either way but both are faith based imo. To believe your hypothesis as fact without evidence leaves you in the realm of faith, not a supernatural faith but faith nevertheless.

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

@@jaywoodside0731 No. Neither of my statements were opinions. The supernatural has never been proven, so using it as an explanation for something is wildly irresponsible. We've seen unlikely natural events occur before. We've never seen a supernatural event occur before.

@jaywoodside0731

3 ай бұрын

@@JD-wu5pf so what would this plausible naturalistic explanation be out of curiosity?

Having watched the full video these topic-specific segments are very helpful revision.

@colrxd

3 ай бұрын

Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior✝ Romans 10:9-12

@dududadadede96

2 ай бұрын

@@colrxdyoure in the wrong video for this. Let the grown ups do the talking please.

Disagree. Consciousness is inherently outside of the realm of empiricism. Note that by consciousness I'm referring to the existence of subjective experience, not to "self-aware thinking about existence" which can indeed be reduced to neural computations. But subjective experience, by definition, cannot be examined objectively and never will be. Nor can we deny its existence (it's the only thing we truly know).

@logiboy123

3 ай бұрын

100% well said.

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

"...But subjective experience, by definition, cannot be examined objectively ..." not only by definition, but also by the neuroscientific research. Funny how the fanatics of science never accept those scientifical fact they do not suit them.

@bh_486

3 ай бұрын

Subjective experience is another way of saying what your 'ego' or sense of 'self' translates as meaning. But - - beside the fact that the ego is actually a fiction - - - it does not exist - - in any objective sense - - the ego is actually at the root of all misperceptions in life. Because it never sees anything new. The new is always interpreted using memory, and hence in terms of the past - - - and a new memory is created. The 'self or ego' CAN be viewed objectively - - but this requires the ability to observe without the interference from the past, without using 'knowledge' from the past or analysing using precepts from the past. This is called seeing clearly. And it is this that is the Religious Life.

@bike4aday

3 ай бұрын

@@bh_486 💯

Great conversation. Thanks for sharing.

@colrxd

3 ай бұрын

Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior✝ Romans 10:9-12

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

@@colrxd your a real provactuer hey...

@marles139

3 ай бұрын

​@@colrxdI'm sorry you got brainwashed.

I don’t think science will ever answer every question because we’re no where near knowing everything, nor would it be possible for us to ever know everything, and just as questions become answered as we learn more, we are also left with knew questions as we learn more. This of course does not mean that because science will never have all of the answers that the answer must be that a spirit spoke something into being, it just means that it is impossible to know everything.

@theboombody

3 ай бұрын

Godel's incompleteness theorem already shows we can't know everything in the math universe. And that's just a subset of science.

@Homo_sAPEien

3 ай бұрын

@@theboombody I mean, it’s pretty easy to demonstrate. To know everything you would need to know the position of every single atom in the whole universe at every single time throughout all the billions of years. It’s impossible.

@Synthesia-ef7hj

3 ай бұрын

​@@Homo_sAPEienno that just shows its hard, not impossible

@Homo_sAPEien

3 ай бұрын

@@Synthesia-ef7hj No, because it would take too long. And it’s logically impossible for us to know everything because we are only a small part of all that exists and so to have knowledge of everything would require that our knowledge be more complex than we are. We would need to keep track of everything that happened through our processes of learning everything there is to know and that would in and of itself add more to what we must know to know all and we would therefore also need to keep track of our learning processes in knowing that, etcetera. So the idea that we could know everything is paradoxical and therefore impossible.

Honest question. Dawkins says of the problem of the origin of life, the best we can hope for is a model that is so elegant, it has got to be true....but that's different from hard evidence. Couldn't someone argue for the existence of God from the same grounds? I guess what im getting at is, this line of thinking sounds a lot like how a theist may think about "faith". Someone set me straight. Thanks

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

We're looking for the most likely cause of life, and naturalistic explanations are infinitely more likely than any supernatural explanation.

@pajanightbadger1713

2 ай бұрын

@@JD-wu5pf Likeliness isn't proof though, it's an assumption. A model being elegant isn't proof of anything either. Dawkins is just as bad as those he opposes, just that his books aren't quite as dusty

@JD-wu5pf

2 ай бұрын

@@pajanightbadger1713 No he isn't. Comparing science with religion is low IQ behavior.

@Cosmicpower133

Ай бұрын

I think there are some questions that can never be answered with hard evidence. Origin of life is one of them. You are right when you say that a theist can argue on those grounds. I think the problem occurs when the abrahmic religions have explainations such as god made the world in 7 days or that you must repent or you will go to hell. Eastern religions have a better ‘elegant model’ for the same question. Not criticizing any religion but I think that god and religion are not related to each other and the word ‘god’ is misunderstood by the majority of people because of religion. God isn’t an old man in the clouds. Neither is god a person. God isn’t jesus or anyone else. God is not a diety. God wont punish you if you wont worship him. That are my views

You two are really brilliant and smart its clear to see. Although in this context, you sound more like you're in denial than truthful. Its almost like you're using science to cover the gap to the question of "why?" And casually say its not go there.

@tulpas93

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, some things just don't go with that question. Asking "why" assumes an intent, and not everything happens because someone or something intended it. You CAN ask "why?" about anything, but unless we know for certain the thing was intended, it can sound like "How many gallons of stinky do you need to turn a jazz solo into 11:30pm." It just doesn't make any sense! 😊

Consciousness is the most critical aspect of reality. Matter and energy and the laws that govern them have no more meaning than absolute nothingness, because it is only within consciousness that meaning can develop, as well as perceptions, concepts, reasoning, purpose, and questions of ultimate origins.

Lots of "philosophers" in the comments don't seem to wrap their heads around the theory of evolution. Lack of scientific training is obvious here

@J040PL7

3 ай бұрын

Best way to create the dunning krugger effect in masses is to teach them just enough for them to be dumb in a subject, and letting it play itself out.

@kofidan9128

2 ай бұрын

If you think a good understanding of science displaces God, then you're not only a poor thinker, you're also ignorant. There are many brilliant scientists who are believers in God, including Francis Collins of the human genome project. The idea of Science v God is a stupid one being sold by immature thinkers on faith like Dawkins and being readily consumed by non-thinking creatures such as yourself. God doesn't compete with science any more than Henry Ford competes with the engineering laws that a motor engine runs on. The two complement each other. Dispense with your narrow-mindedness. Set yourself free to attain wisdom.

A false dichotomy or a false dilemma is presented as science "versus" religion and this is just one more aspect of what is Lysenkoism and not actual science. Science becomes an ideology and religion itself when no longer recognized as a tool, so the risk for the scientist there compares with the carpenter who begins to believe the hammer is "god". Science is a tool and only a tool that is useful for gaining knowledge about the material world and all the rest is philosophy and speculation. Science is no more an ideology or religion or a deity for the scientist than is the carpenter's hammer for the carpenter. Science is a tool, and that is all science is. Likewise is the compass for a navigator useful for charting a course, but not useful for answering all mysteries about the universe.

Before figuring out the origin of the laws of physics, I reckon we would need to figure out the origin of the universe because that would entail unveiling new laws we haven't discovered yet: quantum gravity. But I am quite pessimistic about the endeavour. We are almost sure that our early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast expansion, the so-called (cosmic) inflation. A feature of inflation is that it wipes out nearly all the details of the state of the universe before inflation. So we face an observational problem here: it is very difficult to see how we could gather enough data to falsify/validate models of the beginning of the universe.

@CYBERUS212

3 ай бұрын

There are people smarter than you or I. I’m sure people are trying their hardest

@lucbourhis3142

3 ай бұрын

@@CYBERUS212 Sure, they are. But would you bet that smart physicists would find a way to violate the conservation of energy in the future? Very unlikely, right? Just to illustrate we can pass judgement on the likelihood of future progress in physics. Cosmology is of course less certain. But I think we need to face the real possibility that the question of the origin of the universe may lie beyond our abilities.

Why should Dawkins care about the origin of life? He said the universe is meaningless and indifferent to life, and that humans aren't any more special than other animals. In fact, he said that great apes are persons but human babies are not.

As a religious person, I enjoy about every video Alex puts out. Never resorting to a straw man but always trying to give the best version of the theistic arguments he criticizes. I get every time something new to think about my faith. Since this video touched upon the origin of the universe, for anyone interested I made a short overview of the history of the Big Bang theory and the position of the catholic church: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZWaDuamRiKXWfag.htmlfeature=shared

@colinpierre3441

2 ай бұрын

Kinda seems like you're not confident in what you were taught.

@DieEineMieze

3 күн бұрын

​@@colinpierre3441The interesting thing is like you said, taught. The holy book itself doesn't give clear counter arguments, since it itself is not true and you have to go trough many corners to make sense of it. It's either I don't know, I'm not a scholar or my book says xy and therefore it's true. There are the people that think religion can be explained by science which is absolutely wrong and absurd and works in theories and thesis of the work of extraordinary humans and not their holy book. I don't even believe that a child in their wildest imagination would create such a deep fantasy world to live in with their own rules and explanations for everyone and try to sell it to other people as the ultimate truth to anything.

@colinpierre3441

3 күн бұрын

@@DieEineMieze The Bible may seem hard to believe at times, but there is a lot of evidence for it... both archeological and currently observable. The evolution theory however, has almost no proof for it. The difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. Dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to any ancestors before them. They multiplied greatly, then became extinct.

"Look at how elegant, thats got to be it" Thats also how we get religions, so back to square one

@lucasheijdeman2581

3 ай бұрын

Epistemic virtues be like

@troyedwards8100

3 ай бұрын

Yea, didn't expect Dawkins to say something like that.

@colrxd

3 ай бұрын

Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior✝ Romans 10:9-12

@teamcoalhapcharcoal

3 ай бұрын

Also "improbable", like being made by God 👀

@GIGADEV690

3 ай бұрын

With age his cognitive abilities are declining and sad to see this our heroes are getting dumb and old.

Nice conversation, but Dawkins completely missed your point about the category error and the Shakespeare analogy.

@manlikeJoe1010

3 ай бұрын

Of course he did. The man has zero philosophical training. He has been known to say in his books and on camera that "evolution almost certainly answers the question of existence". That's actually something he says🤣🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️. You realize at that point that you're dealing with a man who doesn't understand basic category errors and is therefore not worth taking seriously

I'm an agnostic but the only argument that even slightly convinces me that there might be a creator is the argument of reductionism, and then that leads back to the classic religious argument of 'how do we get something from nothing'? Either we do not understand what 'nothing' is or we cannot comprehend that the universe does not have a definite start point, and so is some sort of enclosed loop that has always existed. The word 'freaky' springs to mind and this is where many religious people insert their creator, even without thinking as deeply about the subject. If we answer that question then religion loses its foundation.

@someonesomeone25

3 ай бұрын

Since there isn't nothing, there always had to be something. Something must have existed without cause, an absurd brute fact. It could be God, or could be a naturalistic state of affairs such a universe or multiverse or quantum vacuum or whatever. There's no much good evidence for brute fact absurd always existing God, so a brute fact absurd always existing state of nature is the only other game in town.

@ethan4680

3 ай бұрын

@@someonesomeone25 just because there is something doesn't mean there couldn't have been what we define nothing as, which is the absence of anything, but I think it's more likely that something has always existed, which is outside of human understanding. I don't think we will ever be able to grasp the concept something without beginning, without creation, and I'm talking beyond the big bang (I think that is just the tip of the ice berg). It becomes as much of a philosophical pursuit as a physical one. Perhaps the universe and whatever physical realm existed proceeding the big bang has always just 'been'.

@someonesomeone25

3 ай бұрын

@@ethan4680 Sure. We can't comprehend it. And that's fine.

@someonesomeone25

3 ай бұрын

@KikiKiki273 Why not? I mean, something had to, right? Something had to be the first thing and that first thing can't have a reason for its existence. It just was/is. It's aburd, because it has no reason for being, and that means reality at bottom is absurd.

@schmetterling4477

3 ай бұрын

How do we get something from nothing? Because of relativity. Please, everybody. LEARN SOME PHYSICS. For heaven's sake. This has been understood since at least 1630!

I have so much respect & 💞 for Richard Dawkins!!

@colrxd

3 ай бұрын

Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior✝ Romans 10:9-12

@AJORichard79

3 ай бұрын

❤ Mr.Dawkins

@arno_groenewald

3 ай бұрын

@@colrxd, they know of nothing better, for they enjoy self impediment through listening how an old man lists of his inabilities, so much is clear in who they place their trust, an aging man with little self dignity. These children who debated Lennox and William Lane Craig and who will talk and debate other academic, but fear the results from what will come from debating Craig, like dear old Richard here, they will not show their limited understanding to all of the academic world. Richard was too preoccupied with ranting about a god he made up in his mind and dubbed it the same Lord of Hosts we serve, he became so preoccupied with debunking his own invention of misconception that he has become at best a questionable yet still vaguely revered academic, but poor in character, due to his behavior. Let them have their idol, brother. People have started to take him less and less serious anyways, like they are doing to all the former new atheist advocates, and he has only himself to thank and give praise to for what has happened to him. In time there will only be one option on the table, and Dawkins will be the first to come to terms with that option, just like those of their group who have passed away. Reality and their individual daily lives will be used by God to reach them, quoting the Bible, that which they never have read nor have the curiosity to, will not work for this group sadly. They will need 5 more years.

@aligoesboomboom

3 ай бұрын

@@colrxd but i follow Buddhism

@FrankieFTW42

3 ай бұрын

@@aligoesboomboom I'm a member of the Church of the Latter-Day-Dude

In the language analogy, language CAN indeed explain the origins of language. Isn't saying "It was a man named Will who shaped this form" an example?

@colrxd

3 ай бұрын

Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior✝ Romans 10:9-12

@DJWESG1

3 ай бұрын

Ergo..

The hamlet analogy is somewhat flawed, because we know hamlet was authored. You'd have to also make an analogy with something you know to have no author. For example a diamond. A diamond has a specific chemical/physical structure, and you could say that it appears designed, but we know it isn't. You'd come to the same conclusion of 'it could have an author because it follows rules'.

@ChiefShaddy

3 ай бұрын

That's the whole point. He's pointing out you don't actually KNOW that the diamond isn't authored.

@Horace__63

3 ай бұрын

Thinking by analogies is not a very good idea imo. First principles are the best way.

As a convinced Christian, I appreciate the humility in this conversation, especially yours, Alex. I find your question about the origin of natural laws, especially insightful. I would venture to say that that sort of question eventually will require a philosophical and not a scientific answer. Even if we could prove that everything within the entire multiverse naturally follows from one meta-law, that law will naturally go without an explanation for its origin. What do you think?

@ririshutabarat6367

3 ай бұрын

We'll find a reason on why those meta laws must be the law for literally everything. And i bet it would not rest on the idea that some magical sky daddy had set it so you should not touch another people's peepee and doesn't work on the 7th day.

@schmetterling4477

3 ай бұрын

All laws of nature derive from physics and all laws of physics derive from relativity. Relativity derives from the fact that space is empty. That's the end of the story. It's as trivial as it can get.

@zynxtronimus8994

2 ай бұрын

​@@schmetterling4477I'm sorry, but did you seriously just say that ALL LAWS OF NATURE? as in literally everything laws of nature within the premises and paradigms of even bio diversity? What about animals, the minimum gene etc, and then you say it's physics? Physics is literally the branch which DEFINES these arguments based upon OBSERVATION, and relatively simply means uniformity, and relativity refers to the theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein, which fundamentally changed our understanding of space, time, and gravity. It describes how physical phenomena appear differently to observers in different frames of reference, particularly when those frames are moving relative to each other at significant fractions of the speed of light. These are LITERALLY THE LAWS which are subject to discussion currently. I'm sorry to break, it to you, but you just made a terrible TERRIBLE example of a circular argument, you just said because the laws are true the laws are true.

@schmetterling4477

2 ай бұрын

@@zynxtronimus8994 I have no idea what you are trying to say here. It sounds like gibberish to me. ;-)

@zynxtronimus8994

Ай бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 you have resorted to circular reasoning which is a fallacy and a terrible and invalid explanation in order to circum navigate the Inescapable reality of a necassary existence.

I have to say I think Dawkins missed the point. I think as far as I understand the issue is we can’t really know why the universe is the way it is. We can only reduce it to fundamental theories. But even in the most fundamental theory, we can’t know why it must be that way. (As an aside: I think the answer here is in the language. “Why” doesn’t really have any meaning in this context. Philosophically all we can ever do is describe things and their histories. “Why” doesn’t make sense)

@SamoaVsEverybody814

3 ай бұрын

Someone gets it 💯.

@Hoovy00

3 ай бұрын

A lot of the time when we ask "why" something is some way in the universe we have to be prepared for the answer to be "We don't know" or "Why not"

@gromlech1107

3 ай бұрын

The question "why?" assumes a motive or reason. It is fundamentally associated with behaviours. Why did you hit me on the nose? Why did my wife leave me? To ask "why?" only makes sense in the physical world if we attribute agency to the physical world. The essential question that Science asks is "how?".

@divatalk9011

3 ай бұрын

Science has helped us evolve with such amazing sophistication. It helped us both eradicate certain diseases and create horrendous problems. However, not every big question can be answered with science. That undermines the noble and important quest of philosophy

@AudunWangen

3 ай бұрын

​@@gromlech1107Yes, and let me try to expand on that. A motive or reason would suggest you need a conscience, right? In other words, a creator. So unless you presuppose or prove the existence of a creator, asking "why" is not very productive.

If Richard was open to considering all perspectives, he might rethink his tendency to equate metaphysical arguments with scientific evidence. Where is the empirical data supporting the claim that only natural selection, devoid of any guiding force, is responsible for the remarkable complexity of life? How did Darwin showed that with his theory? Additionally, it's fair to question whether Darwin's theory, informed by the limited understanding of cellular biology at the time, truly addresses the full extent of this complexity as we know it today. Even if extraterrestrial life is discovered elsewhere, it wouldn't automatically explain the originality of life.

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

I do not understand the meaning of the extraterrestial argument disproving God. The problem of most western atheist is that they struggle with the OT picture of JHWH, not with a "rational" conception of a creative metaphysic power.

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

​@@alena-qu9vjThat's because in the west we're arguing against Christians, not deists. Yeah maybe some universal non-religiously-affiliated force is moving through all of us, man, but there's zero proof of that and the people who believe in that sort of God aren't the ones trying to strip rights away from people or otherwise legislate their crazy moonman beliefs.

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

@@JD-wu5pf Sorry, but in a theologist's discussion with a selfproclaimed judge of "religion" this difference should be clearly factored out. And its not even "in the west", its a specifically US problem, which not only offends the Christians from elswhere but also all the honest beleievers of any denomination anywhere. The anti-religionists in this debates mostly struggle with their own intern issues, Christianity being just the substitute scapegoat. And to claim that it is the faith in God which causes all the evil you are describing is plain dumb. Evil people allways use any ideology currently in power to pursue their evil goals, and to think that without God (of any description) the world would be better you just have to remember the atheisitic bolshevic genocide in Russia.

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

@@alena-qu9vj There are mo honest believers. Christians all worship the same bloodthirsty, slavery-approving, genocide-endorsing God from the old testament. That God categorically doesn't exist. Also, not that it matters, but I don't know of anyone who claims that all evil comes from a belief in God. Only that religion can cause good people to behave in evil ways. And I see otherwise good people bending over backwards to explain the evils in the old testament. I see otherwise good people casually talking about how their loved ones are going to be tortured for eternity. It's amazing how casually cruel Christianity is. That's probably why it gets attacked more than other religions.

@traitor1836

3 ай бұрын

So sorry for how much of a mouthful this ended up becoming! I was initially just wanting to respond to the last point but ended up yapping for too long, haha. You are most certainly right to question Darwin's theory, and people have for the past two centuries, even scientists. However, scientific study into evolution and genetics has bred a stronger argument than that past era, with the current term being "Neo-Darwinism" or "Modern Synthesis" due to the significant changes overall. Besides fossils, DNA similarities, anatomy, embryology, and other major fields of study, there are current observations and modern day experiments demonstrating that evolution is currently happening in our current world. If you are interested in hearing about some of those studies, I'm happy to offer some links to articles and papers. If not, I understand, I personally couldn't chew through them until I devoted myself to learning about at bare minimum the basics behind that kind of science, and it's still extremely time consuming. Regardless, I wanted to at minimum point out that research has kept up with changes both past and present, and has largely strengthened the theory. As for refuting that there was a guiding force behind evolution, it is incredibly difficult to refute an argument which states that there would be no visible evidence or that lacks an example and instead expects a refutation instead. Here's an example. Allah creates the universe and arranges for the earth to be made through entirely natural processes many billions of years in, followed by the many other steps that lead towards life emerging on earth through abiogenesis, the development of single celled life, then the development of multi-celled life, and so on. Each step of the way, Allah guides the genetics behind these entities until modern day in a manner completely invisible to all scientific means and realistically maneuvers their genetics, even allowing for mistakes to be made along the way and for vestigial parts of the body to be present throughout the process. Well, we might for instance point out that dog breeds have significant genetic diversity despite many being bred and specialized by humans and other hominids. A response could be, "Yet that too is guided by Allah, as is all genetics. Where is the evidence that the process was not?" We might point out that certain traits were selected for. "And yet Allah could have chosen to negate these efforts entirely, and only chooses to allow it for reasons beyond our comprehension." And so the cycle goes. The issue I have with these styles of argument is that if no evidence (or only bad evidence) can be given for a claim, it isn't worth being taken seriously. Much like I suspect you would believe that the taoist claim that the universe was a primordial void that formed a cosmic egg from which pangu formed to split yin and yang and form the earth to be suspect without solid evidence, I struggle to see why evolution itself needs to be guided when it is a process that generally needs no guide to the best of our knowledge. Lastly, I just want to say that I absolutely agree with you that metaphysical arguments do not equate scientific evidence, and I truly wish that less people would try and make the link.

The origin of life on earth will be discovered someday, and I live with this mentality

@J040PL7

2 ай бұрын

Maybe if we invent time travel but outside of that, nope.

Everyone watch a video called 'question that keeps me up at night' by 'cool worlds'. One of my favourite videos and favourite KZreadr and on this exact topic

There are a vast amount of solar systems with planets in the universe that may have life, but I think that intelligent life like we have may be quite rare. A lot of factors that make earth special can be over-looked like the fact that we have gas giants to deter asteroids, we have an active core generating a magnetic field to shield our atmosphere from solar radiation, we are in the Goldilocks zone, heavy elements found on earth may have come from a super rare collision of neutron stars, earth has an axial tilt giving us seasons, we have had long enough for evolution to produce complex life before the explosion of our star, we have been lucky to not turn in to an ice planet after super-volcano eruptions, we have land and water and tides, the mass extinction of dinosaurs gave intelligent mammals a chance to evolve. There are many things that make earth really special and some of these may be crucial for intelligent life to exist. If we were to find out what the odds are for all these factors being present for any given planet then perhaps earth is such a special case and maybe we should not expect to find life as advanced as us in the milky way.

@guaporeturns9472

3 ай бұрын

Yeah all that… regarding life as we know it. Who’s to say intelligent"life” has to exist in our narrow carbon and water based parameters ? There is so much that we just don’t know.

@AudunWangen

3 ай бұрын

Well, let me be a devil's advocate, and show the other side of the coin. As Dawkins said, we don't know what is required for abiogenesis. For all we know it was carried here from outer space because its self-assembly and replication was impossible on earth. The fact is that we have good evidence that abiogenesis didn't happen MORE than once on earth, since we haven't found any species that are NOT related to us. Although competition between a well developed gene and a simple self-replicator needs to be considered, I think that is an important observation. As for our environment after that, earth is a planet full of turmoil and changes, as you also describe, which is NOT very suitable for survival. We have a lot of planets with much more stable environments than ours. One of our biggest challenges right now is that species die out because of a temperature difference of just a few degrees Celsius. In that sense, life is fragile. Anything that could break apart a self-replicator would be devastating for development of life, so if anything, earth is a testament to the resilience of evolutionary biology. Before we know more about how abiogenesis could be possible, I think it's guesswork what the goldilocks zone even means. Of course I'm talking out of my @$$ here, so anyone that knows more about abiogenesis science and research and evolution is free to correct me 😅

@lVideoWatcherl

3 ай бұрын

@@AudunWangen I agree, this is a terribly difficult subject. I also, without too much of a formal education in either of those fields, always lean from one thought about how rare supposedly is to the question about the anthropic principle. Is what we observe actually very very rare? Or is it all explained by our bias, firstly about recognizing our intelligence as something rare, but also thinking that life itself is?

@AudunWangen

3 ай бұрын

@@lVideoWatcherl One thing I'm quite confident about is the bloated concept of uniqueness and special purpose of humans in the animal kingdom. It is, and have always been, very overated. We excel at nothing except perhaps brain power, compared with other species, and even that is superior to us in other species in some aspects. Other species have a better sense of space and direction, for example. On the grand scale, we are nothing special, just animals, and I think it's prudent, reasonable and necessary for mankind to finally recognize that. Honestly, I think it's counterproductive and impeding our progress that we don't.

@lVideoWatcherl

3 ай бұрын

@@AudunWangen Oh, totally agree. This is likely also one of the reasons people are so obsessed about "specialness" - well, if you select for intelligence as the special factor, sure, but I can't pluck my food from a tree in just five seconds just by stretching my neck six meters upwards like a giraffe can, so if we select for that, well...

I was surprised to see Alex O'Connor understand this problem better than Richard Dawkins did. I have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins as a scientist, but it seems that he is sorely lacking as a philosopher. You can't explain the origin of the laws of physics in terms of the laws of physics. That would beg the question.

@ponpo185

3 ай бұрын

Alex is far more intelligent and less biased than dawkins

@Tian-wi6qr

3 ай бұрын

What even is "the origin of the laws of physics"? Laws of physics simply explain the interaction between particles and the natural and cosmic phenomena that are a byproduct of it.

@omp199

3 ай бұрын

@@Tian-wi6qr Yes. But why do the laws of physics exist in the first place?

@Tian-wi6qr

3 ай бұрын

...Because the scientists thought about them, experimentally confirmed them and then wrote them down?@@omp199

@tomgreene1843

3 ай бұрын

In fairness Dawkins is not a philosopher.

Alex, you are onto something. In a manner of speaking, when science can explain the origin of science, it’s no longer something to be ‘discovered by us’ inasmuch as something that has been ‘revealed to us’.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

Is this a process requiring a complete understanding through proofs and scientific confirmation until only a single unsolved problem remains do you think, or is it a explanation of science, the universe, truth and existence having a common link which can be found before all knowledge of awareness is solved? Or did a just badly try to explain what I'm trying to ask you?🤔 Apologies if I did.

@Imputationist

3 ай бұрын

Hello @@DemainIronfalcon - I’m not sure I follow your question. But for what it’s worth, I am of the persuasion that science will never be able to explain how something came from nothing. I think that was the basic gist of the convo between O’Conner and Dawkins.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

@@Imputationist yeah that was a question but I struggled to find the words..

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

@@Imputationist I wanted to understand what your thought were more becuase I related to them.

If there are natural experiences that are frequently confused with religious experiences, then how are those having "religious experiences" certain they are authentic?

@ponpo185

3 ай бұрын

It‘s all about subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Feelings of inner transformation, alignment etc. What makes a religious experience inauthentic is if you’re either manipulated or just don’t feel anything. I don’t know exactly what you mean by natural experience and how they are confused

@jah8875

3 ай бұрын

@ponpo185 People with TLE, various mood disorders and psychotic disorders have experiences interpreted as religious with greater regularity than the general population. Entheogens can also be used to elicit religious experiences, even in people who are non-religious. If manipulations in brain chemistry can cause highly convincing religious experiences, then perhaps all religious experiences can be explained as abnormal mind states created by abnormal brain states?

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

@@jah8875 " People with TLE, various mood disorders and psychotic disorders have experiences interpreted as religious with greater regularity than the general population." Yes, and in what way does this prove that their experiences are not authentic religious experiences? It rather shows that the general population does not understand the meaning of "illness". And we would also have to define "religious experiences" in this context. For me the "demonic experiences" are also "religious".

@jah8875

3 ай бұрын

@alena-qu9vj What I mean is that if you can induce "religious experiences" or things that perfectly mimic religious experiences through natural means (without requiring a supernatural being) then would you regard those experiences as religious. I would describe an authentic religious experience as one that reflected an interaction with God/something supernatural.

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

@@jah8875 I understood, and answered, that religious experiences are "authentic" for the subject without regard on the initial conditions. Drug induced trip is as a real interaction with something supernatural as pure mystic ectasy. There is a difference in its value from the spiritual point ov view, but not in their being authentic. You realists are making the everlasting mistake by trying to "objectivize" something which is by definition subjective.

Science aswers questions only about matter, energy, and the laws of physics. but not questions about meaning, purpose, and value. Which are the most important questions.

@ballisticfish1212

3 ай бұрын

I would say those questions are not answerable, therefore don’t matter

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

Science cares about what is true. Meaning, purpose, and value are all subjective. There is no "true" answer to the meaning of life. Life has no real, objective meaning or purpose or value.

@BerishaFatian

3 ай бұрын

@@JD-wu5pf That would mean that living like mother teresa, and living like a nazi are equally meaningless.

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

@@JD-wu5pf Are your authoritative claims scientificaly proved? And how do you define "true"? Are your above subjective opinions an example of true? My subjective opinions are true enough for me, and for my forming an opinion on meaning, purpose and value I certainly do not need some scientific permission or approval. I pitty you if you do, but I respect that some people just do not trust their ability or right to find meaning and purpose on their own.

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

@@BerishaFatian Both are shitty ways of living, but maybe you aren't aware of how bad of a person mother teresa was haha. But again, yes. I personally think that committing genocide is always wrong. But I have no way of proving that empirically. I have no way of measuring how "right" or "true" my personal code of ethics is.

Oh by the way a Catholic Priest came up with the theory of the big bang

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

Priest or Monk?... Or scientist, theorist vieling himself from religious persecution.. I apologise I don't have any proof of this Priest and whether he was a devout believer or not, I was just challenging you..

@CrimzGrove

3 ай бұрын

No, it was a priest stop making up stories and acting like Catholics cannot me scientists or that priests cannot be mathematicians and there is no evidence that he was a closet atheist you are just assuming that. Also, the Church has invested a lot into Academia and science, for centuries. Catholic Church was not persecuting or forcing people to become Catholic, and the Church has gone through persecution and oppression for centuries, from Jews, Muslims (By the way look at the news where terrorist shot Orthodox Christian prisoners) Pagans, Polytheists, heretics like the Arians who would gain power and oppress Orthodox Christians, a pope being kidnapped in the 1700s, and more @@DemainIronfalcon

@CrimzGrove

3 ай бұрын

Also Catholic priests can be scientists despite what your ignorance of Christianity thinks @@DemainIronfalcon

@CrimzGrove

3 ай бұрын

American museum of Natural history, Britannica, literally every result for him will show that he was truly a devout believer.@@DemainIronfalcon

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

@@CrimzGrove thank you for setting me straight, I will confront the bias that you feel plagues my tolerances.✌️

That title is the science delusion in a nutshell

I think this line of questioning about the origins of the laws of nature exposed Dawkins' lack of deeper philosophical understanding. I would even push more to see his response to why the universe is intelligible.

The lack of "facts" in this scientific pondering hurts my head... Can't believe these are the same people constantly scoffing at religious thinkers. At least religious concepts admit that God is beyond human comprehension. Seeing these self proclaimed "geniouses" run around in circles trying to say aha, I know it all is quite funny.

@Horace__63

3 ай бұрын

"god is beyond human comprehension" but then you completely believe in a book precisely describing how god will behave if you act a certain way. Very consistent set of thoughts you have.

@Lebmusicofficial

3 ай бұрын

@@Horace__63 God's totality is beyond explanation. Only aspects of God are revealed in instances. And peoples ability to even fully recapitulate it are limited, word are limited. You are being very dismissive of the nature of the text.

@Horace__63

3 ай бұрын

@@Lebmusicofficial The only thing I see is more claims and no evidence backing them up. You didn't even think about what I argued for. Not worth arguing with.

@Horace__63

3 ай бұрын

@@Lebmusicofficial "god's totality is beyond explanation. Only aspects of "god" reals themselves in instances.” Yeah and those instances which apparently show "god's" characteristics(aspects) according to your(and similar) holy books have been shown to be wrong. That, in my opinion, should be sufficient for any reasonable and level-minded person to stop thinking that those books are "holy" or true. But you prefer to prefer to *ignore those failings* of your holy book *OR* when pushed against the wall say they are allegorical. Hypocrites and liars. Worse attitude than babies.

@Lebmusicofficial

3 ай бұрын

@@Horace__63 Firstly, you are the one commenting on my innitial comment, pointing out that seeing these people mock religious thinking, despite themselves not having a validated belief structure is quite funny. You have give no specific point to argue. Since you "want to argue", please tell me, what specific instances of God revealing himself have been "deemed false". Then i'd be happy to discuss things further.

I'm a Christian and I have to say this was really great to watch! Even though I admit I dissected it a little (lot) haha. Really interesting points about how the laws of nature are not sufficient to describe the origin of the laws of nature. It is sometimes unfortunate how Christianity is treated as an archaic school of thought that is only what people believed in before science came about. Also, did Darwin really prove macroevolution? Or was he extrapolating off of conclusions on microevolution?

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

I love your You Tube name👍💯😂✌️

The book analogy doesn't really follow. When you ask "Who authored this book?" you're not asking "Who designed the laws of language that this book follows?" The interesting thing about the second question is that it doesn't really have simple answer. Language is something that emerged out of the beneficial nature of human communication and the combined codification of agreed upon conventions. Can you really say Language had a "creator" in that sense? Or is it a random byproduct of evolution that we have adapted and honed?

Hi Alex, I am very happy to say that I think of you as, for me, a new friend, I also now have more respect for Richard Dawkins, in his case with the usual reservations. This conversation attempts to reveal some facts about a topic that verges on the metaphysical. The body of knowledge we have accumulated that is consistent and coherent qualifies it that respect not because any of it is true but because none of it have yet been proved false!. Combined with that the coherence and consistency allows us to make calculations and predictions that are generally quite reliable. All of this is underpinned by clear unambiguous empirical evidence and therefore the methodology can only be applied to questions where such clear observable consistent evidence of something real is available and that evidence can be integrated with the existing body of knowledge. This all means that such methodology can only find sensible answers to questions that conform to those parameters, other questions mostly why questions simply cannot be answered if only due to the conspicuous lack of any empirical evidence!, for this reason we declare that many questions belong in the domain of meta-physics, it could be that some of those questions in that domain really do need to be answered for us to continue our existence but for that to be true there would have to be some fundamental change in the universe because we have not yet found any satisfactory answers yet still are alive and well. The obvious alternative is of course that while we can take some advantage of scientific methods to enhance the length and quality of our lives it is not actually necessary!, the half of all humanity that is now alive is mostly unable to make much use of all this contrived knowledge and technology, in fact many of them are suffering the adverse consequences of its commercial deployment. My summation then is that while the questions that science can help to answer exclude a raft of questions that it cannot there is no evidential 'proof' that answering questions actually confers any advantage. Knowing how and or why does not alter reality. Cheers, Richard.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

I could only of slightly improved on how you wrote that, however I would of used double the words. I'm about to watch the video, I heard 10 seconds and my mind decided that plus the comments and video title was enough to form a hypothesis of this conversation I'm about to watch tomorrow now because I'm falling asleep. But the very intrinsic and by nature elusive characteristic of what I think you in part are saying I find endlessly fascinating and enjoy being speculative in my own mind how I can define, relate to, desire, basically thinking about this is in itself captivating for me. I look forward to video👍💯✌️

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

One last point I believe our mind is capable of constructing our empirical proved knowledge with our deeper questions of creation, Infinity et, I really liked your response it's concept by definition is difficult to express in words will finish this comment tomorrow if I remember if I was just saying o like your observation or I actually had anything to add or not👍💯✌️

@richardharvey1732

3 ай бұрын

@@DemainIronfalcon Hi Iron Falcon, thank you s much for this reply, it is both stimulating and gratifying, while I am most concerned when writing a comment that it appears coherent and consistent to me is is good to find it does make sense to some others. I would also be delighted to read what you can contribute as improvement but even more so if you can offer constructive criticism, I am actually more interested in the mistakes I make, it is only from discovering them that I can learn better and my only justification for any of this is the learning I can derive, it is not as if I have anything to prove or any particular point to make, all my earlier ambition to improve the world has long since faded, the people that I see getting stuff wrong do not want to know better they just want support for what they already believe, any challenge to any of it is met with resentment and resistance and all I get is argument, been there done that!/. Cheers, Richard.

@richardharvey1732

3 ай бұрын

@@DemainIronfalcon Hi Iron Falcon, again, I have just read and replied to your earlier post so this is just an acknowledgement, thank you. I do look forward to the next thrilling instalment!. Cheers, Richard.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

@@richardharvey1732 I have meaning to get back to you, thankfully I remembered your comment just now, it came up not sure how but I'm grateful. Your comment I remember I found really interesting, I may be wrong about some or all of what I think it was saying, I do remember you put into words what I have struggled to before. I will reboot my not so great memory and reply with something solid asap. Thanks for reminding me👍💯✌️

Laws without the law giver, models without the engineer, obvious designs without the designer…looks like they have made up their minds, have chosen the trajectory to the place without God.

@tulpas93

3 ай бұрын

Just because you can understand how something can happen without a designer doesn't mean you get to stick an imaginary character in there - that just shifts the goal post because you can explain where your good comes from. The laws of physics are not proscriptive, they are descriptive - they DO NOT suggest a law-giver. Even if they did, they would NOT suggest the law giver is a deity, or that there's even just one! The Watchmaker argument is old, tedious, has been debunked repeatedly. It doesn't even point to a single being! I mean, even watches are usually made by a group of people (leather workers, metalurgists, miners, glass blowers, etc.).

@theboombody

3 ай бұрын

@@tulpas93 It appears that you value truth for some arbitrary reason. You know, there is no requirement to do so. Just a preference.

1:35 so glad Alex pulled Dawkins up here. Darwin didn’t solve ‘the big one’😂

@Aitzaz_Khoso

3 ай бұрын

??

@colrxd

3 ай бұрын

Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior✝ Romans 10:9-12

@Aitzaz_Khoso

3 ай бұрын

@@colrxd no thanks, I don't need to worship an ignorant peasant.

@fletcherlewis

3 ай бұрын

​@@colrxdgo away you delusional cretin

All enlightened teachings explain clearly why this universe is not real.

The thing is Alex, is that there is nothing here, but our own dream of reality. There's no point in arguing about the cause of something that doesn't even exist. Jesus himself teaches that if this world was real, then God could not be real.

"In this life no one can fulfill his longing, nor can any creature satisfy man’s desire. Only God satisfies, he infinitely exceeds all other pleasures. That is why man can rest in nothing but God." -St. Thomas Aquinas

@JamesSmith-cm7sg

3 ай бұрын

What is your point

@joannware6228

3 ай бұрын

@@JamesSmith-cm7sg The point of the quote can't be any clearer. What is your point?

@someonesomeone25

3 ай бұрын

This wasn't true for me

@joannware6228

3 ай бұрын

@@someonesomeone25 So what?

@someonesomeone25

3 ай бұрын

@joannware6228 It means it isn't universal. And thus wrong.

Whete the fk is the mention of philosophy in all of this? Philosophy comes 1st.. always

@Synodalian

3 ай бұрын

Scientists generally disavow the idea that their methodologies originate in philosophical assumptions (ex: empiricism and pragmatism), and simply take their subject matter as given. So the lack of any mention of it doesn't come as a surprise.

@SH2-136

3 ай бұрын

Science and philosophy fail to get along for some odd reason.

@SageVaughn

3 ай бұрын

All of you are wrong, science IS a branch of philosophy..the practice of science is simply applying said philosophy's methods. The definition of Science is the study of the natural world.

@Synodalian

3 ай бұрын

@@SageVaughn Science as a discipline stands separately from philosophy precisely because unlike the latter, it _presupposes_ its subject matter alongside its methodology. The current _paradigm_ upholds the empirical method of logical positivism to be the theoretical foundation for developing systematic knowledge. Science is not at all the same thing as the _philosophy_ of science for example, because it operates off consensus. That's why scientific revolutions happen. But for philosophy meanwhile, the very _question_ of knowledge (epistemology) and reality (ontology/metaphysics) is always developing itself, whereas for empirical science it is simply held as _given_ until another paradigm shift occurs.

@SageVaughn

3 ай бұрын

@@SynodalianI got behind everything except...nothing is held as a given until a paradigm shift, you're constantly told NOT to marry ideas in science because nothing is a given..

why would an elegant solution be favorable in a materialist's view?

Richard Dawkins is old. He’s a little set in his ways by now. He’s also an absolute pleasure. I need to go look through his old debates and books

@3:30 I am not an apologist, but "we are potentially allowed to postulate something very unlikely, very implausible"...couldn't that logic be used to justify the potential of "God" (any Diety/Dieties) creating life ( i.e. first cause of life and/or the matter/energy used for life)? If so, wouldn't Agnosticism make more sense than straight up Athiesm?

@TheVeganVicar

3 ай бұрын

Are you a THEIST? 🤔 If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓

@elimason7954

3 ай бұрын

Atheists say there is no God. They cannot be in every square metre of the universe at the same time to prove that God is not there. The only one capable of doing that would be God, the one they are trying to disprove not prove. The best they can say is they don't believe there is a God. Theists believe there is a God. Both are positions of faith.

@SamoaVsEverybody814

3 ай бұрын

It depends upon which religious philosophy you're discussing. A personal, all-omni supreme creator deity is incoherent with what we can observe in nature. Most staunch atheists are talking about this variant. We all should be agnostic however on a deistic type "god" in that it's potentiated utilizing scientific measures.

@rodomolina7995

3 ай бұрын

I guess he means an implausible but still explainable naturalistic cause, a god could explain the origin of life but not god itself

@nephastgweiz1022

3 ай бұрын

I don't see how these are the same. Scientific theories, even those about highly improbable events like the emergence of the first self-replicating cell, are based on empirical evidence and a methodology that seeks natural explanations. Scientists may entertain highly improbable events in this context, but they do so within a framework that seeks natural, empirical explanations. The improbability of an event does not automatically make a supernatural explanation more plausible (or AS plausible). In science, an unlikely event is still evaluated within the context of natural laws and evidence. And by the way, religious people don't hold the idea that "God created life" as "possible but highly improbable", they accept it as absolute truth, which again contrasts sharply with what scientists are doing.

Darwin had an only degree in theology and completely ignored logic and the scientific method (known since the 17th century), which required him to postulate a testable hypothesis. It has never been about science. Over 160 years after Darwin’s book was first published, and still no one knows how to test the claims he made. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case." What kind of logic is this? Science can never prove that something is impossible. This is a total misunderstanding of science and logic.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

Very insightful, if you are given a fact like this as opposed to learning it through life experience of one's own it can be I think so much harder to understand how a untrained mind in traditional methods is more likely to discover radically new concepts and occasionally world changing schools of thought that become accepted scientific truths. It's a very difficult to map use of one's knowledge to find truths in another field that is traditionally not relatable. Good point was what I was trying to say👍✌️

I'm a bit annoyed on that title. Maybe I missed it, but the Prof. never said "Science WILL explain the Big Questions", but rather he was confident... and that is a massive difference. From a philosophical point-of-view these descriptions and words really are important... so can Alex please get it right. But then again, maybe I missed it so please feel free to correct me.

Mister Dawkins ought to dive into some quantum mechanics if he’s so confident about science getting anywhere near the fundamentals of this universe. What governs our reality seems to be downright inaccessible to us while also having fuck all in common with it. Things that scared a once smug Einstein into returning to Schopenhauer. Mister Dawkins really thinks that most of the crucial answers about this universe are within the science community’s grasps. Where does all this optimism come from?

@GIGADEV690

3 ай бұрын

Because that's the only thing we got

@nosmoker8

3 ай бұрын

@@GIGADEV690 Well, it’s not enough, and as of now it seems like true knowledge is utterly incomprehensible to us, due to our being able to operate within the limits of a clasical reality. We have nothing more than mathematics, which at the end of the day is just a language for discussing what’s already there, and the quantum realm is not THERE, so to speak. Dealing with such things is like trying to smell a sound.

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

@@GIGADEV690 Try religion, thats the other thing😁 But do not start or end with Old Testament. It is juste a device to corrupt the real spirituality.

@nosmoker8

3 ай бұрын

@@alena-qu9vj There’s plenty of philosophy in the Old Testament as well; arguably more philosophy but less morals than in the new one. Quantum mechanics will kick one’s ass towards theology in no time.

The main problem for evolution is it has no mechanism by which it could happen. Natural selection acting on random* genetic mutations cannot accomplish the grand story of evolution. (*Mutations are not entirely random.)

@409raul

3 ай бұрын

Yes!! This is my ONLY reservation with the theory of evolution. Why do they say has to be RANDOM?? There is enough merit in the evolutionary theory to convince me that is entirely legitimate except for this one little aspect. To say that randomness is the precursor to all of the vast complexities of life on earth is just too far fetched for me.

@DJWESG1

3 ай бұрын

​@@409raul it's not a theory, it's a observable and tested fact.

@traitor1836

3 ай бұрын

@@409raul Hi there, just a thought you might want to consider. Overall, it’s the selection pressures / environment in which a creature is in that helps to determine what characteristics make it thrive most. Take for instance a recent and very easy example, cliff swallows in Nebraska, a US state. Because cliff swallows build their nests under bridges and overpasses in that state, cars can easily strike and kill a cliff swallow when they leave the nest. Shorter wings improve maneuverability and are better for a quick vertical take-off, while longer wings are better for long distance travel. As shorter wings allows cliff swallows to evade cars more easily and catch bugs while in the air, the cliff swallows in that state have overall seen a rapid reduction in average wing size. Additionally, being better evolved for their environment has led to a decrease in roadkill since the 1980s even though roadside nests have risen in number. I absolutely recognize that this alone isn’t conclusive evidence for evolution, but it is a good example of how random and relatively small changes per person in a large population can have a significant impact. If you want to look into more modern examples, climate change has had quite the impact around the globe. Fish are maturing more quickly because of commercial fishing, and the average bird in environments outside of Nebraska are becoming smaller while growing in wing length.

@criticalcommenter

3 ай бұрын

What a dumb comment. Why are so many Dawkins fans so poorly educated?

@randyruggles342

3 ай бұрын

@@409raul - It's not random. But that doesn't mean it is guided by a deity either. The mutations occur in hotspots and natural selection is "guided" by the environment.

I appreciate his faith

Good to se professor Dawkins doing well

And if science doesn't explain the big questions, then perhaps we can have the humility to admit that we don't know rather than resort to mythical thinking.

@j.j7185

3 ай бұрын

This will never happen unfortunately, we still have people who can’t accept evolution because the magic book says no

@oirambros147

3 ай бұрын

Isnt it a wishful thinking like the "legend" say himself

@theboombody

3 ай бұрын

Well, even if you don't KNOW that anything exists beyond the materialistic world, I don't see anything suggesting you can't still believe that there may be something out there outside of our comprehension, even if you aren't sure.

@AM_o2000

3 ай бұрын

@@theboombody Yes, but there's a huge difference between 'there might be something' and 'there _is_ something and here are lots of very specific details'. We must avoid an ad ignorantiam fallacy.

@bike4aday

3 ай бұрын

Materialism and mysticism are 2 different perspectives of the same phenomena, so you won't find the interpretations of mysticism in the materialist perspective and vise versa. It's like those paintings that can be see 2 different ways such as "My Wife and My Mother-in-Law". It can be seen either as a young woman or an old lady, but not both simultaneously because each contain the whole. In materialism there are sequential events happening in linear time (relative) and in mysticism there is a single timeless moment (absolute). Therefore you can change your perspective to see one or the other, but not both simultaneously. The trick here is not to put them in a boxing match to determine which is superior, but rather to recognize them as equals and be flexible in switching between them. AKA neither young woman nor old lady, but both. These perspectives can answer their own questions, but not the questions of the other, since they are fundamentally too different. So science will explain science's big questions and religion will answer religion's big questions. Edit for clarity: I think a lot of the problems we see occur when these perspectives are mixed without careful consideration. If we're talking about linear, relative time, we should use science. Mysticism can't answer what happened billions of years ago because in mysticism it's all happening now. When I see these getting mixed, people feel like one is stepping on the other (because they are).

You're talkiing to Richard Dawkins about Sceintific Method? Ha! Does he even know what it is? He only ever used scientific imagination. Did you ever see his documentary from the 80's? It's incredibly stupid and wrong.

What is the purpose of life? Is the immaterial world real? Is there objective moral truth? Does my life matter? What is love? What is truth? What happens after I die? My daughter died at age 14... will I ever see her again?

@deshon3523

3 ай бұрын

There is objective morality.

@Tian-wi6qr

3 ай бұрын

Depends on the person, you make it yourself. No. No. For you and your close ones yes, from the universal perspective, no. Combination of chemical and biological processes in your brain. Boolean value. Eternal nothingness. Yes, if her body is preserved.

@michaelnewsham1412

3 ай бұрын

1) None. May be purpose in your life, if you so choose. 2) Depends what you mean by 'immaterial'- numbers, logic, ideas, thoughts, dreams- yes. Supernatural (souls, ghosts, gods): no. 3) Objective in regard to human (or some animal) life; not universal. 4) Matters to you and people who know you, and to people who care about some abstract group of which you are a member- age, nationality, religion, race, humanity at large. 5) Attraction between two or more people or attraction to some abstraction- "I love Nature". 6) Correspondence to reality 7) Nothing 8) No

@captjon1959

3 ай бұрын

@@michaelnewsham1412 Bankrupt and nihilistic. Prove your answers are true.

@S.D.323

3 ай бұрын

Im sorry for your loss as to whether something is nihilistic or not I dont see how that makes any difference to whether its true of false and I think as long as humans can keep believing in making the world a better place to live in thats enough now if there is a loving God who wants people to live in a paradise of some sort then great if not then so be it but if this God exists and is truly loving I cant believe he would damn anyone to Hell forever or that he would punish people for not believing in him

Better not: - say you know when you just believe, - make or adopt rules for others based on what you chose to believe without proof.

@theboombody

3 ай бұрын

I assume the consequences for breaking such rules would be limited to a stern lecture?

@AlexCMoro81

3 ай бұрын

😄'Better not' is just a shared thought on decency, not a rule ...

Science is only a way to describe the what. It explains no how or why and all the big questions are how and why questions. To think science can answer these is to make a categorical error.

@Horace__63

3 ай бұрын

Who created your "God" and why? Since science can't answer it surely your religion(or spirituality) can. Do it.

@kofidan9128

2 ай бұрын

​@@Horace__63the Christian God has no creator. He's from everlasting to everlasting. That's why he's great and worthy of worship

Fun Fact: Dawkins doesn’t like staying in alleged “haunted” hotels. Creeps him out.

@colrxd

3 ай бұрын

Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior✝ Romans 10:9-12

@theboombody

3 ай бұрын

Does Ghostbusters count as science?

@fireside9503

3 ай бұрын

@@theboombody k

Alex I highly recommend you check out the Crecganford channel. You delve alot into theology, but what John does on his Crecganford channel is scientifically track mythology back through history. We debate over God's existence, but John looks at the stories put forward in the bible and can trace their origin. Christianity is just a result of the evolution of cultural storytelling. John would make an outstanding guest and another perspective on the debate.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

Good point about story telling, I think so many big religion and Myths creation stories are so relatable in an almost genetic like correlation.

@kofidan9128

2 ай бұрын

It surprises me when atheists make such statements, as though they are the only ones to have considered Biblical stories through the mythological lens. You miss the point big time

@DemainIronfalcon

2 ай бұрын

@@kofidan9128 I'm happy for you to learn me the point holistically. I'm always open to all views regardless of my own being usually superior 😂🤣🤮🤮👍✌️ jokes, please I'm interested..

@DemainIronfalcon

2 ай бұрын

I will keep that in mind Benjamin much appreciated 👍✌️

Science can only ever unveil the structures of prakriti and will never ever tell us one single thing about Purusha...Prakriti is synonymous with the ‘demiurgic construct’ and Purusha is synonymous with the Pleroma. IOW’s mind in all it’s iterations is instantiated within the material world (which is real) and this is known as dual aspect monism while purusha is eternal and transcendent and undiscoverable via science. So there is no dualism in the mind body problem but there is when it comes to 'god consciousness'.

@xeykdeyk

3 ай бұрын

thats a lot of word salad that means nothing at all. science is all there is. everything that exsist is science and the action of finding out answers to anything is science. even religion is science, just really bad and incorrect science created by primitive man.

Dawkins is actually a surprisingly limited thinker

@gromlech1107

3 ай бұрын

You are mistaken.

@xPsYchoMind

3 ай бұрын

Not really, but listening to him talking about biology was fascinating and then come the philosophical questions aaaaand... there's nothing, he doesn't engage with them or humor them at all. I kind of felt embarrassed watching the second part of the interview

@roykeane1922

3 ай бұрын

@@xPsYchoMind I haven’t watched the full interview, only the clips on philosophy and I felt the same

Faith that science will eventually explain life, consciousness, the self, and the supraphysical is a robust faith indeed. You wouldn't be far off calling it a . . . religion.

@ballisticfish1212

3 ай бұрын

It’s not faith it’s based on clear evidence, as they discuss in the video. Also Richard Dawkins says ‘we may never know’ about the origin of life. But nice line

@billbryant1288

3 ай бұрын

There is no clear evidence that science will eventually explain life, consciousness, the self, and the supraphysical. Confidence or optimism about a method is not evidence; it’s faith.

@ballisticfish1212

3 ай бұрын

@@billbryant1288 I’m not sure whether you watched the video or not based on your comments 😂

@billbryant1288

3 ай бұрын

@@ballisticfish1212 I did, but my comment is more general and is in reference both to this exchange and to the larger body of Dawkins's work--and to that of others with his same mindset: science isn't a faith since it just deals in facts; religion is dangerous, evidence-free superstition, etc. Dawkins has spent his entire career hammering that kind of duality, and it just ain't true. All of us live faith-based lives, lives that fill large evidence gaps with unproven presuppositions, assumptions, hunches, loyalties, fears, hopes, and so forth that help us muddle through. And that includes those who wave the banner of "science."

The origin of life would be a stupendously implausible event if we are the only life in the universe. Yes. Isn't that a theist argument Mr. Dawkins?

@michaelnewsham1412

3 ай бұрын

No.

@Horace__63

3 ай бұрын

No. Anyways when is j daddy coming back?

why are we even listening to philosophical answers by someone who hardly cares about philosophy?

@Horace__63

3 ай бұрын

You clicked on the video.

@sedmercado24

3 ай бұрын

@@Horace__63 we're listening to Dawkins because we clicked on the video. answers my question thanks!

@thethe-hh8yx

2 ай бұрын

Well, you are right But at the same time Alex is not very rigorous about science as well

RD has great faith in science .

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

Rather great faith in the omnipotence of his brain.

@Horace__63

3 ай бұрын

Better than having a faith in a bastard zombie.

@pkats9093

3 ай бұрын

No faith required. Sensible conclusions based on evidence.

Ain’t no way this scientism is still going on 💀💀💀 presuppositions wildin

John Barrow discussed the possibility that there were things we might not be able to understand. By contrast religious explanation are simply poor and offer nothing.

I wonder if Dawkins is aware that you're far smarter than him now.

We could explain literally everything and how everything works and what everything is made of, but that does nothing to argue against God. Because we can explain how something works or what it is says nothing about whether it had a maker. It actually points to a mind, the fact the world is comprehensible, that the world rational, the fact we can reason.

@SageVaughn

3 ай бұрын

In no way does that necessarily entail an intelligent creator logically. But for the sake of arguement I will agree with you... there's still much more pressing matters than the mere possibility of God's existence. I and many other agnostics (and some atheist) biggest problem with the existence of God is not the concept of a creator, but the God or gods that religions have claimed is real. THAT God is full of logical, moral, and other philosophical problems that no believer can give satisfying answers for.

@sibyloftexas

3 ай бұрын

Other than the mystery of the very beginnings of the universe, there is no such thing as an unmoved mover. Everything that exists is the effect of a cause that was set into motion by something else billions of years ago. There is no evidence of any type of intervention by a deity at any point since the universe first came into being.

@gsp3428

3 ай бұрын

@@SageVaughn Thats a better answer than most atheists give. Sure I would agree, that whether a mind exists that created everything doesnt point to a certain religion just based on that fact. Not sure what logical problems there are. Also morality doesnt even exist without God. You can say it does, and have your opinion, but thats all it comes down to is an opinion, nothing you say is moral or immoral is morally binding to another individual. And maybe they cant satisfy you but why should anyone care about whether youre satisfied, each person must come to their own conclusion about what is true.

@SamoaVsEverybody814

3 ай бұрын

You need to define your "God". A personal, all-omni supreme creator deity is illogical, reasonless, unnecessary

@sibyloftexas

3 ай бұрын

@@gsp3428 "... morality doesn't even exist without God." People had a sense of morality 200,000 years before your God was even invented in 1500 BC. A god that billions of people today don't even believe in. This is nonsense.

It only had to happen once (life arising in the first place). Why might Dawkins believe that?

@schmetterling4477

3 ай бұрын

Because one is enough to explain why it's here? What's the problem with that? ;-)

@matthewphilip1977

3 ай бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 We don't know that. Had it been only once it might have died out before there was even a single step of evolution. For all we know it might have had to happen many times, millions, billions, trillions of times, for it to evolve the way it did.

@schmetterling4477

3 ай бұрын

@@matthewphilip1977 Once is enough does not mean that it didn't arise multiple times. The common opinion is that it did. It's just not logically necessary that it did. ;-)

Questions regarding God are not in the realm of science, hence unreachable by that method.

He believes in science religiously.

Dawkins has said in his book and on camera that "evolution almost certainly answers the question of existence". That's actually something he says🤣🤦‍♂️ At that point you realize that he has zero philosophical training and that his absurd category errors aren't worth taking seriously

@schmetterling4477

3 ай бұрын

If he means "human existence", then it's not a category error. It's just abbreviated speech. OTOH, I am not sure what else he would mean. The "existence of something"? That's being answered by the relativity principle, but since he is not a physicist I would not expect him to discuss that. If you want to hear how that works Lawrence Krauss likes to talk about that to laymen.

@manlikeJoe1010

3 ай бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 Nope. He never says it in the context of mere human existence. In both his book and in public speeches he has said that evolution "almost certainly" answers the question of existence, not merely human existence. That's actually something he says. It's embarrassing🤣 Nice try at trying to defend him though. Lawrence Krauss is a twit. Now THAT really is an example of a man who doesn't know what he doesn't know. And so he wades in on these debates and makes a total fool of himself. The question is clearly about existence as such, not just "existence of something". I don't think you've understood the question my friend

@schmetterling4477

3 ай бұрын

@@manlikeJoe1010 Why are you telling me that you are intellectually lazy and don't want to learn about physics? I don't care. ;-)

@kofidan9128

2 ай бұрын

😂 ... thanks for pointing this out bro. John Lennox often does too. The man is a liar and an ignoramus!😅

It's very strange to me that they didn't discuss just the location in the UNIVERSE of possible other lifeforms but also the location in TIME of other possible life forms. Estimates for the age of the universe are 13.7 billion years old, and of life on earth is 3.7 billion years old - we not only have to find a suitable location for life to form, but our "clocks" would also have to match up - it's possible that in the next billion or 2 years life will develop on other planets in our solar system and we might be long gone, and the reverse is true as well, it's possible that in some other solar system life has taken its course and disappeared couple of billion years ago, and depending on the type of life and the type of conditions, possibly even without a detectable trace. God only knows how long this universe will exist, we could be in its earliest stages, so if abiogenesis is possible but extremely rare, we may never find other life forms because they aren't just far from us in SPACE, they're far from us in TIME.

There is no sound without an ear to hear it. (there are only varying pressure waves). There is no light (colour), without an eye to see it (there are only varying electromagnetic waves). Light and Sound etc and The Mind are part of the same process. No Mind - No Light. No Mind - No Sound. The Mind and the Universe are part of the same process. You and the World are One!!! Without The Mind these things (sound / light etc) would not exist. It is the Ego or the Self that brings a sense of separation to this process. Just as the ego brings a sense of separation to the process of thinking. 'My thinking' rather than just thinking. True religion works to dissolve this Separation of the Thinker and the Thought. This is actually an act of exceptional hard work and is such a muscular concept that it is difficult to get it. Organised Religions do not do this, they are just sets of rules, designed to stop you thinking. Why Dawkins spends his whole life railing against ORGANISED RELIGION is because like them, he is part of the Establishment. All he has to say is that ORGANISED RELIGION is not religion. End of story. But there is such a thing as the Religious Life. It is the lack of 'the religious' in society that is at the root of the degeneracy we see all around us. People like Dawkins do not help. Because he throws the baby out with the bathwater. It is the triviality of the Ego that stops us seeing this.

Curiously, this isn't characterised as "science of the gaps". Anyways, maybe one day he'll explain how non-empirical issues will be settled using a methodologically empirical tool. Or how an ever-changing, methodologically skeptical and falsifiable tool would reach definitive, unchanging, undoubtful answers. Feels like Richie has never really understood what science even is.

@bdnnijs192

3 ай бұрын

Science is first and foremost a method an explanation in and of itself. It does not rule out any options. Strictly speaking it does not even rule out God if thay happens to be the case. What is curious are theists who allow God to work mysteriously but won't accept 'nature' being equally mysterious.

@mickdestroy8796

3 ай бұрын

I don't know where "science of the gaps" is supposed to know, from what I watched, they simply recognised those gap exist and you shouldn't fill themp with whatever you want. We CAN'T reach definitive answer with ANYTHING (unless you lie to yourself of course) much less a tool we use to doubt and test everything. So yes you can't reach an undoubtful answer, because it doesn't exist. Seems like you have no clue what science is, what it is for and or it work.

@apimpnamedslickback5936

3 ай бұрын

Science of the gaps is a nonsensical idea. “God of the gaps” refers to theists stupid notion to add god into whatever hole is left by science. Science of the gaps would then just mean that science can explain what science has not yet developed enough to explain. A very hopeful statement sure but nothing that demerits science or atheism.

@apimpnamedslickback5936

3 ай бұрын

As for your last point what’s this obsession with reaching undeniable truth? As far as I’m concerned that seems wholly unreasonable and impossible. There is no way to ever reach objective truth or reality. It can always just be an illusion no matter how detailed or complex. So in that case what else are we to do but take what we have available and make it work?

@apimpnamedslickback5936

3 ай бұрын

Now to address your second idea who says non-empirical issues can’t be settled by empirical measures. Regardless of the origin or style of whatever issue there is, if you can come up with the idea then there’s a way to test said idea for validity in its ability to accumulate “true” or factual occurrences reliably. If said idea cannot be tested then it is unfalsifiable and as such has nothing at all to do with the scientific method and as such shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath. I wonder how you would think that that itself is some sort of defense against science.

And the answer will be God.

The problems of life remain unanswered until you realise that I AM the answer to everything.

@schmetterling4477

3 ай бұрын

You are what? Not sufficiently educated? I would agree with that. ;-)

@michaelheath3725

3 ай бұрын

Not the John Smith of you. I know stuff.

Im not even sure that asking what the origin of the laws of physics is, is even a cogent question.

@kofidan9128

2 ай бұрын

Why not? Oh I just remembered, science has no good answers for it. Sagan once said in an interview that "the laws of the universe were established, but there's no evidence of God." What nonsense! "Nonsense remains nonsense even if spoken by famous scientists" -- John Lennox

That's good that he has faith in science

Protect Dawkins at all cost.

@tylere.8436

3 ай бұрын

Protect him from what?

@steved5960

14 күн бұрын

@@tylere.8436from category error

Either Dawkins didn't understand the first question or he chose to not to answer it.

We only have "life's biggest questions" because we chose Newton instead of Leibniz. Materialism/Empiricism died a year ago when quantum physics proved the universe is not locally real (or, "less real"). Which is exactly what Leibniz said well over 300 years ago.

@lVideoWatcherl

3 ай бұрын

What do you mean? Are you referring to the supposed reversal of causality?

@ready1fire1aim1

3 ай бұрын

@@lVideoWatcherl Reversed chirality and parity violation, yeah.

@ready1fire1aim1

3 ай бұрын

@@lVideoWatcherl Leibniz said 0D is necessary and locally real (or, "more real" since it has no predecessor and 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D are contingent on their predecessor so not locally real (or, "less real"). Knowing the difference between zero and nonzero is massive. Now that 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D have been proven not locally real (or, "less real") we can assume 0D is the center of the mirror universe 🌌. We can also talk about souls (the zero-of ourselves). Quarks are the only thing dimensionless about us. Mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts, so no spatial extension, zero size and exact location only.

@Tian-wi6qr

3 ай бұрын

@@ready1fire1aim1 Quarks aren't dimensionless nor do they have 0 size, they are 3D like everything else in the physical universe...

@ready1fire1aim1

3 ай бұрын

@@Tian-wi6qr Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. No spatial extension, zero size and exact location only. Idk where you heard that quarks are 3D but you are wrong.

"Darwin solved the big one". LOL

@SamoaVsEverybody814

3 ай бұрын

Don't be disingenuous. You know he didn't mean why, he meant how

@kofidan9128

2 ай бұрын

​@@SamoaVsEverybody814Why is the big one

@SamoaVsEverybody814

2 ай бұрын

@@kofidan9128 There's no proof that why is even a meaningful question

Right here he literally claims evolution creates design, DNA did not have time to evolve. You talking about hundreds of thousands DNA pairs, ask any programmer if their code just works by accident.

@tunaphobe

3 ай бұрын

Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day.

@michaelnewsham1412

3 ай бұрын

DNA does not have to start over from scratch every time

@szaharfy

3 ай бұрын

@@michaelnewsham1412 ask a programmer if their code randomly works after a couple lines change.

Whenever I have a conversation with my muslims friends about existence of god they always very proudly brings that up "Quran says every living thing was created by water and talks about big bang theory and science also believes in this . How did they know this 1600 years ago?" And this is main reason all muslims are so conviced that there is Allah who created everything. Can anyone explain this?

@damienschwass9354

3 ай бұрын

They don’t know what they’re talking about. “Every living thing is created by water” is not the least bit scientific. So your friends are either ignorant or lying. I say get better friends.

"Creation" is to "evolution" as "created" is to "made": What is the difference between created and made? The difference between something being created and something being made is that when something is created it is brought into existence out of nothing. But, when something is made it has been formed out of something else that already exists.

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

Is zero a number then?

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

I just realised I wrote this before, weird. All good, to hard to explain and not worth anyone's time..

Atheist logic Everything came from nothing 😂😂

@Haqueip

3 ай бұрын

There is alot of possibilities how everything came from something maybe nothing, god, or someone else outside of the universe.

@epicofatrahasis3775

3 ай бұрын

Just like God, huh? He magically created himself.

@kofidan9128

2 ай бұрын

​@@epicofatrahasis3775nope, God simply is. He didn't have to create himself. He's from everlasting to everlasting. And that's why he's great and worthy of worship

@stevenicol1

15 күн бұрын

fancy believing there's something in the sky watching everyone with no evidence, do you believe in Santa too?

Hi Alex, do you still eat the dead?

@youtubestudiosucks978

3 ай бұрын

Plants are alive, bacteria and germs everywhere. You're asking a question that's impossible to say "no" on for anything that doesnt exclusivly feed on sunlight. Do you hear your own thoughts before you speak?

@DemainIronfalcon

3 ай бұрын

Out of curiosity is there anything that can survive for any length of time on photosynthesis alone, excuse my ignorance, scientific facts are let's just say worse than a weakness I've mine.

@MREVIL666-66

3 ай бұрын

@youtubestudiosucks978 let's stop the technical terms for a sec. Obviously I'm talking about animals u dork.

Yeah. It would be about time.

@gmlgml780

3 ай бұрын

And then we could finally destroy it.

Will science answer the Big Questions, or will it just demonstrate that they don't actually exist?

@anthonydesimone502

3 ай бұрын

Probably neither

I don’t think this guy (the one across from Shapiro) is making very smart points. He seems to have studied history rather selectively. Scientism, as it began to appear in the 19th century, looks like yet another manifestation of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Many climate scientists over the past several decades seem to have taken a page out of the playbook of the Millenarian movement. Whereas he seems to insist that religion tends to be wrong/inferior in comparison with contemporary science, my question is how science intends to escape the religious tradition from which it arose?

Only to its own - currently highly ghettoised - self-satisfaction; presenting, as is the want, something like the quaint mathematics of a train journey already long begun and now being projected, by calculation of some grains in time, on how long it must/ will/ should take to get from A to N .. while the rest of us, used to the ordinary trials of journeying by train on a particular company's track know, by experience, that sums however handy cannot beat down reality. This does not make the counter wrong - or his counting flawed, only that there is something wonky about 'reality' - and measuring wonkiness is at best an art form, not a piece of craftwork; pondering in this situation is, therefore, often as useful as mathematising (but don't start the mathematicians off by telling them so, they'll try going into quantum mechanics to disprove qualitative assessment - if only to try to prevent someone from daring to ruin their game by introducing 'x' .. or rather intruding into the equation .. a big No-No, btw). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)