Sir Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig • The Universe: How did it get here & why are we part of it?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2019
- For more debates, updates and an exclusive video of Sir Roger Penrose talking about his work with Stephen Hawking on Big Bang cosmology sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
Celebrated mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose talks to renowned Christian philosopher William Lane Craig about God and the Universe. They discuss Penrose's '3 realms' view of reality and his Conformal Cyclical Cosmology. Could the fundamental nature of reality, the Big Bang and the fine tuning of the Universe point towards a creator God?
Episode 2 | Season 2 of The Big Conversation
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig: • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
3. Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams • Peter J Williams vs Ba...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P0XRQd9YOUM/mqdefault.jpg)
Roger Penrose is impossible to dislike. He's so kind, respectful, and honest.
Absolutely likable but completely out of his depth. Frankly, his responses to Craig sounds like a first year uni student in philosophy. It's a bit hard to watch if you know a bit about metaphysics.
People underestimated how well-educated you have to be to moderate this kind of debate!
Yeah, William Shatner just wouldn't cut it.....
Come to thanksgiving sometime.
One of the greatest minds of our time:
"I haven't the foggiest idea."
It's good to be human.
He was 88 years old here, he has Likely forgotten more than most people will ever come to know.
It is good to be humble too.
"I haven't the foggiest idea"
And neither has anyone else....
I love how he even makes errors when explaining concepts, it's just a nice small thing that dispels the idea that somehow great intelligence = infallibility..
as you say, it's good to be human.
He's completely out of his depth. Frankly, his responses to Craig sound like a first year uni student in philosophy. It's a bit hard to watch if you know only intro metaphysics.
You can tell that Bill is enjoying just being able to speak to someone he holds in such high regard very enjoyable
Idk, I perceived that what Craig enjoyed was the opportunity to evangelize a figure like Penrose.
If only humility had followed his glee.
@@jamesppesch I don’t see any arrogance in the man, but I might be mistaken.
It must be disheartening to hear that the man whose work had so much influence on your theological views doesn’t share those views at all.
@@scottgodlewski306 as much as I Enjoy William Lane Craig, he really hasn’t molded my theological views. I enjoy both men, and having gone through what I have in life I don’t get disheartened.
Roger Penrose is the perfect ambassador for science, he is humble, acknowledges when he doesn't know and is skeptical of claims that cannot be easily investigated.
Every scientist I’ve read says “I don’t know”. Name one who says they know.
Well, his skepticism is rather uneven in distribution. He allows himself to believe consciousness can take any form to avoid fine-tuning. He allows himself to believe the CCC-model which seems to come out of his equations, but on the intuitive level is quite absurd. I think he's willing to believe the abstract realm is primary, although clearly, such a realm cannot cause anything. And so on. But I guess it's easy to lean back and be skeptical and not commit to anything. I could also do that.
Sometimes the answer is “I don’t know”. People who are educated in this stuff are the only ones who can really theorise as to the possibilities. You can replace WLC’s idea of a mind with any number of things. We could be in a simulation and the rules outside that simulation are completely different. You could say were in an infinite universe that has always existed, you can even say we’re just particles of a bigger dimension.
The problem is when you pick one possibility over the other and say “this is the truth”. Roger Penrose doesn’t do this. He does his work based on a theory that he can try and falsify. But in falsifying it he’ll understand a little more and then the next generation will stand on his shoulders and either progress the theory or discover its failures.
This can’t be done if your claim is an unknowable force is behind it all.
@@mortensimonsen1645 My interpretation of Penrose’s position is that the distribution of his skepticism is based on the evidence for the subject at hand and his understanding of it. When he understands, is able to make the logical connections and there is some underlying ability to verify to at least some extent that something is plausible his skepticism on the matter is decreased. That is admirable.
Fine tuning - he stated he was agnostic, there was not yet enough understand to take a firm stand. He simply provided evidence there was on the opposing side and indicated those arguments were not sufficient for him.
CCC model that comes out of his equations - I am not if you are saying the CCC model itself is intuitively absurd or that his belief in the model that comes out of abstract mathematical equations is absurd. Our understanding of our universe, how we live in the comforts of our modern society is all based on those mathematical principles.
There is nothing absurd about basing one’s willingness to believe something on mathematical principles. Penrose provided concrete examples that backed his position (Einstein’s relativity proved with atomic clocks). GPS devices would not work without taking the mathematics of both special and general relativity into account.
Penrose indicated that fact our universe has such a mathematical basis is first of the three mysteries. There is nothing absurd about his position. Penrose also provided information about supporting mathematical evidence and potential observations that could support his theory. He cited other independent papers that supported his position (but remains aware that the papers are new and that criticisms could be forthcoming). Very open to challenges.
Your comment - “I guess it easy to lean back and be skeptical and not commit to anything”. I believe the opposite is true. WLC’s position really boils down to the very weak “God of the Gaps” argument. We don’t understand our universe and it is uncomfortable not to know. Therefore, I will create an entity that explains everything even though there is absolutely no basis for it other than my proclamation.
That is easy, anyone can do that. Penrose has spent very productive lifetime of pushing the boundaries of our scientific understanding of our universe. That is not easy. Being skeptical and non-committal has what has drove Penrose to search for answers. Penrose’s value system has enabled his abundant contributions to mathematics, science and our understanding of our universe. WLC’s contribution is simply, God did it. There is no comparison.
Being skeptical is definitely the more challenging position, because it means one is not done and the investigation continues.
@@celeritasc9207 I admit I don't understand the CCC-model, but it seems absurd to believe that in a totally empty void of free photons floating around, a sudden Big Bang could appear - just because time/space does not count for these photons? Why should this happen all the time around in our universe? Anyway - I am sure the equations can handle this, but although I agree that mathematics can be a source of truth about the physical world, it is not a 1:1 relationship. Penrose even said that only a small number of mathematical truths had anything to do with the physical world.
But the strangest idea Penrose put forward was the consciousness could take many strange forms, citing sci-fi stories. That's not very empirical one could say and does not demonstrate the necessary skepticism.
About the mathematical realm being the primary, WLC responded that the number 7 could not cause anything. I agree - an abstract realm cannot cause a physical change. One should demonstrate such a thing if one would wish to make such a bold claim.
Furthermore, Penrose didn't like the God hypothesis because it couldn't be put to a scientific test (my interpretation of a comment he made). He had just admitted an abstract realm and a mental realm, none of which can be scientifically proven.
I believe only God can explain objective morality. I believe God best explains fine-tuning. If the universe did have a beginning, I believe God is the best explanation for that. This is really not "God-of-the-gaps" as many like to throw around. If you're open to that we're in a simulator, then you will recognize the same arguments as for God - really much of the same thing.
I'm an atheist and I'm usually not particularly fond of William Lane Craig, but he's much more likeable in this conversational setting rather than a formal debate setting.
It was a good conversation. I generally favour Roger's positition, but I thought Craig did raise some reasonable objections to CCC. Great moderation too.
I must say, kudos to a Christian organisation willing to arrange these conversations and hear opposing viewpoints. A lot of other areas in our society just now could use this kind of civil engagement over disagreements.
Justin (the moderator) runs Unbelievable which regularly hosts atheists, agnostics, and theists to discuss these issues and it is almost always very polite. You should check out his channel. You might also want to see the discussions on Capturing Christianity's channels.
I agree about this organization - they are knocking it out the park with “season 2.”
I'm assuming you are not familiar with his brand of apologetics. He tries to walk and talk like a scientist but he simply cherry picks quotes and topics that will prop up his reengineered old and tired version of the Kalam cosmological conundrum. Check out his debate with Sean Carroll. Sean destroyed him. He's got a PhD in divinity, not particle physics, math, cosmology or astronomy. Science is dynamic and changes in tandem with new information. Obviously if you're not updated on the topics they're discussing it might seem like he actually has an argument. Penrose is being extremely patient and tolerant.
R Genericson I’m not a WLC fan - his theology is just as bad as his science-- but I think the poster was commenting more about the format, which I, too, think is very good.
@@rgenericson5361 I've been familiar with WLC for a long time. To be clear, I don't really find much of anything he says very convincing. I've seen all the big debates he's done, including the one with Carroll. I agree that Carroll was the person who most comprehensively picked apart his positions, but to be honest I just don't find it that helpful any more to say that one person "destroyed" another. I find this conversational setting more civil and therefore more fruitful in terms of learning opportunities.
Even with that said though, I still think Craig made some reasonable challenges to Penrose, and that's to be welcomed. For example, I would say his point about the Platonic world being causally inert is a perfectly reasonable point. It doesn't completely refute Roger's idea, but it's a sensible thing to say and I enjoy hearing other points of view. He was also correct to point out that CCC isn't exactly a well accepted theory. I would agree though that when Craig tries to get into the science it's kind of embarrassing to watch - it's clear he doesn't really know what he's talking about. He should stick to the philosophical objections.
this moderator is absolutely fantastic. extremely likeable, has basic knowledge to ask the right questions, rarely interrupts etc.
No no no he is not. He is the reason I stopped watching anytime on this channel. First of he consumes s lot if time with his interruptions and attempts to clarify what is already clear. But moreover whenever it gets interesting he changes the subject. Wlc is constantly pushing Lorentz time. He even tries to explain it to Penrose. Hello! Than instead of letting Penrose school him the moderator wants to change the subject. That is a tremendous stupidity on his part that is unforgivable
@@PietCarlos ... you seem a bit spiteful
@@crabb9966 there is a saying. When you see people dancing and you cannot hear the music you may think they are crazy. Seems that you're not able to hear the music. Don't worry. You wil get there.
@@PietCarlos we will see
@@crabb9966 we have seen
This is the internet at it's best .First rate moderator and a privilege to be able to witness this conversation. We are made of stardust at the quantum level and yet are conscious therefore intuition is worth respecting.
Man. I love scientists/mathematicians like Roger. Open minded, respectful and humble to all. He dose not hate religion but skeptical. Everyone has a right to be so. Roger is a good man.
not just the right, but the moral obligation.
sabin97 yep!
@@queenisrael8158
professor CLAIMED to have deied and seen hell and demons....
there i fixed it for you.
so where's his evidence for his claims?
if we can present claims without evidence i can tell you i have an invisible, perfectly silent, intangible dragon living under my bed. it communicates with me telepathically and doesnt know anything i dont already know. it also has no need for sustencance and leaves absolutely no trail of its existence anywhere.
do you accept my claim?
@@sabin97 That man are telling the truth he know what happened ,who is you to say what happened you want there only him and God. And it lots more videos out there . One more video call Bill Wiese 23 min in hell. He said the same thing happened.when you die you will prove to yourself hell is real by falling in hell burning forever with fire 🔥 up to your head , demons and beasts, dragon and everything else, down there with you cause you didn't believe in God,the Bible said what will happen to people like you. God will punish you in hell. You will have all the proof you always wanted burning in hell for ever!!! Where is your proof there is no God show me one proof cause you can't show me anything. You don't know for sure yourself!! Injoy the little time you have on Earth.
@@queenisrael8158
"That man are telling the truth"
he may not be lying, but what he says is not necessarily true.
yeah. in order to lie you need to be aware that what you're saying is false.
unless he provides actual evidence of his story, nobody can reasonably accept it as true.
"One more video call Bill Wiese 23 min in hell. He said the same thing happened."
yeah. and LOTS of people claim to have been abducted by aliens, and their stories are very consistent with one another....
and yet not a single one of them has provided any evidence for it.
do you accept the alien abduction stories?
hopefully not....
"when you die "
it's too late to provide evidence.
so either provide it now, or kindly admit you dont have it.
" falling in hell burning forever with fire 🔥 up to your head"
ohhhh nice...so now the threats begin?
"believe this without evidence or be tortured forever!!!!"
"Where is your proof there is no God"
in the exact same place of your proof that my dragon doesnt exist.
my dragon is invisible, intangible, perfectly silent, doesnt eat, communicates with me telepathically and doesnt know anything i dont already know.
prove my dragon doesnt exist. other than merely asserting it doesnt exist.
you cant. the nonexistence of something like that cannot be demonstrated.
but you dont need to demonstrate my dragon doesnt exist, because that's now how anything works.
when someone makes a claim something exists, the burden is on the person making the claim that the thing exists. nobody else has a burden to demonstrate the claim is false.
I can only wish that at 88 years old I can engage in high level debates like this without skipping a beat
We'll gauge your conversation by the frequency of grunts and farts. If you poo in your diaper, then we'll say you need a break.
@@jamesbra4410 What an appropriate and thoughtful comment. We can learn such a great deal about each other from what we say.
@@BillyBike416 yeah now I know you're a tightwad.
I hope I could at my 35 lol
well i have a close friend who is schizophrenic, and the only way to deal with people who suffer delusions is to be respectful, try to understand their point of view, stick strictly to the facts and avoid being trapped into getting upset, or distracted (my friend can change the subject, over and over, without blinking). RP knows his stuff, there is no need for him to get flustered.
"It's very hard to bore a photon". Love the British wit!
I am always moved by the weighty intellectual gravitas and humble personal presence of Roger Penrose. And today, I gained a new appreciation for William Craig's ability to probe with deference, dignity, and humility the mind and heart of Roger Penrose.
This is what a civil discussion looks like, folks.
As an atheist, this is so much better than debates at least in regards to the topics. This video and IMO Matt Dillahunty and Jordan Peterson are the examples of what discussions should be.
@@sammysam2615 Can you explain Penrose's cycle? I don't follow it.
He describes the heat death of a previous universe, a vast, diffuse group of photons with no mass at 0 deg K -- and I agree that's what physics indicates.
Then what? How do (or what causes) massless things at 0 deg K to do whatever the next step is?
@@20july1944
That's honestly beyond by understanding let alone explaining it. I do know there are a few YT videos that explain it fairly well, I can't really grasp it. Sorry
@@20july1944
Search Professor Brain Cox or Lawrence Krauss, both explain it in a way most can understand.
@@sammysam2615 please don't compare dr penrose to grifters like peterson.
He doesn't follow his own rules. He did a video about how to recover from addiction and didn't mention rehab. But now it turns out he has been an addict and just lying by omission. And he didn't follow his own advice because he went to rehab (which he didn't say in his video).
He's a scam artist
Penrose is the gentleman scientist
Everyone could take a lesson from him
thoroughly agree with you. It was interesting to see Bill looking so "on-edge". It seems he was in battle mode but still resorted to proper etiquette.
That’s the entire generation. Sadly mostly gone.
@Kakashi Hatake Oh yeah that guy. What a flash in the pan. I think he went and got himself cancelled. Not a big surprise.
@Kakashi Hatake Yeah I remember someone else stating that the particles popping in and out of existence event that he based his whole premise on, happens after the universe already begins to expand.
Which would render the whole thing moot because it happens in an already existing universe.
Someone else also pointed out that the title of his book 'A Universe From Nothing" was totally deceptive and just used to sell books. Because the claim that the universe came from nothing isn't even made in the book.
Krauss was a deceptive dude and knew exactly what he was doing with that. Which was getting semi rich off of suckers that are supposed to be skeptics. Irony.
Kakashi Hatake why don’t you debate Kraus in the future? Of all the people he’s debated they’ve never thought to point out what you’ve claimed he has lied about?
This is how two human beings are to conduct themselves in a serious debate ... good job fellows !!! I am in awe of Dr Craig and his ittelect as a theological Man !!
As a theist myself, Roger Penrose has given me a lot to think about and consider. These are two men, speaking in their own fields of expertise, brilliant!
Makes you consider what?
@@iamBlackGambitThats like jordan peterson breaking down individual words of questions as a scapegoating effort.
Jesus loves you.
@@retsnomeikcooc Krishna loves you
First class moderator. He should have a world wide radio/tv show!
He has.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
Yes! Didn't alienate anyone or make assumptions, and was able to keep them respectfully engaged.
@@mitchellc4 Or Islam is right or Judaism or atheism. I don't think that is for humans to dictate to others.
But hold on to your Christian beliefs because they seem to mean a lot to you.
Internet
The big questions remaining for me after watching this are (1) Who are the people who disliked this video and (2) How could they have possibly come into existence?
flying spagetti monster ?
@Clayton Tobin I think so too. Would be interesting if YT moved the buttons more apart, I think the numbers of dislike would go down significantly.
@Natmanprime You stop it. It was funny. Party pooper.
"(2) How could they have possibly come into existence"
By parents having the decency to actually fuck.. And Evolution ofc..
@@HeadGodoftheGodCouncil For once I can say "Thank you, God!"
Moderatör did an excellent job… Thank you very much for this amazing conversation
As a Monotheistic Christian, I always appreciate when a genuinely humble Agnostic like Penrose is always willing to be open unlike most “skeptics” who just attack and attack and aren’t open at all. Roger is a breath of fresh air.
Penrose regards himself as an atheist, but like most atheists he is probably an agnostic atheist.
It would have been a different conversation - and possibly one you would not have found so respectful - if WLC had made specific claims about Christianity. Most agnostic/atheist scientist don't have a problem with deism - but WLC was smart enough to steer clear of using revelation as an argument in favor of there being a divine creator.
I agree☀️
Are you opened to the possibility that your monotheistic beliefs might not be the truth amongst the thousands of different beliefs out there
I think Penrose just find the whole thing unnecessary.
A scientist is perfectly fine in saying "I don't know". Craig, instead, seems to be perfectly fine in assuming a lot without any evidence for it.
We must keep Sir Roger alive for another 100 years please
@SvendBosanvovski Would require severe rocketry for keeping him another decade
We MUST make technology for that. There are just too many greats. Penrose, Witten, Tao, Perelman, so many greats.
Perhaps if no other technology is available to preserve his physical body, perhaps it’s possible to download his consciousness to a computer.
@SvendBosanvovski
"THE DAYS OF OUR YEARS ARE THREESORE YEARS AND TEN; AND IF BY REASON OF STRENGTH THEY BE FOUR SCORE YEARS, YET IS THEIR STRENGTH LABOUR AND SORROW; FOR IT IS SOON CUT OFF AND WE FLY AWAY. (PSALM 90:19)
Only God can do that
Justin is an outstanding moderator. Grasps the issues and adroitly guides the discussion forward.
@Edward Verda Exactly. That is the elephant in the room.
is bias stills shows though, his program may seem "balanced" but these guys are still rooting for god.
gregory s I am not sure if he asked a single non-leading question
I thought so too! Sir Roger Penrose kept saying "exactly" to his contributions which just shows how well he did. He must have been thrilled 😊
I don't think Justin is trying to hard to hide his bias. I think that the format was never intended to be a formal debate but more of a discussion/conversation.
Absolutely love these conversations. I still like them more when they are like this; discussions and not debates. They are both looking for a truth rather than defending their position.
The theological mind was not quite so open, yet surprisingly well educated about physics. Wonderful! And facinating to see Roger completely un-intimidated by Bill's almost permanent frown of disbelief - probably used so successfully during his lifetime its now unconsciously tattooed on ;)
Nevertheless their example of respect for each other's differences was exemplary and made for a fabulous informing conversation. Thanks immensely Christian Radio.
@@skybellau I had Dr. Craig as a professor 3 times. He is not a frowning or angry person. He was always very kind. He is incredibly intelligent and sometimes those individuals have difficulty socially, but I don’t think he is frowning here more intensely listening.
ROFL
William Lain Craig has shown multiple times that he doesn't rly care about truth. He's willing to lower his epistemic bar for Christianity.
@@pythondrinkHow so? And who says where ones epistemic bar is supposed to be? You?
This is a beautiful conversation; I love when people can respectfully discuss their ideas with open minds. Kudos to ye, lads!
It isn't mutually respectful. Craig thinks Penrose, along with the vast majority of humanity, will be made to suffer eternally. He is a psychopath, as is everyone who holds that belief.
Craig agrees to do these "conversations" and "debates" because he's primarily concerned with self-promotion.
Shut up
I didn't liked "Therfore God" argument though.
@@uranamacfacts don’t care about your feelings, Craig postulated strong arguments which Roger couldn’t refute.
@@Netomp51in which universe did that happen ?? 😂
Incredible...88 years old and still as active as he is...incredible.
You can see at times he fatigues, but that might be as he glazes over with some of the nonsense flowing by.
@@KONAMAN100 yup his nonsense maybe.
@@mystery6411 Shame how William Lane Craig has been parroting the fallacious kalam cosmological argument for decades eventhough it contains a false premise and a hasty conclusion... Despite Craig’s immense charisma and friendliness, I would be fatigued too at such ignorance of physics and oversimplified appliance of common intuitions about the metaphysics of causality into something as unintuitive as the big bang, whose first 10^-43 seconds were governed by physics not yet understood and whose features may not even be amenable to such common metaphysical ideas of causality.
Incredible fact that Sir Roger Penrose is 88 years old in this video! Having a bright and active mind seems to keep him younger than he actually is!
He is 88 years old, which means that he is so close to discover that Jesus really exist, I pray that he repent for his sins cause not matter if you believe in hell and heaven, your mind will not make them disappear.
@@annapaula3352 Why do you believe nonsense_
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@mitchellc4
Hello, I read what you typed and it has taken my interest as to why you say I should follow Jesus and yet you say He is not God? Would it not be sensible to say that I should rather follow God or His word than a mere man?
I am Christian, and I find it rather confusing as to how people can believe one thing and denounce something closely related at the same time.
For example Jesus never said “I have a God” but according to the gospel of John in Chapter 10:30 He said “I and My Father are one.”
How do you explain what that means other than Him claiming to be of the same essence as the Father?
In the next verse, verse 31-33 it says “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, ‘Many good works I have shown you from my Father. For which of those do you stone Me?’
The Jews answered Him, saying, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself God.”
Jesus clearly claimed to be God my friend and to deny that is to deny the Father Himself (1 John 5:10)
@@kaylangoliath So Kaylan, since YOU opined, thought I, to myself, why not I! Not that I believe at all the "stories" found in the new testament concerning the character "Jesus", BUT! Your statement, "For example Jesus NEVER said ' I have a God' "??? Pray tell, can YOU explain to ME what did the author of John mean when he had the character, "Jesus", say in chapter 20:17 ...." I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to MY God, and your God"? Here Jesus is saying indeed, MY God!?!? He here is saying just THAT!!! "I have a God"! AND he demonstrated as much when he is shown in "prayer" to HIS God on many occasions!?!? What of the incident at the baptismal scene in Matthew 3:17, where a voice from heaven said "This is my SON"!!! Who was speaking from heaven Kaylan? Was this not the very voice of "God, The Father Himself??? What I wish for YOU to understand is that the voice did NOT say "This is ME" but rather, "my SON"! THINK Kaylan, THINK!!! Is Jesus His OWN father? Makes NO sense!? The ONE and ONLY, TRUE "God", can NOT die Kaylan!!! "Jesus" DIED and was DEAD "3 days and 3 nights"??? He did NOT say, "I am God" anywhere in the "bible", he simply demonstrated that he was NOT "God" by DYING!!!
Absolutely outstanding discussion. I love Roger Penrose's humility and brilliance. Of course, William Craig always is interesting too. Getting them together? Fantastic! (And refreshing, because it was a civil discussion)
I love hearing a debate where I am unable to understand every part of it. It means I have more to learn and listen to this discussion again. So good!
We are able to comprehend as much on a given subject only as much as our minds have knowledge that can be built on by the new ( to one ) knowledge being put forward. Not everyone comes out of a lecture with exactly the same information as everyone else. Each reaps from it only as much as his previous knowledge has prepared him/her for. Of course there is also 'information bias' which may block any new 'hostile' but useful information coming in .
One of the most enjoyable debates I’ve seen. Very respectful and brilliant men.
Google would have said
Did you mean "discussion"
But, this video is very, very interesting to me, too.
its a discussion not a debate
i agree, i had no idea david lee roth had become an analytic philospher, he was always such a pragmatist when i knew him
Well, one of them is brilliant…
@@panpsychism_ hey man give the devil it’s due. He sits there and discusses his ideas in front on people who dont agree. I learn so much about the universe and how to discuss through people like these who bring together and participate in these conversations. There is something brilliant about that, and credit it due to both sides for that.
Kudos to the moderator, he is smart and well informed, and did a good job of fleshing out the arguments. Actually, I think he understood Craig's argument better than Penrose, and understood Penrose's argument better than Craig. Good job mate.
How does Craig explain a loving God in respect to the question of why do bad things happen to good people?
@@bonnie43uk I suppose he may use the free will defense, which while explains certain things, I think has a number of problems. I don't know. He may have some other explanations.
@@DANGJOS Yeah, I suspect that the problems are intractable. It's quite revolting to hear Craig try reconciling his omni-benevolent & omniscient God with a world in which blameless young children die in agonising pain from cancers and such. Any dry bit of abstract reasoning is going to come off as a crass platitude at best, a demonstration of psychopathy at worst.
@@thekinginthenorth8011 Revolting? And to you what is the reason why young children die in agonizing pain from cancers or bombs? Bad luck?
@@ajsirch We live on a planet that has evolved naturally without the need for a God, we humans have evolved alongside many other living creatures many of which are harmful or even in many cases deadly to mankind. Why, for example would God create a mosquito that infects hundreds of thousands of young children and in particular, babies, which suffer from the mosquito's bite infecting it with malaria and die agonizing deaths?, From the atheist perspective we know that it's one of life's downfalls of living on a planet with, as i say lots of other creatures that we happen to share it with.
The moderator is knowledgeable as well. I salute him.
Sr. Roger is a class act and always a pleasure to listen to.
Penrose is a good example of someone who can be brilliant, disagree with you, and not be an asshole - a lesson Lawrence Krauss can learn. Love Penrose - a phenomenal mind, approachable, a gentleman, without the slightest dogmatism.
I disagree. I found his tantamount dismissal of Craig's philosophical perspective, off-putting.
@@pescatoralpursuit1726 I mean it is largely because Craig genuinely has no background in physics and doesn't really understand it that well. He understands metaphysics exceptionally, but he is very poor when dealing with actual physics due to imprecise understanding and definitions. Penrose was not rude at all about it though.
@@tomschmaltz5467 His contempt for Craig is due to him not being a peer. Craig's argument is over Penrose's head which is obvious given his dismissal when asked to rectify the physical conundrum.
He's appears another atheist hiding behind his credentials, or he really has no interest in seeking answers to the big questions.
@@pescatoralpursuit1726 I would hardly say he has any contempt for Craig. They both were incredibly respectful for one another. The issue is Craig makes a lot of waffly statements without much evidence. It's not that those went "above Penrose's head", it's just there is no good reason to believe in something on bad evidence. Penrose has dedicated his life to using EVIDENCE to answer the bigger questions, that is ultimately why he's considered one of the greatest minds of the last 100 years and won a Nobel Prize.
Imagine knowing your brain creates your consciousness yet still telling a Nobel Prize winning scientist that the universe is God's consciousness and not even bothering to explain how it exists without a brain.
[Lane-Craig] “Do we have free will?”
[Penrose] “...I’d like to keep an open mind on that one...”
😂😂😂
LOL! Great catch!
Classic 🤦♂️😂
When I see Roger's 'comb-over', I think perhaps not :)
Why is that laughable? There's a convincing neurological argument that freewill is illusory or at less of a factor in our behavior they most like to think it is.
Alan Koslowski you’re right that it’s a respectable debate to be had. And I don’t find Roger’s position “laughable” at all. But it is funny (in a good natured “isn’t that ironic” way) that he doesn’t feel determined either way on the question. That’s all
I am crazy impressed that Scientist and a religious person discuss very politely without shouting, increasing their voice.
Wonderful wonderful wonderful, thanks for sharing \o/
Greatest person I ever seen Roger Penrose (I am sure he doesn't care about being called Sir ...)
A pair of absolute gentleman and a pleasure to watch..
Justin added to some of the things Sir Penrose said that clarified the points he was trying to make and even contributed to them in a way that he appreciated and seemed pleasantly surprised at. It seemed like it made Sir Penrose realize that some Christians really know what they are talking about. Justin was beyond prepared for this conversation and showed a strong understanding of the interaction between the science and philosophy, albeit from a layman's perspective. Bravo Justin. You are an amazing fit for the position you find yourself in in life and in your career, as if there was a God who ordained it for you. Thank you. I look forward to seeing you in California next weekend.
Paul Foor very kind words. Thanks!
Justin did an amazing job and was on the ball for the entire debate but let's not jump to Penrose realizing Christians know what they're talking about since he basically sat there the entire time saying Craig wasn't offering sensible solutions to any of the problems posed
Watching Penrose rest his head in his palm as WLC rattled on was pretty telling. He definitely wasn't impressed with WLC.
Great respect for a man with Roger’s Knowledge to say “I don’t know’. The more we learn the more questions we have.
he didnt say "i dont know", he said "i dont know what to do with it"
And Roger should never know...or it will be the end of creation.
@@beaniegamer9163 what? of He knows it might be the end of atheism as when He knows that the universe had indeed begun at some point, the atheist physicists panicked!
@@jvbest5k301 Really.
@@jvbest5k301
What a nonsense. Science is knowledge seeking. If science could explain the beginning of the universe too, it's more likely a feast for atheism and the end of religion. But many religious zealots will still be in denial, call it fake news and dogmatically try to hold on to their bronze age texts. Many people don't like facts and inconvenient truths, but go for their preferred narrative and delusional beliefs.
A great moderator; very smart and absolutely appropriate!
You can actually feel William Lane Craig's joy to be able to discuss philosophy and metaphysics and, you know, philosophical stuff, because he's so used to discussing with those scientistic people who don't anything about philosophy.
scientistic isn't a word and most scientists hold PhDs which stand for philosophy doctors and are versed in aspects of philosophy relevant to their disciplines. WLC is so used to argue for things he doesn't really know, I think his joy in this case comes from the fact that Sir Roger Penrose doesn't really care about confronting him on that
@@st3ppenwolf yeah no the two times I really saw him lose was the Shelly kagan debate, and the oppy debate. That’s it
@@st3ppenwolf PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy for historical reasons. For example, Science used to be called Natural Philosophy. Newton's Magnum Opus was titled "Philosophae Naturalis Principia Mathematica " It has nothing to do with scientists being trained in Philosophy.
@@davidgagnon3781 Most people holding PhDs from good schools need to understand the principles of philosophy to actually write their thesis. It's not just for historical reasons. It's in the title
So admittedly, I'm just going off the cuff here and have *not* done my proper googling, but I have a loose understanding I can share I think... The distinction I was always aware of was that you had Ph. D's and you had M.D.'s ... Medical doctors and philosophical doctors as mentioned. So in order to get your Ph. D you need to pick a problem in science that has not been properly addressed in a certain way, and that becomes your thesis - you then will write one of the most intense papers of your life (more like a book) which you then will have to confront a panel of professors or tenor'd staff in which you have almost a "trial" where you need to defend your thesis statement as your mentors try to find ways to poke holes in your argument. That's my understanding :)
I collaborated with Roger over 35 years ago. He was a great and humble guy then and I have huge respect for him.
Gareth Rees my favourite of interviewee of all time
Gareth Rees What did you do with him?
Wow - what a great thing. He's one of the most impressive men I've ever listened to. What a great experience that must have been for you.
@@spaceisalie5451 sex
I'm having a lot of fun watching this :) Two people disagreeing deeply, but being totally sincere and enjoying their time together. It's as rare as it is beautiful.
That's how adults behave. =)
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
I don’t find Craig to be sincere at all. He just says whatever he can to try to justify his view of god. At one point he limits the entire world to three possible categories, as if there couldn’t be a fourth. That’s a con-artist move. Basically a false dichotomy. He does that all the time because to admit he doesn’t know doesn’t justify his religion.
@@mitchellc4 Oh Lordy
@@KingstonHawke your bias is blatantly obvious in your stated opinion on Craig from the first two sentences on and as such is without merit
Thank you Justin for doing all of these videos and for all of your hard work! It is such a blessing and you have really helped many in their faith.
I love how Sir Roger Penrose manages all the concepts in order to not get confused, but with no imposing a negationism to things he do not know, a clear open and wise being
It's clear, though that he has no belief in a god.
I wish believers were able to do just that instead of defending the indefensible.
Penrose is one of the people that are so incredibly great in their own time that we don't quite know what to do about it, 50 years from now he'll be 100x more celebrated
Why Penrose is so great?
Please explain the achivements for all good?
Exactly. It is really about as amazing as having one of the other Greats still with us (Russell, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, etc.)
@@goranmancevski5550 You obviously have no scientific education. Penrose is one of the greatest thinkers of our time and will indeed be even more celebrated in time.
@@goranmancevski5550 If his cyclical universe model continues to make testable predictions that remain supported and uncontradicted by evidence gathered in the future, he will be more famous than he is now. That is the greatest achievement you can have as a scientist.
Let me start by saying my own belief is very much Christian, but I'll add that I do love listening to Roger Penrose. For one thing here, while I don't know how much Roger believes in what William Craig is saying, but it seems he's always listening and actually thinking about what the other person is saying.
Your qualification that you are very much Christian...but love listening to Penrose, is tacit confirmation that in your view, Christianity and theoretical physics cannot coexist.
@@mdt471 No, it just means that I wanted to make it clear that I'm keenly interested in both sides of this debate. And by "this debate", I mean the specific debate as shown in this video.
Let me also add that the attitude of Roger's that I'm praising here is something that I've seen from Roger in any kind of debate that I've seen him in. That goes for debates like this, but also in debates on the merits of different (contrasting and incompatible) theories of theoretical physics. He's always listening, and always tries to be very precise in what he is describing.
It's baked into Roger's character, and I wish more people would do the same when they're listening to someone they disagree with (no matter what topic is being debated).
Don't worry, this is not your fault being religious, but mother nature's failure.
@@mdt471
Perhaps you made a typo, but as written, that's a non sequitur.
I love the way they debate, one doesn't have to show aggressiveness to disagree.
What a fascinating and enriching conversation. I feel blessed to be able to listen in as a fly on the wall.
The expressions on Bill,s face are priceless when Penrose is talking about hard core physics - amazing discussion.
Like him or not, Craig actually has a pretty strong grasp of physics.
I also noticed that haha. In all fairness, RP is a scientist. WLC is a philosopher. WLC does have a decent understanding of physics though. It was a great discussion between two goats.
@@NudlemanJones
Oh really?
@@Wuppie62 Yes, really. Probably wouldn't solve many physics problems, but he understands how the math and observations connect and focuses on the philosophical implications of the physics' discoveries.
@@ablazedguy
How would you know?
Isn't it a possibility that you're one of the blind people who worship Craig for being their King One Eye, whilst real scientists - in this case physists - are shaking their heads at Craig's 'philosophical' (read: religion driven) brainfarts?
This was an unbelievably fascinating discussion, and I greatly admire the respectful back and forth between Craig and Penrose. I could watch this stuff for hours!
Me too.
what a fantastic and respectful debate. You can learn so much - regardless of the side you stand on...
This was a great conversation. I like them both for different reasons.
Sir Penrose's humility and truthfulness should be emulated by every one who claims to be a Christian...
Do you claim to be a Christian? Do you engage with many atheists?
@Jans Auza : You feel like you have authority to tell Christians how they should behave?
@Fatram Fatram are u crazy what childish beliefs which childish were having purpose saying that their is agod what so childish about that but you’re more child is just try to denying that
Well, of course if you're referring to hypocrites, but true Christians already practice those qualities, no need to “emulate” them. These qualities are already Christian in nature.
Sir Penroses's humility and truthfulness should be emulated by everyone who claims to be an atheist...
“The Problem with us mathematicians is that we are very poor philosophers.”
-Einstein
"When we set out to unravel and behold the ever present interconnectedness, awe inspiring, complex, and infinite beauty that by its own virtue binds the cosmos- we inevitably overlook the extent to which abstract manifestation can't self actualize it's own justification without necessitating an appeal to metaphysical constructs, by which any attempts to define it are hence rendered self defeating."
- Newton
Just curious, when’s the last time a philosopher developed a cure for disease or published papers on particle physics, chemistry and cosmology?
R Genericson Just curious, when have you?
@@rgenericson5361 Philosophy created science. science is a branch of philosophy.
a philosopher tells you how to do science and limits the stupidity of theories so that science can create a cure.
@@joshjeggs By that logic, philosophy created pretty much everything.
Never thought I'd see Sir Roger Penrose to sit down and have a philosophical discussion with David Lee Roth
Thanks for the value this channel adds!
This lived up to the hype. _Unbelievably_ great conversation!
How lovely are these three gents and how lovely is this video. A pleasure to listen to. ❤
Very enjoyable. Much prefer these conversations than the big atheist/Christian debates from say Christopher hitchens and alike..
William Lane Craig honestly says some interesting things but in the end it's all just in service to a very basic god of the gaps argument. The best compliment I can give him, and it's really not much a of compliment, is that although he'd never be a good scientist, he could absolutely be a great philosopher.
Two thoroughly-pleasant, gentle-men, in the classical sense, with diverse ideas, and both men with great skill in the art of mapping complex ideas into meaningful spoken words ... at table with a third congenial gentle-man with a most-pleasant way of “steering” the conversation: Wow! What a treat to this person, here and now struggling to describe what he has just seen and heard. My thanks to the three “stars”, at the table, and also to those unseen ... who in some way contributed to the making of this recording. Thank you ALL!
Love Penrose. His 'we don't know' honesty. What a mind, though.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 Are you god? If not, please provide communique from god to Penrose.
You see this sort of humility in academics generally.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 i'm with penrose, there may be a god, but that doesn't help. god takes no part in human affairs, even if you are christian, gods divine plan means god made himself redundant at the moment of creation, a perfect plan doesn't need updates or supervision, praying for change is actually blasphamy "oh god i don't like what you're doing kindly see my suggestions"
@@StellaLovesMusic25 Meaningless drivel from a Bronze Age culture that knew almost nothing of Time, Space, and human capacity to reason.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 Not my vision of god, merely examining the "visions" of world religions, minus the cherry picking. I'd hope you'd agree---belief does not equate reality or what is true.
This is delightful.
Even the comments (nearly all of them) on this video are delightful.
Well done, everyone.
Has anyone else observed that here we have an incredibly kind, clearly gentle, benevolent man who has no need for the concept of "God" in his life and yet has lived a perfectly successful life _without_ "God"?
Seems to me that Roger Pemrose is the very evidence we need that we _don't need_ "God".
Really interesting discussion, and brilliant moderation thank you, Justin 🙂
Samantha Richardson Thankyou!
@@PremierUnbelievable I agree. Wonderful moderation. Your willingness to step in and stop them (I say them but it's mostly Craig) from going off-topic is commendable.
@@vampyricon7026 yyyyyyyyyyyyýyyyyyy6ýyyb
It seems a productive discussion between two different mind-sets [Penrose & Craig] evolves when their is common ground on some fundamental basis: tripartite structures of reality which was a source of awe for both. Penrose articulated 1] how the physical world and its behaviour subscribes to the rules of mathematics 2] how our mind is able engage reality 3] and how the physical world and mathematics can be directed in our mind to yield discoveries. Craig, parallel to this, identified 1] the realm of the abstract [ideas and numbers, etc. 2] the realm of the physical [which is governed by numbers] 3] the mind [ the agent of intentionality, which directs, decides and discovers]. AMAZING!
It's these kinds of discussions that give dignity to the discussion and clarify elements of agreement and disagreement.
I like Penrose's face expression while listening to Craig's talk. An expression of someone who is trying to hide, but effectively can't, the regret of spending his time in a discussion with this guy....
Thanks for this. Penrose seems like a real gentleman.
To have Roger Penrose on your program must be the most exciting thing you've ever done in your life
Everytime I watch a conversation about the big questions, my mind runs into an infinite loop of questions and answers.
I don't think that you can have an infinite number of questions being that you are a finite being.
@@dimingohale1952 A loop is infinite per definition.
@ Not necessarily, is just means that something repeats itself, and this can happen one time, two times, a thousand times etc, or infinite.
@@HDitzzDH COVID seems infinite to me XD.
This is some next level discussion. 5 hours and i would not get enough
Penrose is one of the most humble, unassuming, gentle, and open minded people on earth. I think this is the most interesting convo I've heard in the last decade.
I am a Muslim and this was a fascinating discussion. Great kudos to the moderator!
Praying for you brother.. Jesus Christ died and rose again for you.. 🙏🏽❤️😇
Do you lead all your TH-cam comments with a declaration of your religion? ;)
@@quinnculver yes, in this context, I felt wise to mention it.
What a wonderful and almost unfathomly wonderful treat to be able to listen to Prof. Penrose on this wonderful program!!
Lovely talk.. Two grt minds... Loved it
Mr Penrose is such a nice, courteous and fatherly figure🥰
Perhaps of the best conversation about the topic I've seen so far.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
Except WLC kept talking....
@@mitchellc4 sorry. But f.. off.
@@mitchellc4 stop trying to spread these lies. Thomas bowed to Jesus and said my Lord and my God. Jesus didn't correct him on calling him God. He said before Abraham was I AM. These are only two of many proofs against your unfounded claims.
@@brandongoss9748
Hi Brandon
Jesus has a God
Are you claiming Jesus is God who has a God??
Who is Jesus’s God?
Who is Paul referring to as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
Who is Peter referring to as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
Who is Jesus referring to when he says “my God”?
Rom 15
6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
2 Cor 11
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie.
Eph 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
Col 1
3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
1 Pet 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Rev 1
6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 3
12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
-
As for John 8
No Jesus didn’t use Exodus 3 in John 8
Jesus said before Abraham was born “ego eimi” which means I am he
Multiple people say ego eimi in the New Testament, but you’re not saying they are God?
The blind man who was healed said it
John 9
9 Some said, “It is he”; others said, “No, but he is like him.” He said, “I am the man.”
I am the man= ego eimi
The healed blind man just said ego eimi, did he just refer to Exodus and claim to be God?? Of course not
I believe in the Greek translation of Exodus it says
“Ego eimi HO ON”-I AM THAT I AM
“Tell them I AM has sent you”-tell them HO ON has sent you
Had Jesus said HO ON you may have a point, but he didn’t
Again Jesus has a God
God doesn’t have a God
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is a wonderful concept and it totally makes sense.
amazing stuff .. i wish to have some subtitles tho because even we all know english some parts are very difficult to understand because they are too deep .. welldone
What an incredible discussion. I love WLC and agree with him for the most part, but was also very blessed with the humble attitude of Penrose. What a brilliant and humble man. Hats off to the host as well! All in all, well worth the time to listen - thank you for these.
Go on TH-cam and pull up video call Atheist college professor die and see hell and demons it change his life!!! True story.
Yes! A welcome change from some of the hard core atheists who just attack and deride any religious faith!
I like Roger Penrose. I see a ray of hope.
God is the ray of hope 💕
Dr. Craigs extensive philosophical research leads him to dismantle Penrose's views in a few breaths, how wonderful.
1. Gentleman's discussion
2. Justin is very brilliant (as a host) but will love to hear him debate as well
3. What a humble & intelligent man (Roger Penrose)
4. Let's no deny the genius of William Craig
Craig is not a genius.
When I think of the accolade genius and who it should apply to. I’m thinking of people such as Albert Einstein. Sir Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, James Clerk Maxwell and even perhaps Da Vinci.
What has Craig done to elevate himself into such a high order?
There is only one person present around this table that has been awarded a Nobel prize. He does not bear the initials WLC.
Also he would not consider himself to be a genius.
WLC is an idiot.
He's no genius, granted, but he's passionate in his own work, why can't people just leave it at that? You don't have to agree on anything to be kind to one another.
@@necessaryevil6636 Passion is irrelevant in this discussion. It is not unkind to say that someone is wrong.
If you wanted to put your hand into a fire because you believed you where impervious to fire it would be unkind of me to let you test that hypothesis.
Facts are facts and passion does not apply.
Wow, I think you've created an entirely new form of art with this amalgam of interviews and reflecting commentary. I truly enjoy these episodes.
Roger is one of the most important mathematicians in the world of physics, who at the same time speaks with the wise humility that comes from his high knowledge.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@mitchellc4 nobody likes you
@@mitchellc4 psychopath
@@mitchellc4 Jesus sucks dicks. His teachings are evil.
@@BenjaminGoose "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a](A) and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies " Wow sounds really evil to me.
Well as a theist , I found both of them perfect! I loved both!
One of the greatest shows that ive ever seen in my entire life maybe. I cant describe my feelings in an easy way although İ want to write many things on this subjcet.
What a joy this debate was. A genuine, courteous and well-reasoned debate between two polite, erudite intellectuals. As commented elsewhere, Justin is superb as chairman of this debate. Whatever side of the argument one is on, there is much food for thought here.
The foam windscreens on the mics are SPOTLESS. Impressive.
I think what's most interesting about this discussion is that when WLC gives his worldview, Penrose actually wrestles with the questions. When Penrose objects to certain parts (such as God existing in the mental realm), WLC rejects the objection and doesnt really wrestle with it - its clear his worldview comes first and he doesnt think he can be wrong. The irony is most people would view Penrose's postion (agnotic/atheistic) as the closed minded one, when it's actually WLC who is being more closed minded here.
I respect both of these men so much!
Roger Penrose is amazing. I love hearing him talk. if I live that long, I hope my mind is 1/10th as sharp as his! he is brilliant and humble, and understandable. Thanks Justin for making this happen.
I went to a talk of his recently and he spoke like he was 30 years younger.
It's like two grandfather-like old friends passing time on a Sunday afternoon sitting on a park's bench as a young boy confuses himself by listening to them
Or a young girl
Great interview. Justin did a grand job - as always.
Two very respectful men who are gracious to each other even in disagreement
One of the most civil discourses in this program...i love it!!
I really enjoyed listening to this conversation, infact Iam going replay it several times, it's so brilliant.
Thank You Dear Sirs, For wisdom!
Roger is such a good teacher i just about understand some of what he says.
This was the best conversation I've ever listened. Thank to you program.