Not the first time Dawkins demonstrates >100 BPS. Backpedals Per Second. This channel has a video where Dawkins admit (sort of, he squirms quite a lot) to lie in the God delusion, when Lennox calls him out.😂
@@toddfulcher888 Oh dear.Your silly magic man cult is so fucking dumb to those not indroctrinated,. Please stop pretending to know what you don't know. Your magic book is a collection of myths and ancient ignorance.
@@IAMJ1BI’d argue nothing inside our material world since everything in it has a cause for coming in to being. I encourage you to look into the kalam cosmological argument: -Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. -The universe began to exist. -Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. This begs a question (and I earnestly desire to know an answer outside my current belief. My intent is not to be offensive.): can you name something that came into being without a cause? I’m not saying it’s easy to understand. Just saying it’s the an eternal God that exists outside of space, time, and matter is the most logical reasoning to me.
What was before the Big Bang? Scientists: We dont know (yet). Christian (that also doesn't know and explains in detail): Our god created the world in six days and under this and that conditions.
@@Pro-j4q God was before the big bang, then God created the world with the word, and that caused a massive explosion, aka the big bang. Better explanation than any scientific method can even attempt to make for the next 1000 years.
Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
@@runelund5600 The general scientific method. The experimental method. We discoverd laws of physics. How gravity works. Same in chemistry and biology. We created medicine that actually work on people. We apply scientific methods to buidlings, engineering... It's being taught in schools, universities. I'm not sure if this the answer you're looking for, but science has given us plenty of evidence.
Our brains were not built to understand the profundities of the origin of the universe... unless you are a physicist 😂😂. What ludicrous logic. Perhaps physicists are a type of "Gender" with special qualities distinct from all of the other humans. He should left God out of his book title, the same way he has left God out of his life, and called it "The Delusion". Basically admits there is a God without saying there is a God. Thinks if there is a God, he can sum Him in couple sentences, but and the same time God is too complex an idea. 😂😂😂
@@danporter1176 then the word "before" gets another meaning, which is "before there was time and space". It's just semantics and a limitation of language, but we know what we mean by the word "before". And it's not the same "before", which is connected to space and time. I like to eat cucumbers with ketchup. Meow.
@@danporter1176 yes but that has nothing to do with the dilemma at hand. Before, after, over, under, whatever it is, everything that happens has a cause. The language you use doesn’t change that. “Before” “cause” they are interchangeable in this specific circumstance. Richard is a man filled with loads of unearned pride.
@@sixfootoneistall2002 right. He wont dare challenge them. "Physicist say dont say before, you cant ask that!" The universe creating itself violates the 1st rule of thermodynamics. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Lol
You have just to "beliefe" that the natural selection make any kind of sense and we are never be able to understand or proof it (but of course can lie and say it is science and proof). Than makes everything no sense! that can I promise you
@@notthisguyagain8557 a couple of points: First, he probably has questioned physicists. Richard Dawkins has spent a lot of time with physicists like Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, etc. so he probably has challenged them a great deal. Second, we trust physicists a great deal in our day to day lives. The same laws of physics that allow us to make cars and airplanes tell us that the Big Bang is, at the present moment, the most likely explanation for our known universe. That’s not saying it won’t change or morph into another theory, but at the present it’s the best explanation of the given evidence. Lastly, the Big Bang does not violate the first law of thermodynamics for several reasons. The first reason is that the Big Bang theory doesn’t state that there wasn’t anything and then there was something. All the energy required to create our universe was there, just in the form of a singularity. The second reason is that the known laws of physics break down at the Big Bang. The laws cease to be useful, especially when talking about the conditions at the singularity. At that point general relativity and quantum mechanics can’t provide a cohesive and coherent answer. The scary part of this is that it’s possible we will never be able to explore what happened “before” the Big Bang. Our explanatory toolset is bound by time and space, so anything outside of those parameters might be totally incomprehensible to us and we’ll never know about it. That doesn’t mean we should just make up an explanation that comforts us though, we just have to keep looking.
@@JoePetrozelli It looks like it might have been edited out, otherwise I agree that it is disappointing that it doesn't appear that he said what it was and why.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 I think Dawkins didn’t want Morgan to ask him what existed before the beginning of the universe. It’s the most difficult thing for atheist and Dawkins to address, now that science has concluded the universe did in fact have a beginning.
@@JoePetrozelli I would agree it's difficult for a biologist like Dawkins to address, but not for a physicist. The first thing to understand is that quantum physics is weird, but testable, repeatable and continuously verified. Once one can get their head around understanding how it works, it becomes much easier to understand. Still difficult to explain though in an interview format or youtube comment though. Check out Veritasium's video on the double slit experiment ( watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0 ) If you like that, look up the Casimir effect and how particles pop into and out of existence out of pure vacuums or 'nothing'. Time dilation in Einstein's special relativity is another one. The point is that the cause/effect that we think is some universal law in everything, doesn't necessarily apply to quantum scales, vacuums or singularities.
What is this world coming to 😮 Q- What is a woman? A- I’m not a biologist! Q- What was before the Big Bang? A- I’m not a physicist! What’s next 🤷🏾♂️ Q- What is a cake? A- I’m not a baker! 😂 Lord have mercy on these very intelligent fools 🙏🏾
Just like how we rely our interpretations of the Holy Bible to those who have studied the Bible tediously rather than normal people who does not spent their life studying the Bible. We can also rely our interpretation on the laws of Physics to the Physicist who's life is to study the Big bang and other related topics. Richard Dawkins is simply saying do not take my word for it but the words of the physicists who live there lives studying the laws of physics. Richard Dawkins is not really well known to explain elaborately for the broad audiences but to help others who don't know what he means when he said “the question about what happened before the big bang is nonsensical” it’s actually like this: All compasses directs its arrow to the north pole and when your in the north pole it will never turns north anymore but all direction leads to south, in relation to the Big Bang, Physicists says that there is nothing before the big bang because the big bang is the beginning of time and so to ask what happened before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole? In short before the big bang there is nothing.
@@DanPugongan you’ve said a lot and I believe you are actually sincere but not sure I get you clearly. Nonetheless, the answer he gives is actually a copout as he cannot, in all his intelligence, justify his position. Trying to justify how something comes from nothing, yeah, is a tricky one! If you haven’t already, watch the documentary “What is a woman” to understand my point…same principle.
@@gweilospur5877 yeah you actually can if you like, but this question will illustrate the ignorance of the one asking of who God really is. Think about this and ponder it…if you could answer the question of where God came from, He would not be God. Well at least, not the God of the Bible.
@@parvizakbari8173it really is a bad take. Developmental maturity is a natural condition with natural limitations. Puppies can't hunt, baby lions can't fight off certain animals, etc. Grown adults can do advanced mathematics, organized civilizations in scale, manipulate the material to create new things, creating life consistently, and the so on. Being made in God's image gave us the ability to create and order similar to God. We even created AI and computers, that is practically like angels for God. Pure rational helpers. Utilizing quantum mechanics, intelligent design, and all the metaphysical hierarchies that structure the material (discovered, not created) can explain everything. There's a reason why short-term gratification and moral relativism result in some of the most immature adults of our time. Because it's irrational and makes us act like we are developmentally delayed.
@@jessedelange4918 Yep I can tell you know your Word brother, I just wanted to put it here for the people that did not know and wanted to read it for themselves. God bless you brother.
Yes, great comment! The only thing I'd say is that heavens is not space, but actually the transcendent and spiritual aspect of existence. I.e., the aspect from which conciousnous derives.
God did 💯@@horridhenry9920 To summarize it though, God is all powerful, time began, "is God creating the clock" - an analogy to help comprehend it better
There was once a point in my life, after I became a Christian, I feared reading or listing to Dawkins. I worried that he could, in some way, damage my faith in God. Now, when I hear him speak, I feel a little pity by his blindness and contradictions.
Same, I "feared" some content TH-cam kept promoting to me like bible contradictions, and critiques of God which when I matured I realized were foolish, easily refuted and based on men's arbitrary standards
Nothing wrong with looking for proof of God with AN OPEN MIND! Having confidence in what you believe is extremely important, which is why Peter tells us to be prepared to give an answer to questions - but do so with gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3:15-17 New International Version (NIV) Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
@@timlovett2673 when people ask you to "have an open mind" what they are really telling you is "stop being rational and just accept the bullshit the rest of the flock accepts".
So Dawkins does not think one should critique assertions of physicists if one is not a physicist. And yet he has spent half his career critiquing the theological position, while not being himself a theologian.
If you are ‘timeless, spaceless, immaterial, how can you be an “entity”? In what way can you exist? Aren’t we supposed to be made in his image? Are humans, timeless, spaceless and immaterial?
Ah, so Aristinypp was a r3etard who thought rocks were alive, got it! Man, she would've loved all this religion bullcrap! I wonder if the Greeks had invented religion, back then? I'll phone Zeus, real quick, and get back to you! Dang, sorry... Zeus couldn't take my call... He transformed himself into a goose and is busy impregnating human women... As a goose... With a corkscrewed anseriform phallus and gonads... I'll try again after yawhey farts on a bush and magically lights it on fire!
"supernatural sky daddy" out of the mouth of an impulsive liberal arts student in her early 20s is predictable, but out of the mouth of a grown, intelligent, sophisticated scientist - so very sad
However you worship Yahweh who was originally a Levantine deity. He was one of 70 children of the god El. Even if you could prove that there was a god, you would still have an immense task to prove that it was the recycled deity named Yahweh.
@@edwardinfante2602 "He's clearly not an atheist. His god is/are physicists. " That makes no logical sense and shows a lack of understanding of the scientific community.
What was before the Big Bang? Scientists: We dont know (yet). Christian (that also doesn't know and explains in detail): Our god created the world in six days and under this and that conditions.
@@Pro-j4qWe haven’t observed it ourselves obviously, but we can trust the authority of One Who has. This is the same as almost everything we know (especially academics): we take it on someone else’s authority that it is true.
@@Pro-j4q I’m trying to understand your grammar here so forgive me if I misunderstand. A) “Scientist” and “religious person” are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. B) I don’t need to be a scientist to talk about knowing and trusting the One Who has seen (and performed) the Creation of the Universe.
Yeah because if you assume there's a God, that would mean you claim to have the right assumption. Dawkins simply says he doesn't know and that it's lazy to say "oh well God must have done it".
@@0202-t3hno he wasn't invoking the God of the gaps at all, or claiming anyone else was. At no point in this video did anyone including Dawkins point to a God of the gaps fallacy.
@@tim4108 That's a good point. I think agnosticism may indeed be safer but still, with so little evidence to support the claim that God exists, I understand why he doesn't believe.
@@0202-t3h the irony is that he criticizes “believers” for believing something that he claims he does not KNOW, yet he positively BELIEVES at the same time that the opposite is true. Not only is that hypocritical but just makes him equally a fool by his own standard.
Did you know; Out of all of the secular professional groups, do you know what professional group has the highest number of believers in God? ***The astronomers do. Over 90% of the world's great astronomers believe in God.*** Why? ***They have studied the heavens.*** It's not a sign of intelligence not to believe in God. If you're intelligent, you have to say, "Somebody created all of this." Take a walk under the canopy of the night sky. Praise God for His handiwork in the heavens.
Who created that somebody? If you're going to say they're eternal, it's less paradoxical to just say the universe is eternal. Imagine an eternal intelligence trying to recall their earliest memory for example
"If you're intelligent, you have to say 'somebody created all this'" So, a pre requisite of intelligence is immediately committing an argument from personal incredulity fallacy? Interesting take lol
@@Soril2010 If the universe was eternal then we would never get to the present because the past would be infinite. If the universe was eternal then it would have expanded infinitely, not 43 billion light years across. If the universe was eternal then heat death would have already destroyed it. If the universe was eternal then scientists wouldnt say there was a beginning with the big bang. So tell me again how an eternal universe is less paradoxical than something outside of the universe creating the universe because he isnt subject to the laws of the universe? And just to answer your question, God is outside of time and isnt subject to time. He created time. So he doesnt have an earliest memory because that would require him being subject to time to have a timeline.
@@mastershake4641 If the universe was eternal there would still be a present which we seem to find ourselves in. The universe may have expanded infinitely already, 43 billion years is the size of the OBSERVABLE universe, there is more universe beyond that but the light hasn't yet had time to reach us for us to observe it. The universe may have already experienced heat death, Penrose argues that without any matter to measure time or distance the state of the universe may be indistinguishable from that of the singularity present at the big bang, meaning our big bang was A beginning but not THE beginning. Now if the universe was created by an all powerful creator he would be able to create a universe it which he wouldn't know the outcome of all events. If the universe was created by an all knowing creator he wouldn't be able to create a universe in which he didn't know the outcome of all possible events.
@@TurinTuramber then what would you call it? Bc NO ONE gives rise to ANY explanation outside of nothing. And science can't even replicate ANY of the prebiotic cells that were here that got everything started. If this is indeed a strawman tell enlighten us on how it's a strawman, don't just say "it's a strawman". If you cannot provide any sufficient information that shows anything outside of what was explained then we are forced to believe that atheists believe that nothing created everything, which turns atheism into a religion bc that takes some serious faith my guy. I look forward to seeing your response 😁.
@@johnl4933then what would you call it? Bc NO ONE gives rise to ANY explanation outside of nothing. And science can't even replicate ANY of the prebiotic cells that were here that got everything started. If this is indeed a strawman tell enlighten us on how it's a strawman, don't just say "it's a strawman". If you cannot provide any sufficient information that shows anything outside of what was explained then we are forced to believe that atheists believe that nothing created everything, which turns atheism into a religion bc that takes some serious faith my guy. I look forward to seeing your response 😁. I copied and pasted these questions bc they apply to you as well.
@@TurinTuramberwhy is that a straw man? What is he changing about the argument that makes it innacurate. I’m not trying to argue, just genuinely curious because I don’t know
What was before the Big Bang? Scientists: We dont know (yet). Christian (that also doesn't know and explains in detail): Our god created the world in six days and under this and that conditions.
@@Pro-j4q You copy the same ignorant comment under any post? Lol. Here's a copy of my reply: "those you mention are not scientists because they reject any supernatural presence in the universe by default, therefore they're not objective. Don't confuse science with that cult." But seeing your obsession, it seems you're part of that cult, which is not science, dude.
Faith is like the cross to a vampire for atheists, soon atheist will flood here saying "atheism is not faith, is the rejection of a claim", and ignore that such rejection requires faith in the lack of God.
He believes them because they have scientific evidence and reasons for what they are saying. That is not the case with the theists among us who would let us believe in the existence of non-spacial and non-temporal beings (with not a shred of scientific evidence or reasons) who somehow can have a cause-effect relationship with a spacial and temporal being.
@@01MTodd He have no scientific evidence for the things he says. There is no "science of atheism", and all we know about creation creates paradoxes for the atheism view. At least it can have a cause-effect, while you are thinking that "nothing" can do that, which violated the third-law-of-motion,
What was before the Big Bang? Scientists: We dont know (yet). Christian (that also doesn't know and explains in detail): Our god created the world in six days and under this and that conditions.
Dawkins is a living example of a mind that suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. To continue to live in and take no accountability for sin is the reason he refuses to make a personal statement about his beleif. He is a coward and knows in his mind if he says the truth aloud, he's bound to its reprocussion
Pride and ego are blinding him. His whole reputation and career are around the identity of being an atheist. All we can do is just pray for God to humble his heart.
@horridhenry9920 sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. Theology is true whether you want to beleive it or not. Dawkins acts in the same manner. He lives a life contrary to what has been instructed by God and therefore has to suppress the truth to hold to an atheistic worldview
@@horridhenry9920 He is a coward because he does not want to tell the truth because that helps him to sell more books. He keeps saying we have evolved for survival yet he has no explanation for why we are alive!! and even if we are alive
Richard, “if Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?” I’m afraid he would say no as his penchant towards avoiding the truth doesn’t allow for it. It always comes down to a matter of the heart and submission to a God outside of ourselves and subjugating our autonomy to His authority.
He was once asked this. "Would you believe it, if the stars aligned themselves to write it out in the sky?" And Dawkins replied: "no, I'd think I must imagine it or aliens would be the better explanation."
@@dmenace9288 Yes, I will know when I die. Like your entire belief system, cannot be demonstrated. You will find out if you don’t start believing in Santa.
@@gweilospur5877 It’s more than just Mr. Claus.. and it will make sense when the time comes. Also, Mr. Claus imaginary intentions was derived from His actual intentions for us. It is not perfect, but it does model His heart for you and me.
@@dmenace9288 Again, “when the time comes”. Everything is totally non- demonstrable. When the time comes you will die and after that nothing happens to you at all, ever. Sorry to break it to you but adults should stop believing childish fairy tales.
I cannot see any difference between how Richard talks about 'physics is extremely mysterious and our brains cannot comprehend it' and 'the pharoah is sacred and we have to take what he says on faith'.
It really is hypocritical. There’s no difference between him saying that and me saying “God is complex and our brains cannot comprehend him.” Like… just come out and say “I don’t know what happened to cause all of creation, but I just don’t think God did it, and I’m not likely to be convinced he did.” I’ll totally understand if that’s where you’re at. Oh but IM the fool for believing in my “sky daddy” or whatever they say now.
@@wowitsfrostygames155 I think a lot of the new atheism was right in the hypocrisies they pointed out, and felt really smug about that, but when it came to the *deep* questions they had no answers for, they just got petty and defensive. Atheism is a lack of belief in ONE idea. It's not anything in and of itself. It's a hole; it's a place you could put something else into; it's a gap in one's knowledge. It should be a signal: 'Go on a journey to find what fits here better', instead of just feeling smart because, 'I don't believe in organized religion anymore!' That's nice. I don't either. I'm currently ass-deep into speculating about the evervoid and anti-life and how, likely, if all our cells make us, all of us make God, and maybe there's as much stuff above God as there is stuff outside of a human body. I didn't just stop at, 'I don't think the Bible is sufficient for me'. Also, I noticed how often atheists are total pussies who'll call out the hypocrisy among Christians, but not Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or anyone else. Just the people least likely to fight back. Hmmmmm.
@@Soril2010 "The difference is The Bible is published, anyone can try to understand it but most people won't put in the effort" Try again, amigo. If I can swap out the main noun and the argument suddenly becomes unconvincing, it's a poor argument.
He has stated like most of the "new atheists" (now rather decrepit), has admitted that no amount of evidence would ever convince him, that he'd assume it was a hallucenation etc. Of course, this is the man who wrote two books in a year, one claiming that Jesus did not exist and there's no historical support, and one that admits that there is historical support and Jesus certainly existed.
@@pauls7803 That there is no God. Interesting thing is that south park guys who make fun of religions all the time have said that the most nonsensical belief for them even with all the silly religious beliefs is the one where we came from nothing. By default the thing that created us is God. I understand the whole not believing in a specific religion God but no God makes no sense.
Frank Turek and his movement are the weakest defense for God and easily defeated. They literally are fodder for atheists. Please read Stephen Meyer and James Tour if you want an undefeatable truth. We must be strong and not back the inept.
*Larry Burkett's book on "Giving and Tithing" drew me closer to God and helped my spirituality. 2020 was a year I literally lived it. I cashed in my life savings and gave it all away. My total giving amounted to 40,000 dollars. Everyone thought I was delusional. Today, 1 receive 85,000 dollars every two months. I have a property in Calabasas, CA, and travel a lot. God has promoted me more than once and opened doors for me to live beyond my dreams. God kept to his promises to and for me*
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
He says, "Maybe we'll never understand it". Yes, Richard Dawkins, you will eventually understand ALL of it. You will eventually be standing in front of Jesus, being judged for your deeds while "in the flesh". You'll come face to face with your worst nightmare: GOD DOES EXIST. It would be wise for EVERYONE to accept this fact.
@user-fr9wq1ed8z Real, honest doubt searches for the Light. Mere hardened unbelief wants and remains in the darkness...until that final earthly breath.
"Our brains weren't built to understand the profundities..." Saying the brains was or was not "built for" something is saying that there IS a design. Period. Even Dawkins can't avoid pointing out the truth.
To begin time, you require one who is timeless to put batteries on the universe clock, to concretize and confine space and matter, you require one who is spaceless and immaterial who cannot be confined, to move energy, you require one who is unmoved. This can only be one very powerful and extremely intelligent being who is mysteriously incomprehensible. Indeed, what God has allowed to be understood is only a fraction of what there is to be understood yet its enough for us to believe there is a God who is transcendent.
@@BeUnadulterated Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
@@pattyb6003 I will defend the physicists here. Before God created time and space, there was no time or space. Both Genesis and the Gospel of John start with ‘in the beginning’. The Bible makes no claims about what was before creation. This is because God literally created time. There was no time before He created it.
@@Nathan-rf8kothe actions of creating space and time had to be done outside of space and time, so would that be a pre physical dimension of sorts with no forms of measurement?
"Before time" is an incoherent concept. The word 'before' pertains specifically to a temporal concept. It's bizzare that so many theists can't seem to understand this.
@@jimmybeans1175 No it wouldn't be a "pre" anything because "pre", "prior", "before"; all these words pertain to temporal concepts and you are talking about an atemporal state.
I can’t believe that Dawkins is trying to get away with saying that we just have to take the word of someone because they are a physicist! That’s the weakest argument I’ve heard in my life!
@@ToadLilly-77 He said go ask a physicist to explain it. Can you understand that Dawkins' inability to explain before the big bang doesn't get you to a Christian God. You cannot argue from ignorance.
Because whatever the word of a physicist is, it’s something based on research, and they only need a single evidence to admit that it’s wrong. Most Christians instead had never abandoned their beliefs everytime they were proven false. And everytime they were proven to be false those passages started to become “metaphorical”. 🙄
Before time makes no sense though, "before" is a reference to time so without time there is no "before". And IF something created matter then it's a valid question to ask what, but it's not acceptable to make up an answer then insist you're correct but without providing any evidence.
@@nakkadu Only if you believe that there was no 'time' before. Our idea of time is a human one - a concept that we have used to describe something. Humans can only relate time to measurements relating to our own existence. Personally, I can't understand why anyone thinks so narrowly that there might not have existed 'time' before the big bang. It just wasn't measured by us.
@@sharonreichter2537 No, according to current understanding space and time are connected and we call it spacetime. The big bang was literally the birth of time which is why "before" doesn't make sense. This is hard for people to understand which is why Dawkins pointed out he's not the best person to explain it (and I'm certainly not). The point is that it's up for discussion whereas religious people just say "god did it" and the discussion ends there for them, which is a shame because it's interesting.
@@videos_iwonderwhy if time and matter did not exist, how they came to exist must be explained. To just say they began to exist at the “singularity” doesn’t explain anything, and in fact leads logic to dictate that the “singularity” was, in fact, magical.
If everything that exists has a cause, then what is the cause of God? Who or what created him? "Wel, God is eternal, see? He didn't need a creator". That's dodging a question. The big bang theory, in the other hand, have evidence to back up what it says.
@@videos_iwonderwhy ...semantics... It's a word game. It's a good question but to point out the conundrum of there being no "before" when there was no measure of time is a distraction from the topic. And you can say that it's true that there was no time before time but it doesn't preclude one from discussing and even proving what happened "before".
@@videos_iwonderwhyI think what Piers was trying to get at, is the fact that anything absolutely cannot come from nothing. It is completely illogical to say that there was “nothing” before the Big Bang theory… because like I said there cannot be causation without a cause. Therefore, if there was actually “nothing” before the Big Bang happened, then the Big Bang did not actually happen. I hope you can understand what I am saying, my friend! feel free to intellectually challenge my claims, if need be. Thank you
Dawkins is in willful rebellion against God just like Satan. He needs a Savior just like all of us. It’s never too late to find Him, but you have to humble yourself and lay down pride of self-righteousness. 🙏🏽🥹
Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
@@valinorean4816 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 King James Version 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
@@valinorean4816 Until you have an encounter with the true living God of the Bible, you will believe the lies of Satan who comes only to deceive, kill, and destroy. Pick up a Bible, humbly ask God to reveal himself to you. Read the gospel of John and see what happens. You may be surprised. He may find you. I’ll be praying for you. 🙏🏽 🕊️Maranatha 🕊️
@@dolorousjohn5499 No, we call it a belief, even the bible call it a belief. It is an atheism strawman to say we claim like we know. And you guys knows the basic physics ideas, third-law-of-motion and law-of-conservation-of-energy, so, it renders that without God, it must have been done by "nothing", and you guys KNOW that. Filling a blank is not a problem, when we have something to solve, filling the blanks is a good start. Especially considering that the atheistic view leads to more paradoxes, or better, it should be seem as the least likely position.
@@thanushaanyoga2698yup you get it. In other words one does not have to be a physicist to discuss physics. Ketanji Brown Jackson and Richard Dawkins used the same fallacy to deflect answering a question. If he didn't actually know the answer Dawkins could have easily said I don't know or I have not studied that, but instead he implied it's something that only physicists can answer.
@@Jaytee. You know the apostles were tortured to death just because they kept talking about Jesus right? Many christians during that time were tortured because if ut. There is plently of evidence. Especially historically. Theres plently of testimonies of people. And even prophecies in the Bibke that came true through Jesus. God has revealed himself to us you just don't like the way he has done it. I would suggest listening tk Mike winger on youtube spotify or facebook. If God is real what are the implications for your life? People change when they experience the love of Christ.
@@FunnyRacingCar-qc7on Even if he is, Ill spit in his face when i get up there. He's evil if he does exist, which he doesn't. He's not worthy of my worship, scumbag that he is.
"Time began at the big bang" -Richard Dawkins" 7:31. "Time itself began at the Big bang" Before that was eternity, the eternal God. Outside time, matter and space.
@@something--else Man these juvenile smuggery underwit replies get old, stale etc due to how they demonstrate how uneducated they are, specially the inescapable obvious factual history unlearned position in archaeology, anthropology, epistemology, world religions, what an actual "faith" is, factual operational science etc.
@@something--else There's no 100% undeniable proof of God. The is however the best explanation. If the creation of the universe was the beginning of time, matter, and space, then the best explanation is that the cause of the creation of the universe was from a power that is timeless (eternal), immaterial, and not confided to physical space. There is more than one religion that describes God this way. Zeus, Apollo, and Brahma do not fit that description.
@@josephedward7534forget 100% or undeniable, although that's a problem in itself, there is NO proof for ANY God, at all. All gods are similar in concept, but I'd like to hear your "description" of God, and a name for it, before going any further.
@@larsrathsach3477 “I have loved you with an everlasting love” (Jer. 31:3). “... call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord” (Jer. 29:12-14). “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8-9) “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” (John 13:7) “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29) “... if you believe, you will see the glory of God”. (John 11:40) “If you seek him, he will be found by you” (2 Chron. 15:2) “He leads the humble in justice, and He teaches the humble His way.” (Ps. 25:9) “I, the Lord, will make Myself known to him” (Num. 12:6). “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Matt. 5:8)
@@alistairmorrish8613 Ah but your wrong! For you see... Jesus is Jewish so he doesn't eat ham sandwiches! Oh yeah, there was also the resurrection, that too.
Incorrect. Physicists do not "eat ham sandwiches", they ingest cured pork and leavened wheat. They are better and smarter than the rest of us and should not be questioned.
Theists: the whole universe and everything since the beginning of time, all the galaxies and stars that were destroyed, all of the species on our earth that got extinct, all the process of random mutation and evolution that spawned billions of years on a tiny planet in a universe on a scale beyond our imagination, all of that was created with you in mind as part of a design so that you can exist to worship a God. Incredible that people believe that.
@@0202-t3hAtheists believe no-time and chance caused a universe that has unimaginably tight and improbable properties; that unfathomably improbable odds created 500 Mb of useful code in a molecular factory able to use, protect, duplicate, and energize the information and its processes; that random defects created useful new morphologies in a thousandth of the needed time; that no thing created everything. Watch out, a new universe might pop into existence and swallow whatever remains of your brains.
There was a "before space, time, and matter existed because these three entities began to exist. They began and came into being from "nothingness" (the absence of space, time, and matter). Yet, from this nothingness, space, time, and matter began to exist.
You can’t play the “ask a physicist” card because a modern nobel prize winning physicist (Lawrence Krauss) wrote an entire book called “A universe from nothing”……… The ultimate outcome being that absolutely Nothing means Something! Redefining the meaning of the word “Nothing”. As John Lennox said “It’s Nonsense” 😂👌🏼 Bow the knee to Christ before it’s too late. Philipians 2 vs 6 - 11
Krauss' book is crap. There are better physicists one can ask. Btw, on an unrelated topic, do you actually believe that quoting a Biblical verse to an atheist would be convincing in any way. It only shows that you are playing an entirely different (and in my opinion, lesser) mental game than an evidence-seeking, argument-giving person. You might as well be quoting a fortune cookie.
It is important to draw a distinction between a concept and a tangible thing. We have the concept of nothing but that doesn't mean it is an actual thing. Especially, when it comes to the notion of nothing we get into some very tricky contradictions or trickiness in language such as, if nothing is a thing does it no longer fit the definition of nothing as it is something? I think this is why Krauss describes nothing in relation to our best attempts to remove all things from some space and realizing that such a state is not stable and subject to change. It is not necessarily a changing of the meaning of the word but rather an attempt to define it within the context of physics. This is done regularly in science such as the word hypothesis having a strict scientific meaning which is different compared to regular usage. It is not a change of the meaning but rather a more rigorous one that can then be engaged with scientifically. Even biblically speaking the idea of nothing isn't really a practical concept as God is eternal so there is never the existence of state of nothing. Perhaps God could create a pocket of space that is nothing but would be the characteristics of it such to distinguish it from God. Do those characteristic then become a thing?
@@BeUnadulterated You make interesting points, and I agree with you to some extent. Although I would still come back to the basic meaning of the word nothing, as it is described by Aristotle "what the rocks dream of", and what you describe of as the concept of nothing. This is what I think the most honest meaning that can be derived from the word. Anything further, like you describe what may be used in science/physics, kind of defeats the purpose of the word, and should warrant a more accurate definition/description and subsequent name/word to describe it. Perhaps what I would expect to be the closest to nothing we can conjure outside the word, is the number 0. Mathematically, it is nothing, but even then, I dont know enough about mathematics to be able to definitively say that this is equivalent to the word "Nothing" conceptual meaning. Thanks for your interesting and thought provoking paragraph, I enjoyed it. God bless and have a nice day :)
Motte and bailey here. “As a scientist I declare ‘you cannot say before the big bang’ so stop.” When called out on it, “I’m not a physicist so I don’t understand it but will still TAKE IT ON FAITH THAT IT’S TRUE and use it as a tool against any discussion I don’t want to hear.”
i suggest you do some reading about the true nature of time and try to understand why it may not make any sense at all to ask what came "before" the big bang. or i can try explaining it if you'd like.
When you get on an airplane do you work out the thrust to weight ratio, where the centre of mass is and the lift it can generate, or do you trust someone with more knowledge has done these things already?
If given enough time and exploding oily potato’s experimentation, anything is possible! You just need more time and it’s somewhere in the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000474736372% chance of happening. How dare you question this.
@@reprovoa2408 sounds like an exagarated example, but given the enormous complexity that would have to result from an explosion that isn't guided at all. Your experience should sound perfectly 👌 logical to an atheist.
Dawkins not being able to pass the same lines of questioning he's turned on the faithful for the better part of my life is such a gift. Thank you for your channel.
Dude, you believe in a guy that wants you to worship him, but wont give you any proof he exists, and will damn you to hell for jerking off. Lets calm down a little here LOL
I think G K Chesterton nailed it when he said ‘It is absurd to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything’. I believe in God because it makes more sense to me than the Atheist idea that nothing existed before the Big Bang, you know that is rubbish. Turn to God whilst you still can is my advice.
Literally no scientist says "nothing created everything". Actually look up the Big Bang and read about it. Also, you admit that your reasoning is garbage; "I default to this position because that position doesn't make sense to me" is not how sound logic works. False dichotomies. gods of the g aps.
Neither Big Bang cosmology nor atheism states that "nothing existed before the big bang." That is just a misunderstanding on your part. Also, believing in God because it "makes more sense to you" is called an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.
@@ShugaAnims He was specifically referring to the use of "before" as a descriptor. If time itself had an origin at the Big Bang then it doesn't make sense to try and apply our everyday experience of linear causation to it. Quite simply, how can there be a 'before' time?
That question is relevant if you hold onto the idea that “everything” must have a cause. If that is true, then by definition a god would also need a cause. Else it is just special pleading,
Does “ETERNAL” mean anything to you? Need google to remind you? Things only require a cause if they’re bound within the realm of time. God, in fact, created time, and He isn’t bound by the things He created
This is the same man that cannot accept that GOD is UNCREATED. i.e nothing caused God and nothing created God. It's a shame that his heart is so cold towards God.
Because underneath that thin veneer of intellectualism he's really bitter and probably very afraid of dying. Probably very afraid of what's to come when his number is called and angry at God for whatever reason(s) he has.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 If you need to control the questions you are asked in an interview, it is not an interview, it's a jointly agreed upon propaganda session.
Dawkins just waived his ability to qualify ANY claim as being good or "not good grounds for suddenly invoking..." anything, having just emphasized that the origin of the universe is "something very mysterious", but which he "doesn't understand". Basically, he's saying "It's surely unknowable, but it's definitely not what you think".
So true. For Dawkins it can be aliens from a multiverse, but he refuse the possibility of God. For Dawkins it is not a matter of whether God exists, but he doesn’t want God to exist.
@@26JV26 that is because a god is something super natural, and Richard Dawkins and science works within reality. In science you can't appeal to something which is impossible in the real world. How ever a multiverse is not outside of our reality and neither Are aliens.
So brilliant by Morgan at the start. By showing that clip at the start then flipping to Dawkins it shows the audience that the guy has zero credibility to be trustworthy
DNA was discovered in the 1980s and all scientists agreed that this program was beyond human understanding or comprehension. Where you ever have a program then we always have a program maker or creator.
Just because scientists often analogize DNA to a computer program or code, that doesn’t mean DNA is literally is a code. They are saying DNA acts like a program or code. By you falsely equating DNA to a program or code, you are fallaciously injecting the need for an intelligent designer or program/code maker. Rather, DNA is a naturally occurring CHEMICAL that is contained in all biological organisms. And just because we don’t currently have an understanding of how something works doesn’t mean a God did it. A thousand years ago, we didn’t understand how disease spread, but through science, we came to understand diseases spread through germs. The ancient Greeks didn’t know what lighting was so they attributed to the god, Zeus. Through science, we now know lighting is a natural phenomenon.
Each human carries with them about 6 yottabytes of nucleic information. That's about 6 times the amount of words uttered in the entirety of human history. All of that, stored in our cells. And I'm being told to believe that that level of complexity generated over a few million years, yeah right
@@josephpark2093 Compared to what? Please inform the audience on your academic background that should distinguish your opinion over any other lay opinion. What amount nucleic information would you expect our cells to hold based on a couple million years of evolution? And btw, just because something in nature seems complicated or vast doesn’t mean it can’t occur through natural processes. According to current estimates, the average human brain has approximately 100 trillion neural synaptic connections. Despite this seemingly incomprehensible number, we know that the human body in all its complexity is a result of the natural biological process of sexual reproduction - we don’t need to appeal to some magical being.
When I was a smug delusional atheist, I used to postulate the same circular pre-Spacetime argument as Dawkins. I would say "prevaiing conditions" instead of "before. " It's still existence from nonexistence. Six of one, a half a dozen of the other🤷🏿♂️.
Are you now a “smug delusional theist” ? What does “prevailing conditions” mean in this context? The prevailing conditions before the Big Bang? Existence from non existence is something theists believe in.
@@Just_a_Reflection when you say god always existed you are simply positing a brute fact. That has no more justification than positing reality itself, or some fundamental nature thereof as a brute fact. For example a non conscious energy field from which the universe emerged. Difference is we know energy fields exist, we have no evidence that any gods exist
@@David-ns4ym Yes atheism is a belief and I have faith in science. I don't suggest science has all of the answers but that we are at the beginnings of doing serious science. I think that if we give science equal time and wait a thousand years or so we will get the answers.
12:58 When they drop that Sky Daddy! Anytime I hear it now, I instantly go into this trance and hear it like 30 times with David Woods voice. .. Thanks David Wood 🪵!
A family friend was Dr. Stanley Livingston, a world renowned physicist. He was part of the Manhattan Project. When I was about 15 years old (I'm now in my 70s) we visited him at his home. He was very kind to me. And I recall he had become a Christian. When I asked this question of him he said he had finally realized that the Dawkins response - "there is no BEFORE the Big Bang" was more a faith than faith in God for it not only insists one buy it whole, but that one also believe that all the principles of physics, biology, and even love arose from a mindless, ultimately unknowable mystery. A loving God explains existence as we know it far more effectively and, he thought, more persuasively. This is just a deeply personal memory., but it makes sense to me and it has been an important reason why I have never found Dawkins and others persuasive.
Hysterical, this discussion of Pierce and Richard. Truly hysterical. All Mr. Dawkins needs to do is keep talking to inadvertently promote Christianity. Lol
@@fernandoformeloza4107 he is not promoting Christianity, he is saying he likes the Christian culture as it is now. He says he likes churches, hymnes and the holidays. He does how ever state pretty clearly that he does not believe in Jeezus and God. What he is saying is, that he would be sad, if fx Islam took ever England. He would be sad if we demolished Chruches to build more appartment buildings. He would be sad if December was no longer the "Christmas- month".
@@larsrathsach3477 you don't think that quote inadvertently says something to everyone out there? What does that quote say at face value, without having to explain it?
@@fernandoformeloza4107 I mean if you take a qoute out of contex, then sure. But that is disingenuous. You can claim that it has meaning that Richard Dawkins calls himself a cultural Christian, but that has no bearing on the truth claims of Christianity. Most contries in Europe are by definition Christian, but that does not mean all people believe in the Christian god. I myself is from Denmark, and Denmark is also a "Christian" country. We have a state religion and we celebrate all the Christian holydays. But most people do not believe there being a god. We just like the culture, same as Richard Dawkins.
Atheist hate to believe that they are not in charge of their life. It is devastating to them. So instead to sling insults and make fun of believers. Kinda like what children do
So if I’m not in charge of my life who is? Atheists take responsibility for their actions, good and bad. We don’t attribute the good to a God and the bad to a devil. We don’t think anyone else has paid for our transgressions, we have to pay. And after death, there’s a funeral. We have no good evidence for anything beyond that.
Well, you are in charge of your life. You make decisions on your life. You will just have to answer for all the wrong doings that you chose. God is in control of everything. Everything and everyone will do His will regardless. It is just a big picture.
@@horridhenry9920why even ask a theist that question of who is in charge? you already know the answer.. you just don't like the answer, and you reject it. It's still intellectually dishonest to pretend you don't know the answer.
@@hassibg At least the theoretical physicists are talking a scientific and evidence-based approach to the topic unlike those quoting bronze age holy books.
My synopsis:The Big Bang theory is a religion and Physicist are it’s Priests. Richard Dawkins is a member who missed Sunday school and can’t explain what the priest taught. Did I leave anything out?😂
@@rwatson2609 for some reason some theists need to call science a religion. Ofc it is not. A religion is build on a fundemtal acceptance of a created world, in which humans are ment to exists due to the god/gods will. Scienece studies the world, to understand how “things” work. Religion is “prescripted” as in - making claims about how the world works Science on the other hand is descripted” as in - we have to find out, how the world works Religion is a system based on doctrine and dogma. This does never change in religion. There might be some of its followers who will discard some of it due to cultural changes. - fx churches in Christianity now in many cases accept homosexuals - many people in Christianity no longer think, men ae superios to women - some muslims, will drink alcohol - etc But, the dogma about these things, did not change. So at the heart of the religion, these things are still wrong, and the people who do follow the doctrines, will claim, that these people are “sinners” or “not living according to the religions doctrine”. Sciense has no doctrines og dogma. Science is always changing. As soon as scientists lear something new, and is able to “prove” is (I write prove like this, because you do not really prove things in science, what you do is ask your peers to try to disprove it) then this become the new accepted reality within the specific field. Religions have clergies or other forms of holy men. These people are held to a “higher” standard and has authority over other followers of the religion. Catholosism has this insane system that ens with the pope. Islam has imams and Christianity has priests. In all these religions these people are seen as authorities and followers will seek guidance and answers to questions from them. In science there are no authorities. There are people who have more knowledge about a specific field, and they will there for be consideed more knowledgeable about their are, bevåcause they simply have studied it more. But people are always welcome to challenge them on their study. You can claim something is wrong with in a field, but you would then follow up with evidence for it. In religion you can challenge something, but a priest will go back to the holy book, and this holy book will never be altered. In science how ever, if you challenge the current accepted “science” in a specific field, with a claim and evidence. Your peers will test your claim and look at your evidence. If the scientific community, the are unable to disprove it, the your “claim” become the new scientific “status” and the we change the science books. So no, science is nothing like religion. And I suspect the people who claims this does it because at their core, they understand that organized religion is a terrible thing. So they need to make science just as bad. The doctrine
Dawkins moves the goalpost from "something more complex than the human brain can understand," which he concedes he can "buy," to a created god, demonstrating he doesn't understand what theists mean by "God"
@@KuroToshiro those atheists at least honest to say they don't know when they can not find evidence. You believe you know eventhough you don't have evidence. See the difference?
When Christians say God is unknowable in so far as there is more to Him than is revealed in the Bible and by the Holy Spirit, they admit He is a higher authority. Dawkins thinks physicists are in a superior category of human being for believing they know the origin of the Universe! A lack of understanding on Dawkins part shows he doesn't base his argument on reason or logic, but belief in physicists!
omg you clearly did not understand anything Richard Dawkins said..... this is probably the most insane comment I have ever seen. At absolutely no point, did Dawkins say "physicist are in a superior category" what he said was, that the "cause" of the Universe most have been a much more incredible thing than the origin of life.
How is it that when an Atheist asks a Theist "what came before God?" it's considered some kind of "gotcha" moment? But when a Theist asks an Atheist "what came before the Big Bang?" it's considered a nonsensical question?
It is because both are nonsensical questions. The atheist is not asking the question as a gotcha. They are asking it so that you realize that some questions are in fact nonsensical.
@@01MTodd No, it is almost 100% of the time asked as a gotcha. They are asking it to imply that the concept of an uncreated entity is nonsensical. The need to go read Flatland until they understand it.
@@gweilospur5877 No you are confused. He said you cannot use the word before because there was no before. So then you can't use the word cause, yes, in the sense of first cause. Since there is no before, there is no time or place for the first cause to have happened.
It is not wrong for physicists to say there was no time before time began. That does make sense. God is not part of physical time so it is not a problem. I say go with it, nothing physical happened before physical time. This only proves that a transcendent being Initiated physical time since non-time could not have created the time event without the benefit of time. Why argue against "nothing before time"? Both sides are just opposing what the other is saying because they're saying it.
True! God spoke, thus energy was released and that was the big bang! The Bible mentions that God is Energy, that He is a Spirit, the time does not exist as a thousand years is like one day and one day is like a thousand years to Him. Perhaps it is the term/name God that Dawkins cannot understand. That same energy is within us, the life force. Electricity meters can pick it up.
I think ultimately the reason dawkins, atheists and evolutionists reject God. Is not because of a lack of evidence or even if there was. I feel they reject God because they don't like being told what to do, so they don't like that God hates sin, and he doesn't want us to do sinful things. He still lets us choose if we want to be sinful or not. But then you must face consequences. That's the reason why they despise God so much.
Well you are clearly wrong in that. We just dont believe a god exists. As we do not believe sin is a real thing. We do not believe in a soul and we do not worry at all about an imaginary being thought up by goat herders in bronze age.
@@larsrathsach3477 What if I am right and you are wrong? what then. So if I die and I am right, I will die and be with Jesus. But if I die and you are right, then I will just die and disappear into nothing, that's not so bad. Now if you die and I am right then you will be separated from Jesus. or if you die and you are right you will also just disappear. Your odds are 50/50 and my odds are a 100. Would you not want your odds to be 100 to? It's a good thing to just ask questions about life, that's why we have a brain. You might think I say this, because I think I am better than you or I am a judgemental Christian just judging people. I am not like those type of people, I do this even if people hate me. doing this doesn't benefit me, it will make a lot of people not like me. Then ask yourself the question why do I do this? I do this for you because I love you, I mean that in kind way. Just like Jesus loves me I love you the same way he loves you. So all I am asking is that you will think and ask questions.
@@joshua35619 what if I'm right and there really is no god, but there is an afterlife with a hell. But Hell is meant for the people who stuck to their irrational belief in a god. How ever the rational people (athiests) are given the choice of a an eternal afterlife in bliss or just to end it.. Or what if we are both wrong and the 800th Scandinavians were right, so it is only people who died in war who goes to heaven "Valhalla" and the rest of us go to hell the realm of the Dead? No the ods are not 50/50. See there are a billion afterlife scenaries seeing, they are all man made. How ever you have decided to cling onto the one afterlife presented in a holy book from the Bronze Age. That being said, I do hope that then I die I "disappear". I have no interest in an eternal afterlife. Ofc I have no reason to think, that there is an afterlife (and I dont) but if I by some chance find myself still being Conscience after I die, then I hope I am given the choice to just end it and let me Conscience fade away.
@@joshua35619 it is not a 50/50 chance. First of all, there are thousands of religions with all their different view of an afterlife. And then there are the infident other possibilities which you have not though up yet. Now, I do not believe in an afterlife. But just for fun. Let's say I am right. Now, there is no god, but there is an afterlife. And in this afterlife all the people who believed in a god, is sent to be punished for eternity. But heck, maybe the vikings were right. And when we die we all go to the underworld in Hell's realm, and the ones who gets a cool afterlife are all the people who died in war. . I am sorry to say this. But claiming a character from a book loves you, just sounds a a delusion. It's like thinking that Sansa from Game of Thrones is in reality in love with me, and wants a relationship with me.
Most of Hitchens’ rhetorical flourishes were ways to demonize Christians. He was also philosophically illiterate. As society continues to break apart from God and poison itself it’s very difficult to respect any part of that guy’s legacy looking back.
Hitchens was funny for sure but these guys are all priests that get paid to spew false doctrines contrary to their beliefs. These guys are Freemasons lol
Hitchens was a better speaker but the same arguments. Hitchens was still New Age Atheist that was more of a comic than an intellectual in debates. Make fun of the Christian and get the mob behind you… without actually disproving anything.
dawkins is basically saying that he is too stupid to answer the question which is an amazing admission. the issue that dawkins is exhibiting is that he is willing to have faith in human physicists but not god, which is clear evidence of an attitude, not an appeal to data. if he continues to be challenged like this he will certainly suffer an existential crisis, he can not continue to exist in this state of insanity indefinitely.
That IS exactly what he's saying. He's not even trying to pretend he's not saying that. That's the entire point. No one, not even physicists can explain what happens "before" the big bang. It's a nonsensical concept. All these comments saying he is trusting physicists on faith are ridiculous. He's trusting the science yes and when science can't answer something, he doesn't make the leap to a god. He simply states it's a mystery and we can't know that. I can't understand how this is so difficult to grasp. He makes no claims that aren't backed by evidence.
@@bangjoeofficialwe all literally just watched a clip of the man saying “there was no “before” the Big Bang” as if he didn’t know what was being asked. While I disagree with his atheism I would respect his position more if he was at least blatantly honest about his opinion. I respect it a lot more when people just say “I just don’t think there’s a God, I don’t think there’s enough reason to, maybe I’m wrong, but I’m willing to roll those dice at this moment and that’s the way it is.” Instead of trying to talk around the issue.
@@wowitsfrostygames155being an atheist is akin to being a religious zealot they literally do the exact same thing when it comes to critical analysis and logical reasoning. I’m agnostic so you may like my explanation better. It’s rather odd to say there was no before the Big Bang imho…the comparative theistic equivalent is like saying there was no before god…they’re unironically forced into a similar but the same conundrum. The theist believes God is eternal there is no before God…if that belief is held then the atheist can attribute the same thing to the Big Bang model…the universe being eternal before the singularity.
@@bangjoeofficial he is trusting them in faith because he’s saying they’re the only one that can understand, that he can’t, so he chooses to trust them
@@Droppin_up_productions I'm sorry but that is just a complete misrepresentation of the scientific method. It's not faith even in the slightest. He trusts the scientific method because he knows how rigorously theories are picked apart by his peers in other fields because he's a scientist himself. I'll cede that you could make a case that the average person has some degree of faith in science but even that I don't agree with cuz I think we all have the ability to practice the scientific method on our own, albeit on a smaller scale at home or in nature. Everything we have ever studied in science is backed by evidence. And of course, at times, there are wrong findings or theories that need to be updated with new information, and what we previously thought was true turned out not to be, but that's all wrapped up in the scientific method. None of it is faith based. I think people who are critical of science don't realize that the entire premise of the scientific method is that we don't know. We know nothing, we only build a best guess model from the evidence we gather. When a scientist says "we know xyz is true..." or says "it's a fact", embedded in that is the understanding that it's based on what information we have at that time. It's religion that asks one to believe something without evidence. And, that is fine. I have no issues with religion and I myself am not even an atheist. But, let's not pretend science is faith based. The scientific community trusts each other because they've formed a method that has checks and balances. Religious scholars can not do that (and nor should they have to, that's the entire point of faith)
Even if the cause of the universe were not an Intelligent Designer, its existence would be outside nature, making it, by definition (drumroll, please)… supernatural.
@ronpatton5721 - I assume that you failed science class? Just because you don't want to put the work in to understand the evidence, mathematics, theory, testing and reasoning behind the physicists' explanations, it doesn't make it nonsense, when you're the one believing in a book with almost 0 evidence and in fact contradictory with itself let alone reality.
It is hard to be civil when a biologist is asked question about physics and some random christian claims that the biologist finally is up against the wall.
I pray for Dawkins. He is a good man. I know Jesus christ the lord and savior loves him just like all of you. Christ is Lord always and forever. I hope Richard Dawkins comes to understand the true love of God. And follows him. God bless you all everyday.
I can't believe that I'm going to defend Dawkins, but even religion teaches us that God lives outside of time as He created time. So the word "before" doesn't belong when discussing the origin of the big bang or the start. Only God existed, as far as we know. Not even time existed.
"Before" is a word denoting time, so no, not exactly. Of course He was already here and caused creation, but He also caused time. He caused "before and after." Philisophecally speaking, we are really into the weeds here.
The same can be said with ALL those that approach the biblical annuals with systematic and an empirical methodological manner. And NOT as most do from mere unbalanced emotional feelings of what they believe to be truth.
@@marietighe6328 NO its NOT. Most people that claim to believe in God DO NOT systematically put effort to know and understand for themselves the "whats" and "whys" of what is written in the bible preferring to hear and "learn" from someone else.
What came immediately to mind when Mr. Dawkins stated, "You cannot use 'before'..." was the biblical phrase "Before Abraham was I AM."
@@danielelindsey2213 powerful and Amen
Satanic spirit he has rejects that
Not just a biblical phrase but a direct quote from Jesus Christ. Praise the lord.
😢
He is a little woke, isn't he? He is kinda choosing what words you can use...for his truth.
Dawkins clearly articulated that he thought Morgan was a fool. He then lies to his face about it.
@@dennisdose5697 That's because Dawkins lies to himself every second about the nonexistence of God!
Not the first time Dawkins demonstrates >100 BPS.
Backpedals Per Second. This channel has a video where Dawkins admit (sort of, he squirms quite a lot) to lie in the God delusion, when Lennox calls him out.😂
@@toddfulcher888 Oh dear.Your silly magic man cult is so fucking dumb to those not indroctrinated,.
Please stop pretending to know what you don't know.
Your magic book is a collection of myths and ancient ignorance.
Atheists don't believe they have a moral obligation to apologise.
weak-minded people usually behave that way.
Never ask a woman her age and never ask an atheist what happened prior to the Big Bang.
There was no time before the Big Bang. So, nothing happened before the BB.
@@videos_iwonderwhy So what is nothing?
@@retrocalypse hahaha
😂😂😂
@@IAMJ1BI’d argue nothing inside our material world since everything in it has a cause for coming in to being. I encourage you to look into the kalam cosmological argument:
-Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
-The universe began to exist.
-Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
This begs a question (and I earnestly desire to know an answer outside my current belief. My intent is not to be offensive.): can you name something that came into being without a cause?
I’m not saying it’s easy to understand. Just saying it’s the an eternal God that exists outside of space, time, and matter is the most logical reasoning to me.
Sometimes the right answer is "I don't know"
Christians don't understand that, they just say god did it.
Yes, but in this case God created all things so we know some just suppress and reject the truth
@@japexican007 which god?
Belief in gods is based on the fact that we can’t answer everything about existence, hence we fill that in with the God of the Gaps.
Both atheists and Christians need to learn to use this more
Pride sure is rampant since the beginning huh.
Pride comes before the fall...and haughty spirit before destruction.
@@shanenoel1270 pride would be thinking the creator of the universe knows your name and talks to you and has a special plan for you
What was before the Big Bang?
Scientists: We dont know (yet).
Christian (that also doesn't know and explains in detail): Our god created the world in six days and under this and that conditions.
@@Pro-j4q God was before the big bang, then God created the world with the word, and that caused a massive explosion, aka the big bang.
Better explanation than any scientific method can even attempt to make for the next 1000 years.
@@duppyconqueror420 Unless he revealed it himself....oh wait he did.
As a chemical engineer....God did it.
As a chemical engineer… you’re pathetic.
Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
@@valinorean4816 Why do you trust a book written 29 years ago to tell about what happened 2000 years ago?
@@valinorean4816 not surprised as Soviet Union was run by atheists.
@@valinorean4816 - It's not a question of whether or not matter is eternal but why it exists at all.
So, to summarize, Mr. Dawkins, who speaks out against the irrationality of faith, is putting his faith in physicists.
Not faith. There's reason to believe in physicists, because it's science. Evidence is the key. Something not present in faith.
@@0202-t3h What evidence are you talking about ?
@@runelund5600 The general scientific method. The experimental method. We discoverd laws of physics. How gravity works. Same in chemistry and biology. We created medicine that actually work on people. We apply scientific methods to buidlings, engineering... It's being taught in schools, universities. I'm not sure if this the answer you're looking for, but science has given us plenty of evidence.
@@0202-t3h Yes of course, and I agree, but it was not the point in what kbr7171 highlighted in his comment.
@@runelund5600 What is his point? It is not at all clear...other than the snark
Professing themselves to be wise they show themselves to be fools!
Apt!
Reason is not suspended for physicists. They are subject to the same logic principles as those who are not physicists.
Our brains were not built to understand the profundities of the origin of the universe... unless you are a physicist 😂😂. What ludicrous logic.
Perhaps physicists are a type of "Gender" with special qualities distinct from all of the other humans.
He should left God out of his book title, the same way he has left God out of his life, and called it "The Delusion".
Basically admits there is a God without saying there is a God. Thinks if there is a God, he can sum Him in couple sentences, but and the same time God is too complex an idea. 😂😂😂
if time doesnt exist. there cant be a before and after to measure. really not that hard.
@@danporter1176 then the word "before" gets another meaning, which is "before there was time and space". It's just semantics and a limitation of language, but we know what we mean by the word "before". And it's not the same "before", which is connected to space and time. I like to eat cucumbers with ketchup. Meow.
@@danporter1176if time doesn't exist, neither does physics
@@danporter1176 yes but that has nothing to do with the dilemma at hand. Before, after, over, under, whatever it is, everything that happens has a cause. The language you use doesn’t change that. “Before” “cause” they are interchangeable in this specific circumstance. Richard is a man filled with loads of unearned pride.
So you won't question the physicist because you're not smart enough, but question and doubt God because you're too smart? Copy that.
🎯👏👏👏👏👍👍
No the point is to question physicists. Question everything. Most physicists just happen to have the capabilities to, you know, do physics
@@sixfootoneistall2002 right. He wont dare challenge them. "Physicist say dont say before, you cant ask that!" The universe creating itself violates the 1st rule of thermodynamics. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Lol
You have just to "beliefe" that the natural selection make any kind of sense and we are never be able to understand or proof it (but of course can lie and say it is science and proof). Than makes everything no sense! that can I promise you
@@notthisguyagain8557 a couple of points:
First, he probably has questioned physicists. Richard Dawkins has spent a lot of time with physicists like Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, etc. so he probably has challenged them a great deal.
Second, we trust physicists a great deal in our day to day lives. The same laws of physics that allow us to make cars and airplanes tell us that the Big Bang is, at the present moment, the most likely explanation for our known universe. That’s not saying it won’t change or morph into another theory, but at the present it’s the best explanation of the given evidence.
Lastly, the Big Bang does not violate the first law of thermodynamics for several reasons. The first reason is that the Big Bang theory doesn’t state that there wasn’t anything and then there was something. All the energy required to create our universe was there, just in the form of a singularity. The second reason is that the known laws of physics break down at the Big Bang. The laws cease to be useful, especially when talking about the conditions at the singularity. At that point general relativity and quantum mechanics can’t provide a cohesive and coherent answer.
The scary part of this is that it’s possible we will never be able to explore what happened “before” the Big Bang. Our explanatory toolset is bound by time and space, so anything outside of those parameters might be totally incomprehensible to us and we’ll never know about it. That doesn’t mean we should just make up an explanation that comforts us though, we just have to keep looking.
So much credibility lost when someone tells you not to ask them a question when debating to discover the truth.
What if the question is irrelevant?
Do you even know what the question was?
@@wefinishthisnow3883 Then say that, and prove it.
@@JoePetrozelli It looks like it might have been edited out, otherwise I agree that it is disappointing that it doesn't appear that he said what it was and why.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 I think Dawkins didn’t want Morgan to ask him what existed before the beginning of the universe. It’s the most difficult thing for atheist and Dawkins to address, now that science has concluded the universe did in fact have a beginning.
@@JoePetrozelli I would agree it's difficult for a biologist like Dawkins to address, but not for a physicist.
The first thing to understand is that quantum physics is weird, but testable, repeatable and continuously verified. Once one can get their head around understanding how it works, it becomes much easier to understand. Still difficult to explain though in an interview format or youtube comment though.
Check out Veritasium's video on the double slit experiment ( watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0 ) If you like that, look up the Casimir effect and how particles pop into and out of existence out of pure vacuums or 'nothing'.
Time dilation in Einstein's special relativity is another one.
The point is that the cause/effect that we think is some universal law in everything, doesn't necessarily apply to quantum scales, vacuums or singularities.
What is this world coming to 😮
Q- What is a woman? A- I’m not a biologist!
Q- What was before the Big Bang? A- I’m not a physicist!
What’s next 🤷🏾♂️
Q- What is a cake? A- I’m not a baker! 😂
Lord have mercy on these very intelligent fools 🙏🏾
This is gold, please put this on a t shirt 😂
Just like how we rely our interpretations of the Holy Bible to those who have studied the Bible tediously rather than normal people who does not spent their life studying the Bible. We can also rely our interpretation on the laws of Physics to the Physicist who's life is to study the Big bang and other related topics. Richard Dawkins is simply saying do not take my word for it but the words of the physicists who live there lives studying the laws of physics.
Richard Dawkins is not really well known to explain elaborately for the broad audiences but to help others who don't know what he means when he said “the question about what happened before the big bang is nonsensical” it’s actually like this:
All compasses directs its arrow to the north pole and when your in the north pole it will never turns north anymore but all direction leads to south, in relation to the Big Bang, Physicists says that there is nothing before the big bang because the big bang is the beginning of time and so to ask what happened before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole? In short before the big bang there is nothing.
“Where did God come from?”
“You can’t ask that”.
@@DanPugongan you’ve said a lot and I believe you are actually sincere but not sure I get you clearly. Nonetheless, the answer he gives is actually a copout as he cannot, in all his intelligence, justify his position. Trying to justify how something comes from nothing, yeah, is a tricky one! If you haven’t already, watch the documentary “What is a woman” to understand my point…same principle.
@@gweilospur5877 yeah you actually can if you like, but this question will illustrate the ignorance of the one asking of who God really is. Think about this and ponder it…if you could answer the question of where God came from, He would not be God. Well at least, not the God of the Bible.
The human brain was not built to fathom these types of things, but physicists can. So… physicists aren’t human?
if the human mind was built for this stuff from the jump, quantum mechanics would be understood by toddlers doing math in primary school
@@belodrin3550 what a bad take
@@parvizakbari8173it really is a bad take. Developmental maturity is a natural condition with natural limitations. Puppies can't hunt, baby lions can't fight off certain animals, etc. Grown adults can do advanced mathematics, organized civilizations in scale, manipulate the material to create new things, creating life consistently, and the so on. Being made in God's image gave us the ability to create and order similar to God. We even created AI and computers, that is practically like angels for God. Pure rational helpers. Utilizing quantum mechanics, intelligent design, and all the metaphysical hierarchies that structure the material (discovered, not created) can explain everything. There's a reason why short-term gratification and moral relativism result in some of the most immature adults of our time. Because it's irrational and makes us act like we are developmentally delayed.
yeah I noticed that too; if evolution gave us the capability we have but our brains are doing things evolution didn't give us ... what nonsense.
Exactly!!!
Romans 1:22 comes up in my mind immediately. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...
They all become the very monkeys they so worship.
Romans 1:22 brother. Explains modern thinking better than today's news paper 🤦♂
@@NeYah777 Sorry, that's what I meant
Wisdom comes from experience. Do you think it's talking about them being inexperienced? Or is it just them being incorrect?
@@jessedelange4918 Yep I can tell you know your Word brother, I just wanted to put it here for the people that did not know and wanted to read it for themselves. God bless you brother.
And Dawkins demonstrates how blind men can't see and dead men can't breathe. It's foolishness to those who are perishing.
Absolutely!
No, it’s foolish to those who don’t believe in fairy tales, and “truth” to those naive enough to be gullible.
@@Silver77cynWhat?
@@Silver77cynyou assume your world view is true. Prove that it is.
@@vharboe I’m not assuming anything, I just don’t believe in the superstitious fairy tales in the Bible.
They claim its wrong to use the word 'before' when speaking of the big bang, but they are okay to use the word 'after'. What type of logic ?
Its nice that the Bible tells us exactly what happened at the start. “In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and earth (matter).
Yes, great comment! The only thing I'd say is that heavens is not space, but actually the transcendent and spiritual aspect of existence. I.e., the aspect from which conciousnous derives.
@@pattyb6003 i dont mean outer space, all space
How did time begin when there was no time for it to begin?
In the beginning god Said = sound what is sound.. and then came time.
God did 💯@@horridhenry9920
To summarize it though, God is all powerful, time began, "is God creating the clock" - an analogy to help comprehend it better
There was once a point in my life, after I became a Christian, I feared reading or listing to Dawkins.
I worried that he could, in some way, damage my faith in God.
Now, when I hear him speak, I feel a little pity by his blindness and contradictions.
Same, I "feared" some content TH-cam kept promoting to me like bible contradictions, and critiques of God which when I matured I realized were foolish, easily refuted and based on men's arbitrary standards
you became blind
You gave in to fear, superstition and tribalism
Bravo child 👏
@@balazsmarton4979 No he Was blind, and then began to see.
There is a heartbreaking story of one young man years ago, that read "The God Delusion"
It destroyed his faith and he offed himself shortly after.
"we spend so much time looking for proof of God that we ignore feeling the presence of God".
- Barney Hill.
This!!! If you feel and know God, you won't even need to believe He exists.
Nothing wrong with looking for proof of God with AN OPEN MIND! Having confidence in what you believe is extremely important, which is why Peter tells us to be prepared to give an answer to questions - but do so with gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3:15-17 New International Version (NIV)
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
there is no presence of a god, because there is no such thing as a god. And even if there was what would the presence of a god even mean?
@@timlovett2673 when people ask you to "have an open mind" what they are really telling you is "stop being rational and just accept the bullshit the rest of the flock accepts".
@@larsrathsach3477 May It visit you.
So Dawkins does not think one should critique assertions of physicists if one is not a physicist.
And yet he has spent half his career critiquing the theological position, while not being himself a theologian.
This is exactly why scriptures say, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God”. They are foolish.
You're referencing a book containing absurdities, errors, contradictions and immorality. Get a better source.
@@MarkH-cu9zi are you an atheist?
@@MarkH-cu9zi I wonder what you are referencing :D
@@victormunyandamutsa636 his prideful heart
@@MarkH-cu9zi any examples?
"Before" the Big Bang there was a timeless, spaceless, immaterial entity. The great "I AM"... God!
and before god??
@@sobhashjethwa754 did you miss timeless?
@@RichardFuller-i7vI think he missed timeless, you think he missed timeless?
@@sobhashjethwa754 you don't get it, do you?!
If you are ‘timeless, spaceless, immaterial, how can you be an “entity”? In what way can you exist? Aren’t we supposed to be made in his image? Are humans, timeless, spaceless and immaterial?
“Nothing is what rocks dream about”
― Aristotle
❤🥰❣️‼️🙏😇thanx, love it.
@@rjones2000r That’s a paradox.
@@Sam-m6o3j Are you stupid or are you dumb?-Tekashi69. Current day Aristotle.
Ah, so Aristinypp was a r3etard who thought rocks were alive, got it! Man, she would've loved all this religion bullcrap! I wonder if the Greeks had invented religion, back then? I'll phone Zeus, real quick, and get back to you!
Dang, sorry... Zeus couldn't take my call... He transformed himself into a goose and is busy impregnating human women... As a goose... With a corkscrewed anseriform phallus and gonads... I'll try again after yawhey farts on a bush and magically lights it on fire!
I don't see a reason to believe that state has ever 'existed', or that anything ever 'came from nothing'.
"supernatural sky daddy" out of the mouth of an impulsive liberal arts student in her early 20s is predictable, but out of the mouth of a grown, intelligent, sophisticated scientist - so very sad
@@parak00pa
Oh, leave him alone he just doesn’t want to be with God
However you worship Yahweh who was originally a Levantine deity. He was one of 70 children of the god El. Even if you could prove that there was a god, you would still have an immense task to prove that it was the recycled deity named Yahweh.
@@sidecarmisanthrope5927
… OK whatever you say
@@henryperez606 Historical facts escape your cognitive dissonance, obviously.
@@sidecarmisanthrope5927
Where are you are saying is meaningless
Dawkins is becoming more & more a tragedy. He needs Salvation .
@@lulurosenkrantz3720 I think him being willing to go on that Interview and tall about it is honestly a great start, gets the thoughts going
@mongotone2384 Start 😂 he even says he wouldn't want heaven and I don't blame him
He's clearly not an atheist. His god is/are physicists. He hangs on their every word as we hang on the word of God.
@@edwardinfante2602 "He's clearly not an atheist. His god is/are physicists. "
That makes no logical sense and shows a lack of understanding of the scientific community.
@@mongotone2384 Putting honesty and Richard Dawkins in the same thought is an insult to logic.
Ahhh yes I recognize this argument style it’s called “willful ignorance”
😂
What was before the Big Bang?
Scientists: We dont know (yet).
Christian (that also doesn't know and explains in detail): Our god created the world in six days and under this and that conditions.
@@Pro-j4qWe haven’t observed it ourselves obviously, but we can trust the authority of One Who has. This is the same as almost everything we know (especially academics): we take it on someone else’s authority that it is true.
@@TheHER7LD "We can trust the authority of One Who has."
@@Pro-j4q I’m trying to understand your grammar here so forgive me if I misunderstand.
A) “Scientist” and “religious person” are not mutually exclusive or contradictory.
B) I don’t need to be a scientist to talk about knowing and trusting the One Who has seen (and performed) the Creation of the Universe.
"It's impossible to understand...but there's no God" 😂 Dawkins off the rails here
Yeah because if you assume there's a God, that would mean you claim to have the right assumption. Dawkins simply says he doesn't know and that it's lazy to say "oh well God must have done it".
@@0202-t3h but Dawkins is an Atheist. He BELIEVES God does not exist. There is a difference between agnosticism and atheism.
@@0202-t3hno he wasn't invoking the God of the gaps at all, or claiming anyone else was. At no point in this video did anyone including Dawkins point to a God of the gaps fallacy.
@@tim4108 That's a good point. I think agnosticism may indeed be safer but still, with so little evidence to support the claim that God exists, I understand why he doesn't believe.
@@0202-t3h the irony is that he criticizes “believers” for believing something that he claims he does not KNOW, yet he positively BELIEVES at the same time that the opposite is true. Not only is that hypocritical but just makes him equally a fool by his own standard.
Dawkins is admitting he will accept any explanation BUT God.
Did you know; Out of all of the secular professional groups, do you know what professional group has the highest number of believers in God? ***The astronomers do. Over 90% of the world's great astronomers believe in God.***
Why? ***They have studied the heavens.***
It's not a sign of intelligence not to believe in God. If you're intelligent, you have to say, "Somebody created all of this."
Take a walk under the canopy of the night sky. Praise God for His handiwork in the heavens.
Who created that somebody? If you're going to say they're eternal, it's less paradoxical to just say the universe is eternal.
Imagine an eternal intelligence trying to recall their earliest memory for example
Ad populum fallacy. FFS.
"If you're intelligent, you have to say 'somebody created all this'"
So, a pre requisite of intelligence is immediately committing an argument from personal incredulity fallacy?
Interesting take lol
@@Soril2010 If the universe was eternal then we would never get to the present because the past would be infinite. If the universe was eternal then it would have expanded infinitely, not 43 billion light years across. If the universe was eternal then heat death would have already destroyed it. If the universe was eternal then scientists wouldnt say there was a beginning with the big bang.
So tell me again how an eternal universe is less paradoxical than something outside of the universe creating the universe because he isnt subject to the laws of the universe?
And just to answer your question, God is outside of time and isnt subject to time. He created time. So he doesnt have an earliest memory because that would require him being subject to time to have a timeline.
@@mastershake4641 If the universe was eternal there would still be a present which we seem to find ourselves in. The universe may have expanded infinitely already, 43 billion years is the size of the OBSERVABLE universe, there is more universe beyond that but the light hasn't yet had time to reach us for us to observe it. The universe may have already experienced heat death, Penrose argues that without any matter to measure time or distance the state of the universe may be indistinguishable from that of the singularity present at the big bang, meaning our big bang was A beginning but not THE beginning.
Now if the universe was created by an all powerful creator he would be able to create a universe it which he wouldn't know the outcome of all events.
If the universe was created by an all knowing creator he wouldn't be able to create a universe in which he didn't know the outcome of all possible events.
I like to describe the naturalistic singularity theory as "Nothing did nothing with nothing and now there's everything."
That's a desperate strawman.
Only a creationist would use such a strawman argument.
@@TurinTuramber then what would you call it? Bc NO ONE gives rise to ANY explanation outside of nothing. And science can't even replicate ANY of the prebiotic cells that were here that got everything started. If this is indeed a strawman tell enlighten us on how it's a strawman, don't just say "it's a strawman". If you cannot provide any sufficient information that shows anything outside of what was explained then we are forced to believe that atheists believe that nothing created everything, which turns atheism into a religion bc that takes some serious faith my guy. I look forward to seeing your response 😁.
@@johnl4933then what would you call it? Bc NO ONE gives rise to ANY explanation outside of nothing. And science can't even replicate ANY of the prebiotic cells that were here that got everything started. If this is indeed a strawman tell enlighten us on how it's a strawman, don't just say "it's a strawman". If you cannot provide any sufficient information that shows anything outside of what was explained then we are forced to believe that atheists believe that nothing created everything, which turns atheism into a religion bc that takes some serious faith my guy. I look forward to seeing your response 😁. I copied and pasted these questions bc they apply to you as well.
@@TurinTuramberwhy is that a straw man? What is he changing about the argument that makes it innacurate. I’m not trying to argue, just genuinely curious because I don’t know
For Dawkins everyone is a fool who doesn't believe his nonsense
He’s the walking definition of arrogance and pride.
@@jackc9306yep. So smug. Sad
What was before the Big Bang?
Scientists: We dont know (yet).
Christian (that also doesn't know and explains in detail): Our god created the world in six days and under this and that conditions.
Which particular nonsense?
@@Pro-j4q You copy the same ignorant comment under any post? Lol. Here's a copy of my reply: "those you mention are not scientists because they reject any supernatural presence in the universe by default, therefore they're not objective. Don't confuse science with that cult." But seeing your obsession, it seems you're part of that cult, which is not science, dude.
‘Talk to a physicists” sounds like ‘I can’t answer what a woman is, because I am not a biologist”
something wrong with you bro, cause those two sentences sound nothing a like
Exactly
@@Gerhard2770 religion doesn't have the slightest idea what the answer is
@@ac-qd2cg Neither does Dawkins🤣🤣
@@Gerhard2770 difference is Dawkins doesn't claim to he just denies religions false claims.
I'm not a physicist, but I believe them. Such faith!
Faith is like the cross to a vampire for atheists, soon atheist will flood here saying "atheism is not faith, is the rejection of a claim", and ignore that such rejection requires faith in the lack of God.
He believes them because they have scientific evidence and reasons for what they are saying. That is not the case with the theists among us who would let us believe in the existence of non-spacial and non-temporal beings (with not a shred of scientific evidence or reasons) who somehow can have a cause-effect relationship with a spacial and temporal being.
Dawkins is a man of faith, but faith in the wrong things.
@@01MTodd He have no scientific evidence for the things he says.
There is no "science of atheism", and all we know about creation creates paradoxes for the atheism view.
At least it can have a cause-effect, while you are thinking that "nothing" can do that, which violated the third-law-of-motion,
What was before the Big Bang?
Scientists: We dont know (yet).
Christian (that also doesn't know and explains in detail): Our god created the world in six days and under this and that conditions.
Dawkins is a living example of a mind that suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. To continue to live in and take no accountability for sin is the reason he refuses to make a personal statement about his beleif. He is a coward and knows in his mind if he says the truth aloud, he's bound to its reprocussion
Dawkins is a “coward”, why? There’s no sin. Sin is a theological concept?
Pride and ego are blinding him. His whole reputation and career are around the identity of being an atheist. All we can do is just pray for God to humble his heart.
@horridhenry9920 sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. Theology is true whether you want to beleive it or not. Dawkins acts in the same manner. He lives a life contrary to what has been instructed by God and therefore has to suppress the truth to hold to an atheistic worldview
@@horridhenry9920 He is a coward because he does not want to tell the truth because that helps him to sell more books. He keeps saying we have evolved for survival yet he has no explanation for why we are alive!! and even if we are alive
This is about science and logical, not about unrighteousness and sin. No wonder you can't follow where the evidence (or lack thereof) leads.
Richard, “if Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?” I’m afraid he would say no as his penchant towards avoiding the truth doesn’t allow for it. It always comes down to a matter of the heart and submission to a God outside of ourselves and subjugating our autonomy to His authority.
If Christianity were true then God is Yahweh, the tribal war God of the Israelites, repurposed into Jesus.
He was once asked this. "Would you believe it, if the stars aligned themselves to write it out in the sky?" And Dawkins replied: "no, I'd think I must imagine it or aliens would be the better explanation."
@@horridhenry9920making logical strawmen doesnt make them true. Their still just a misrepresentation of what people actually believe.
@@fredthomson2182 pride is a real thing
@@BornAgain223 What is the straw man you are referring to?
If you seek Me, with all your heart, you will find Me.. thus said Him. ❤️
Thus said Santa Claus.
@@gweilospur5877 ❤️. You will know if the time comes for you to understand. Stay blessed always till then.
@@dmenace9288 Yes, I will know when I die. Like your entire belief system, cannot be demonstrated. You will find out if you don’t start believing in Santa.
@@gweilospur5877 It’s more than just Mr. Claus.. and it will make sense when the time comes. Also, Mr. Claus imaginary intentions was derived from His actual intentions for us. It is not perfect, but it does model His heart for you and me.
@@dmenace9288 Again, “when the time comes”. Everything is totally non- demonstrable. When the time comes you will die and after that nothing happens to you at all, ever. Sorry to break it to you but adults should stop believing childish fairy tales.
I cannot see any difference between how Richard talks about 'physics is extremely mysterious and our brains cannot comprehend it' and 'the pharoah is sacred and we have to take what he says on faith'.
It really is hypocritical. There’s no difference between him saying that and me saying “God is complex and our brains cannot comprehend him.”
Like… just come out and say “I don’t know what happened to cause all of creation, but I just don’t think God did it, and I’m not likely to be convinced he did.” I’ll totally understand if that’s where you’re at.
Oh but IM the fool for believing in my “sky daddy” or whatever they say now.
@@wowitsfrostygames155 I think a lot of the new atheism was right in the hypocrisies they pointed out, and felt really smug about that, but when it came to the *deep* questions they had no answers for, they just got petty and defensive.
Atheism is a lack of belief in ONE idea. It's not anything in and of itself. It's a hole; it's a place you could put something else into; it's a gap in one's knowledge. It should be a signal: 'Go on a journey to find what fits here better', instead of just feeling smart because, 'I don't believe in organized religion anymore!' That's nice. I don't either. I'm currently ass-deep into speculating about the evervoid and anti-life and how, likely, if all our cells make us, all of us make God, and maybe there's as much stuff above God as there is stuff outside of a human body. I didn't just stop at, 'I don't think the Bible is sufficient for me'.
Also, I noticed how often atheists are total pussies who'll call out the hypocrisy among Christians, but not Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or anyone else. Just the people least likely to fight back. Hmmmmm.
The difference is physics is published, anyone can try to understand it but most people won't put in the effort
Only because you think physics operates on faith.
@@Soril2010 "The difference is The Bible is published, anyone can try to understand it but most people won't put in the effort"
Try again, amigo. If I can swap out the main noun and the argument suddenly becomes unconvincing, it's a poor argument.
If those physicists that Dawkins reveres concluded that there is a God, he still WOULD NOT BELIEVE that there is a God.
Or at least he would never admit it.
Indeed, he in fact did say no amount of evidence would convince him that God is real.
Yeah didn't Stephen Hawking towards the end of his life, begin to say that there must be a higher being?
He has stated like most of the "new atheists" (now rather decrepit), has admitted that no amount of evidence would ever convince him, that he'd assume it was a hallucenation etc.
Of course, this is the man who wrote two books in a year, one claiming that Jesus did not exist and there's no historical support, and one that admits that there is historical support and Jesus certainly existed.
What a god has to do with Christianity
This is why Frank Turek named his book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist".
Dawkins has faith in something he admits goes against reason.
What is this 'faith' ?
@@pauls7803 Confidence
@@stevenjohnson6232 Faith is surrender to other humans.
@@pauls7803 That there is no God. Interesting thing is that south park guys who make fun of religions all the time have said that the most nonsensical belief for them even with all the silly religious beliefs is the one where we came from nothing. By default the thing that created us is God. I understand the whole not believing in a specific religion God but no God makes no sense.
Frank Turek and his movement are the weakest defense for God and easily defeated. They literally are fodder for atheists. Please read Stephen Meyer and James Tour if you want an undefeatable truth. We must be strong and not back the inept.
*Larry Burkett's book on "Giving and Tithing" drew me closer to God and helped my spirituality. 2020 was a year I literally lived it. I cashed in my life savings and gave it all away. My total giving amounted to 40,000 dollars. Everyone thought I was delusional. Today, 1 receive 85,000 dollars every two months. I have a property in Calabasas, CA, and travel a lot. God has promoted me more than once and opened doors for me to live beyond my dreams. God kept to his promises to and for me*
There's wonder working power in following Kingdom principles on giving and tithing. Hallelujah!
But then, how do you get all that in that period of time? What is it you do please, mind sharing?
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
Big thanks to Ms. Susan Jane Christy❤️✨💯May God bless Susan Christy services,she have changed thousands of lives globally
How can I start this digital market, any guidelines and how can I reach out to her?
He says, "Maybe we'll never understand it". Yes, Richard Dawkins, you will eventually understand ALL of it. You will eventually be standing in front of Jesus, being judged for your deeds while "in the flesh". You'll come face to face with your worst nightmare: GOD DOES EXIST. It would be wise for EVERYONE to accept this fact.
Ooh scary ……. And funny
@@PeterMoore-k2g - You laugh like a damned fool just before he dies. Or have you conquered death?
@@rubiks6So far yeah……
prove your claim.
@user-fr9wq1ed8z Real, honest doubt searches for the Light. Mere hardened unbelief wants and remains in the darkness...until that final earthly breath.
"Our brains weren't built to understand the profundities..." Saying the brains was or was not "built for" something is saying that there IS a design. Period. Even Dawkins can't avoid pointing out the truth.
👍
just how much truth is someone willing to suppress for their depraved desires.
It's just a phrase, ya doof. It doesn't mean anything. Don't look too hard just to rationalize what you already believe.
@@BornAgain223projecting?
@luke9947 No such thing as depravity from a materialist worldview, try again. Don't pretend like you're some psychological guru.
To begin time, you require one who is timeless to put batteries on the universe clock, to concretize and confine space and matter, you require one who is spaceless and immaterial who cannot be confined, to move energy, you require one who is unmoved. This can only be one very powerful and extremely intelligent being who is mysteriously incomprehensible. Indeed, what God has allowed to be understood is only a fraction of what there is to be understood yet its enough for us to believe there is a God who is transcendent.
Atheism isn’t a logical issue. It’s not an evidence issue. It’s a heart issue. Plain and Simple
That is really well put and a great way to engage with someone. Love can soften the hardest of hearts.
I always thought it was a brain issue. Hmmm.
All the heart does is pump blood around the body.
@@BeUnadulterated Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
Stop saying this. It’s literally about the fact that you can’t demonstrate anything you claim. Nothing else.
"Before" time and matter means what was logically necessary for time and matter to begin.
@@pattyb6003 I will defend the physicists here. Before God created time and space, there was no time or space.
Both Genesis and the Gospel of John start with ‘in the beginning’. The Bible makes no claims about what was before creation. This is because God literally created time. There was no time before He created it.
@@Nathan-rf8kothe actions of creating space and time had to be done outside of space and time, so would that be a pre physical dimension of sorts with no forms of measurement?
Anything with a beginning has a before or the word "begin" is meaningless.
"Before time" is an incoherent concept. The word 'before' pertains specifically to a temporal concept. It's bizzare that so many theists can't seem to understand this.
@@jimmybeans1175 No it wouldn't be a "pre" anything because "pre", "prior", "before"; all these words pertain to temporal concepts and you are talking about an atemporal state.
I can’t believe that Dawkins is trying to get away with saying that we just have to take the word of someone because they are a physicist! That’s the weakest argument I’ve heard in my life!
@@ToadLilly-77 He said go ask a physicist to explain it.
Can you understand that Dawkins' inability to explain before the big bang doesn't get you to a Christian God. You cannot argue from ignorance.
Lol
Because whatever the word of a physicist is, it’s something based on research, and they only need a single evidence to admit that it’s wrong.
Most Christians instead had never abandoned their beliefs everytime they were proven false. And everytime they were proven to be false those passages started to become “metaphorical”. 🙄
What else would you do?
Exactly. If you closed your eyes and imagined him to be a religious person talking about theologians, it sounded precisely the same.
The question "what came before time?" and "what created matter?" is a totally valid question.
Who measure time? Humans!
@@sharonreichter2537 is there a valid answer? if not, advocating for atheism seems a waste of time.
Before time makes no sense though, "before" is a reference to time so without time there is no "before". And IF something created matter then it's a valid question to ask what, but it's not acceptable to make up an answer then insist you're correct but without providing any evidence.
@@nakkadu Only if you believe that there was no 'time' before. Our idea of time is a human one - a concept that we have used to describe something. Humans can only relate time to measurements relating to our own existence. Personally, I can't understand why anyone thinks so narrowly that there might not have existed 'time' before the big bang. It just wasn't measured by us.
@@sharonreichter2537 No, according to current understanding space and time are connected and we call it spacetime. The big bang was literally the birth of time which is why "before" doesn't make sense. This is hard for people to understand which is why Dawkins pointed out he's not the best person to explain it (and I'm certainly not). The point is that it's up for discussion whereas religious people just say "god did it" and the discussion ends there for them, which is a shame because it's interesting.
I'm calling B S on saying that you can not talk about what was before time and matter began. What a cheap way to duck the question.
@@scillyautomatic i am not a defender of dawkin, but how does it make sense to say "before" in a context where time did not exist?
@@videos_iwonderwhy if time and matter did not exist, how they came to exist must be explained. To just say they began to exist at the “singularity” doesn’t explain anything, and in fact leads logic to dictate that the “singularity” was, in fact, magical.
If everything that exists has a cause, then what is the cause of God? Who or what created him? "Wel, God is eternal, see? He didn't need a creator". That's dodging a question. The big bang theory, in the other hand, have evidence to back up what it says.
@@videos_iwonderwhy ...semantics... It's a word game. It's a good question but to point out the conundrum of there being no "before" when there was no measure of time is a distraction from the topic. And you can say that it's true that there was no time before time but it doesn't preclude one from discussing and even proving what happened "before".
@@videos_iwonderwhyI think what Piers was trying to get at, is the fact that anything absolutely cannot come from nothing. It is completely illogical to say that there was “nothing” before the Big Bang theory… because like I said there cannot be causation without a cause. Therefore, if there was actually “nothing” before the Big Bang happened, then the Big Bang did not actually happen. I hope you can understand what I am saying, my friend! feel free to intellectually challenge my claims, if need be. Thank you
Dawkins is in willful rebellion against God just like Satan.
He needs a Savior just like all of us. It’s never too late to find Him, but you have to humble yourself and lay down pride of self-righteousness. 🙏🏽🥹
Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
@@valinorean4816 1 Corinthians 1:18-31
King James Version
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
@@Outdoorsguy1212 that's not an answer to my questions, i ask again, how do you know what i said isn't right?
@@valinorean4816 Your beginning with another mans opinion, then your opinion. Read the bible friend. Jesus Christ Loves you!
@@valinorean4816 Until you have an encounter with the true living God of the Bible, you will believe the lies of Satan who comes only to deceive, kill, and destroy. Pick up a Bible, humbly ask God to reveal himself to you. Read the gospel of John and see what happens. You may be surprised. He may find you. I’ll be praying for you. 🙏🏽
🕊️Maranatha 🕊️
The fool says in his heart there is no God. So who is the real fool
Those who believe without good evidence.
@@horridhenry9920 what a Lamebrain you are 🤡 as if you have explanation to anything
@@horridhenry9920 Yet you have no evidence of the beginning of the universe, yet you believe it is not God.
@@sophiacristina The difference is, we acknowledge that we don't know. You guys just fill in the blank with an obvious nonsense claim.
@@dolorousjohn5499 No, we call it a belief, even the bible call it a belief. It is an atheism strawman to say we claim like we know.
And you guys knows the basic physics ideas, third-law-of-motion and law-of-conservation-of-energy, so, it renders that without God, it must have been done by "nothing", and you guys KNOW that.
Filling a blank is not a problem, when we have something to solve, filling the blanks is a good start. Especially considering that the atheistic view leads to more paradoxes, or better, it should be seem as the least likely position.
Exact same flawed reasoning as “I’m not a biologist so I can’t tell you what a woman is”
L take and It's not the same. I can tell you what a rocket is so am i now a nuclear physicist?
Except that everyone has a pretty good understanding of what is a woman, almost nobody has a good understanding of cosmology.
@gweilospur5877 This is why that analogy is wrong, and Piers has to refer to a physicists
@@thanushaanyoga2698yup you get it. In other words one does not have to be a physicist to discuss physics.
Ketanji Brown Jackson and Richard Dawkins used the same fallacy to deflect answering a question.
If he didn't actually know the answer Dawkins could have easily said I don't know or I have not studied that, but instead he implied it's something that only physicists can answer.
“The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.””
The fool says in their heart, "I have no evidence to prove that a God exists. But I'll believe in one anyway."
@@Jaytee. You know the apostles were tortured to death just because they kept talking about Jesus right? Many christians during that time were tortured because if ut. There is plently of evidence. Especially historically. Theres plently of testimonies of people. And even prophecies in the Bibke that came true through Jesus. God has revealed himself to us you just don't like the way he has done it. I would suggest listening tk Mike winger on youtube spotify or facebook. If God is real what are the implications for your life? People change when they experience the love of Christ.
Actually it’s “no god for me”. This allows that somebody can decline to believe in a god without stating that a god doesn’t exist.
Every knee shall bow and their tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
You do understand that verse means that EVERYONE will be saved right?
I wont.
@@dolorousjohn5499 just wait 😉
@@O_tropos that's the point lol
@@FunnyRacingCar-qc7on Even if he is, Ill spit in his face when i get up there. He's evil if he does exist, which he doesn't. He's not worthy of my worship, scumbag that he is.
"Time began at the big bang" -Richard Dawkins" 7:31. "Time itself began at the Big bang" Before that was eternity, the eternal God. Outside time, matter and space.
👍👍👍👍God/Jesus exists in a timeless dimension.....amen.
Aaaaanndd.... Where's the proof of this God? And how do you know it's "your" God and not Zeus? Or Apollo? Or Brahma? Or something entirely unknown?
@@something--else Man these juvenile smuggery underwit replies get old, stale etc due to how they demonstrate how uneducated they are, specially the inescapable obvious factual history unlearned position in archaeology, anthropology, epistemology, world religions, what an actual "faith" is, factual operational science etc.
@@something--else There's no 100% undeniable proof of God. The is however the best explanation. If the creation of the universe was the beginning of time, matter, and space, then the best explanation is that the cause of the creation of the universe was from a power that is timeless (eternal), immaterial, and not confided to physical space. There is more than one religion that describes God this way. Zeus, Apollo, and Brahma do not fit that description.
@@josephedward7534forget 100% or undeniable, although that's a problem in itself, there is NO proof for ANY God, at all. All gods are similar in concept, but I'd like to hear your "description" of God, and a name for it, before going any further.
Physics is mysterious, but we can't say God is mysterious.
sure you can, just as soon as you prove god exists.
@@larsrathsach3477 “I have loved you with an everlasting love” (Jer. 31:3).
“... call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord” (Jer. 29:12-14).
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8-9)
“What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” (John 13:7) “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29) “... if you believe, you will see the glory of God”. (John 11:40)
“If you seek him, he will be found by you” (2 Chron. 15:2) “He leads the humble in justice, and He teaches the humble His way.” (Ps. 25:9) “I, the Lord, will make Myself known to him” (Num. 12:6).
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Matt. 5:8)
Physicists eat ham sandwiches like the rest of us 😂
And everyone dies. Even Jesus.
@@alistairmorrish8613
Ah but your wrong! For you see... Jesus is Jewish so he doesn't eat ham sandwiches!
Oh yeah, there was also the resurrection, that too.
Except Dawkins came to America as immigrant and ate the dogs of his neighbors.
@@guitarchalet6631 He comes to America as a visitor, he is still British and lives in the U.K.
Incorrect. Physicists do not "eat ham sandwiches", they ingest cured pork and leavened wheat.
They are better and smarter than the rest of us and should not be questioned.
Atheists : "nothing made everything"
Incredible that people believe that
Simply put it's truly foolish.
and change is unchanged...
Theists: the whole universe and everything since the beginning of time, all the galaxies and stars that were destroyed, all of the species on our earth that got extinct, all the process of random mutation and evolution that spawned billions of years on a tiny planet in a universe on a scale beyond our imagination, all of that was created with you in mind as part of a design so that you can exist to worship a God.
Incredible that people believe that.
@@0202-t3hAtheists believe no-time and chance caused a universe that has unimaginably tight and improbable properties; that unfathomably improbable odds created 500 Mb of useful code in a molecular factory able to use, protect, duplicate, and energize the information and its processes; that random defects created useful new morphologies in a thousandth of the needed time; that no thing created everything.
Watch out, a new universe might pop into existence and swallow whatever remains of your brains.
That's one magical nothing!
Guys, guys! He’s not a physicist! 👨🔬
You guys aren’t getting it, HES NOT A PHYSICIST!
There was a "before space, time, and matter existed because these three entities began to exist. They began and came into being from "nothingness" (the absence of space, time, and matter). Yet, from this nothingness, space, time, and matter began to exist.
Yup. I was going to comment about his suit but I'm not a fashion designer.
I think Dawkins needs to talk with Dr James Tour!!!! Let’s make it happen!!!!!
The heavens declare the glory of God
Where are they? Can you like, see them with a telescope?
@@dolorousjohn5499 Look up.. You see the Sun, Moon and Stars.
Not sure about that. Neutron stars are pretty horrific.
@@dolorousjohn5499that’s literally what a telescope is used for, to look at the heavens
What on earth does that even mean?
You can’t play the “ask a physicist” card because a modern nobel prize winning physicist (Lawrence Krauss) wrote an entire book called “A universe from nothing”………
The ultimate outcome being that absolutely Nothing means Something! Redefining the meaning of the word “Nothing”.
As John Lennox said “It’s Nonsense” 😂👌🏼
Bow the knee to Christ before it’s too late. Philipians 2 vs 6 - 11
Krauss' book is crap. There are better physicists one can ask. Btw, on an unrelated topic, do you actually believe that quoting a Biblical verse to an atheist would be convincing in any way. It only shows that you are playing an entirely different (and in my opinion, lesser) mental game than an evidence-seeking, argument-giving person. You might as well be quoting a fortune cookie.
It is important to draw a distinction between a concept and a tangible thing. We have the concept of nothing but that doesn't mean it is an actual thing. Especially, when it comes to the notion of nothing we get into some very tricky contradictions or trickiness in language such as, if nothing is a thing does it no longer fit the definition of nothing as it is something? I think this is why Krauss describes nothing in relation to our best attempts to remove all things from some space and realizing that such a state is not stable and subject to change. It is not necessarily a changing of the meaning of the word but rather an attempt to define it within the context of physics. This is done regularly in science such as the word hypothesis having a strict scientific meaning which is different compared to regular usage. It is not a change of the meaning but rather a more rigorous one that can then be engaged with scientifically. Even biblically speaking the idea of nothing isn't really a practical concept as God is eternal so there is never the existence of state of nothing. Perhaps God could create a pocket of space that is nothing but would be the characteristics of it such to distinguish it from God. Do those characteristic then become a thing?
@@BeUnadulterated You make interesting points, and I agree with you to some extent. Although I would still come back to the basic meaning of the word nothing, as it is described by Aristotle "what the rocks dream of", and what you describe of as the concept of nothing. This is what I think the most honest meaning that can be derived from the word. Anything further, like you describe what may be used in science/physics, kind of defeats the purpose of the word, and should warrant a more accurate definition/description and subsequent name/word to describe it. Perhaps what I would expect to be the closest to nothing we can conjure outside the word, is the number 0. Mathematically, it is nothing, but even then, I dont know enough about mathematics to be able to definitively say that this is equivalent to the word "Nothing" conceptual meaning.
Thanks for your interesting and thought provoking paragraph, I enjoyed it.
God bless and have a nice day :)
Yes and Einstein did not believe in a christian god, i have Einstein in higher regard as John lencocks. What has John done? 😂👌
god isn't real and the church covered up mass pedophilia and sexual assault
Motte and bailey here. “As a scientist I declare ‘you cannot say before the big bang’ so stop.”
When called out on it, “I’m not a physicist so I don’t understand it but will still TAKE IT ON FAITH THAT IT’S TRUE and use it as a tool against any discussion I don’t want to hear.”
i suggest you do some reading about the true nature of time and try to understand why it may not make any sense at all to ask what came "before" the big bang. or i can try explaining it if you'd like.
What exactly did he "take on faith". All he said was that he didn't know and that's the only correct answer currently
When you get on an airplane do you work out the thrust to weight ratio, where the centre of mass is and the lift it can generate, or do you trust someone with more knowledge has done these things already?
@@nuggsrocks1no need to read more, if time didn’t exist then something created it.
@@paulelago9453 you might as well say "if that blade of grass didn't exist at one point then something created it"
Yesterday I left the fries too long and the oil exploded and as I was cleaning up the aftermath, I saw a PS5 had materialised.
Lucky...
nice, you must have wish granting pixies in your house then
If given enough time and exploding oily potato’s experimentation, anything is possible! You just need more time and it’s somewhere in the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000474736372% chance of happening. How dare you question this.
@@reprovoa2408 sounds like an exagarated example, but given the enormous complexity that would have to result from an explosion that isn't guided at all. Your experience should sound perfectly 👌 logical to an atheist.
I left the fries too long and the oil exploded and a magical invisible sky wizard created everything.
Dawkins not being able to pass the same lines of questioning he's turned on the faithful for the better part of my life is such a gift. Thank you for your channel.
The faithful say that they know. That's the difference.
Which questions?
Never forget, sometimes PhD stands for phenomenally dumb and piled higher and deeper 😇
I suspect that You are dumber that Dawkins.
I guess you're so much smarter then huh
@@0202-t3hyes
Dude, you believe in a guy that wants you to worship him, but wont give you any proof he exists, and will damn you to hell for jerking off. Lets calm down a little here LOL
@@horridhenry9920 The odds would be against your suspicion. It would be extremely rare to encounter a person more stupid than dawkins.
I think G K Chesterton nailed it when he said ‘It is absurd to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything’. I believe in God because it makes more sense to me than the Atheist idea that nothing existed before the Big Bang, you know that is rubbish. Turn to God whilst you still can is my advice.
Same. I believe that the Big Bang was created by God. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me
Literally no scientist says "nothing created everything". Actually look up the Big Bang and read about it. Also, you admit that your reasoning is garbage; "I default to this position because that position doesn't make sense to me" is not how sound logic works. False dichotomies. gods of the g aps.
Neither Big Bang cosmology nor atheism states that "nothing existed before the big bang." That is just a misunderstanding on your part.
Also, believing in God because it "makes more sense to you" is called an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.
@@timcollett99Then can you explain what Dawkins means by there was no before when it comes to the big bang I'm genuinely trying to understand
@@ShugaAnims He was specifically referring to the use of "before" as a descriptor. If time itself had an origin at the Big Bang then it doesn't make sense to try and apply our everyday experience of linear causation to it. Quite simply, how can there be a 'before' time?
i dont understand why people always considered Dawkins as a smart man. he contradicts himself all the time. he is full of pride
@@Thanya569 when did you see him contradict himself?
We like him because he is a well-educated man Who is an expert in evolutionary biology.
From the minds who brought us "who created God" comes, you can't ask that.
Lol
This comment is so underrated
A good question depending on the context. Religious people often special plead when it comes to their god
That question is relevant if you hold onto the idea that “everything” must have a cause. If that is true, then by definition a god would also need a cause. Else it is just special pleading,
Does “ETERNAL” mean anything to you? Need google to remind you? Things only require a cause if they’re bound within the realm of time. God, in fact, created time, and He isn’t bound by the things He created
@@gaudiestivy4297 my supernatural force is also eternal and not bound by time. That's what caused the Universe. No god needed
This is the same man that cannot accept that GOD is UNCREATED. i.e nothing caused God and nothing created God. It's a shame that his heart is so cold towards God.
Why can't people like you accept that the UNIVERSE is UNCREATED? Why are your hearts so cold toward the Universe?
So he just, to use a kamala gaff, fell out of a coconut tree? He just existed? Absolute delusion LOL
He can't accept it because it is totally unproven. Simple logic.
@@01MToddBecause it leads to logical contradcitons you cannot account for that you presuppose.
But he would believe the universe is uncreated.
3:30 Dawkins asks interviewers to not ask questions he doesn't want to answer? Lame.
Not rational.
Because underneath that thin veneer of intellectualism he's really bitter and probably very afraid of dying. Probably very afraid of what's to come when his number is called and angry at God for whatever reason(s) he has.
Do you know what the question Piers asked was?
Perhaps we should get the facts before rushing to judgement?
@@wefinishthisnow3883 "what was before the big bang" Dawkins says the word "before" doesn't mean anything because a physicists said so.
@@codyallen9486
He does place plenty of faith in them. 😏
@@wefinishthisnow3883
If you need to control the questions you are asked in an interview, it is not an interview, it's a jointly agreed upon propaganda session.
Dawkins just waived his ability to qualify ANY claim as being good or "not good grounds for suddenly invoking..." anything, having just emphasized that the origin of the universe is "something very mysterious", but which he "doesn't understand". Basically, he's saying "It's surely unknowable, but it's definitely not what you think".
Dawkins does his best..hope he will enjoy his muslim-british society.😊
If anyone is a fool, it's Dawkins who denied the existence of Supreme being who created everything.
Prove that being exists
So true. For Dawkins it can be aliens from a multiverse, but he refuse the possibility of God. For Dawkins it is not a matter of whether God exists, but he doesn’t want God to exist.
@@26JV26 that is because a god is something super natural, and Richard Dawkins and science works within reality. In science you can't appeal to something which is impossible in the real world.
How ever a multiverse is not outside of our reality and neither Are aliens.
God is not against science , there are many scientists whic belive in God . @@larsrathsach3477
@la8685 yeah, being foolish for requiring a little evidence - yeah OK!
So brilliant by Morgan at the start. By showing that clip at the start then flipping to Dawkins it shows the audience that the guy has zero credibility to be trustworthy
More likely pettiness on Morgan's part, but it DID work out brilliantly!
@@Link0304 that might be the motivation on his part but the point still stands. He made Dawkins look like a fool before the man could ever say a word
@@tylermiller5836only for the people who felt sorry for Pierce`s frail ego, which was hurt.
The Big Bang does not necessarily contradict the existence of God. Who knows, maybe this is exactly what happened when God created the world.
DNA was discovered in the 1980s and all scientists agreed that this program was beyond human understanding or comprehension. Where you ever have a program then we always have a program maker or creator.
Just because scientists often analogize DNA to a computer program or code, that doesn’t mean DNA is literally is a code. They are saying DNA acts like a program or code. By you falsely equating DNA to a program or code, you are fallaciously injecting the need for an intelligent designer or program/code maker. Rather, DNA is a naturally occurring CHEMICAL that is contained in all biological organisms. And just because we don’t currently have an understanding of how something works doesn’t mean a God did it. A thousand years ago, we didn’t understand how disease spread, but through science, we came to understand diseases spread through germs. The ancient Greeks didn’t know what lighting was so they attributed to the god, Zeus. Through science, we now know lighting is a natural phenomenon.
Each human carries with them about 6 yottabytes of nucleic information. That's about 6 times the amount of words uttered in the entirety of human history. All of that, stored in our cells. And I'm being told to believe that that level of complexity generated over a few million years, yeah right
@@seanrathmakedisciples1508 DNA was discovered in the late 1860s. You are so far off.
@@josephpark2093 Compared to what? Please inform the audience on your academic background that should distinguish your opinion over any other lay opinion. What amount nucleic information would you expect our cells to hold based on a couple million years of evolution? And btw, just because something in nature seems complicated or vast doesn’t mean it can’t occur through natural processes. According to current estimates, the average human brain has approximately 100 trillion neural synaptic connections. Despite this seemingly incomprehensible number, we know that the human body in all its complexity is a result of the natural biological process of sexual reproduction - we don’t need to appeal to some magical being.
@@Adam-mj5hl With evolution we get destruction and never construction which can clearly be observed from our environments .
When I was a smug delusional atheist, I used to postulate the same circular pre-Spacetime argument as Dawkins. I would say "prevaiing conditions" instead of "before. " It's still existence from nonexistence. Six of one, a half a dozen of the other🤷🏿♂️.
Are you now a “smug delusional theist” ? What does “prevailing conditions” mean in this context? The prevailing conditions before the Big Bang? Existence from non existence is something theists believe in.
Also atheism is a belief and they can’t get around that by simply saying it is not. You have to choose to believe or not believe
Yea..the enemy uses semantics a lot as a method of deception. You were just a minion.
@@Just_a_Reflection when you say god always existed you are simply positing a brute fact. That has no more justification than positing reality itself, or some fundamental nature thereof as a brute fact. For example a non conscious energy field from which the universe emerged. Difference is we know energy fields exist, we have no evidence that any gods exist
@@David-ns4ym Yes atheism is a belief and I have faith in science. I don't suggest science has all of the answers but that we are at the beginnings of doing serious science. I think that if we give science equal time and wait a thousand years or so we will get the answers.
12:58 When they drop that Sky Daddy! Anytime I hear it now, I instantly go into this trance and hear it like 30 times with David Woods voice. .. Thanks David Wood 🪵!
A family friend was Dr. Stanley Livingston, a world renowned physicist. He was part of the Manhattan Project. When I was about 15 years old (I'm now in my 70s) we visited him at his home. He was very kind to me. And I recall he had become a Christian. When I asked this question of him he said he had finally realized that the Dawkins response - "there is no BEFORE the Big Bang" was more a faith than faith in God for it not only insists one buy it whole, but that one also believe that all the principles of physics, biology, and even love arose from a mindless, ultimately unknowable mystery. A loving God explains existence as we know it far more effectively and, he thought, more persuasively. This is just a deeply personal memory., but it makes sense to me and it has been an important reason why I have never found Dawkins and others persuasive.
Hysterical, this discussion of Pierce and Richard. Truly hysterical. All Mr. Dawkins needs to do is keep talking to inadvertently promote Christianity. Lol
How does Dawkins promote Christianity?
@@larsrathsach3477 so you haven't been watching his videos lately? Here's one of Dawkins latest quotes, "I'm on team Christian!"
@@fernandoformeloza4107 he is not promoting Christianity, he is saying he likes the Christian culture as it is now. He says he likes churches, hymnes and the holidays. He does how ever state pretty clearly that he does not believe in Jeezus and God. What he is saying is, that he would be sad, if fx Islam took ever England. He would be sad if we demolished Chruches to build more appartment buildings. He would be sad if December was no longer the "Christmas- month".
@@larsrathsach3477 you don't think that quote inadvertently says something to everyone out there? What does that quote say at face value, without having to explain it?
@@fernandoformeloza4107 I mean if you take a qoute out of contex, then sure. But that is disingenuous.
You can claim that it has meaning that Richard Dawkins calls himself a cultural Christian, but that has no bearing on the truth claims of Christianity. Most contries in Europe are by definition Christian, but that does not mean all people believe in the Christian god.
I myself is from Denmark, and Denmark is also a "Christian" country. We have a state religion and we celebrate all the Christian holydays. But most people do not believe there being a god. We just like the culture, same as Richard Dawkins.
Atheist hate to believe that they are not in charge of their life. It is devastating to them. So instead to sling insults and make fun of believers. Kinda like what children do
So if I’m not in charge of my life who is? Atheists take responsibility for their actions, good and bad. We don’t attribute the good to a God and the bad to a devil. We don’t think anyone else has paid for our transgressions, we have to pay. And after death, there’s a funeral. We have no good evidence for anything beyond that.
Well, you are in charge of your life. You make decisions on your life. You will just have to answer for all the wrong doings that you chose. God is in control of everything. Everything and everyone will do His will regardless. It is just a big picture.
@@horridhenry9920 And everything came from nothing and our grandfathers were monkeys... 🤣🤣🤣
@@horridhenry9920what do you guys take charge of exactly? Depression and not reproducing?
There is no good or bad without the transcendent.
@@horridhenry9920why even ask a theist that question of who is in charge? you already know the answer.. you just don't like the answer, and you reject it. It's still intellectually dishonest to pretend you don't know the answer.
Physicists are all about theoretical hypotheses. if you ask the "before" question, all their work will crumble and become meaningless.
Really? Physics built the device you used to post your comment. Yep, it’s really meaningless.
@@horridhenry9920 I am talking about theoretical physicists who are trying to explain the origin of the universe, specifically related to this topic!
@@horridhenry9920 We are not talking about device you used to post your comment, right. 🙃
@@hassibg At least the theoretical physicists are talking a scientific and evidence-based approach to the topic unlike those quoting bronze age holy books.
@@hassibg That is not what you said. Wasn’t Einstein a theoretical physicist. Theoretical physics is often the forerunner to experimental physics.
My synopsis:The Big Bang theory is a religion and Physicist are it’s Priests. Richard Dawkins is a member who missed Sunday school and can’t explain what the priest taught. Did I leave anything out?😂
not sure, but it is completely nonsence what you just said.
@damilareadeogun he's also a best selling author
Absolute nonsense. if you’re being serious then you are clueless
Naw, that's about right. It's just that the followers of this new religion like "not" to call it a religion.
@@rwatson2609 for some reason some theists need to call science a religion. Ofc it is not. A religion is build on a fundemtal acceptance of a created world, in which humans are ment to exists due to the god/gods will. Scienece studies the world, to understand how “things” work.
Religion is “prescripted” as in
- making claims about how the world works
Science on the other hand is descripted” as in
- we have to find out, how the world works
Religion is a system based on doctrine and dogma. This does never change in religion. There might be some of its followers who will discard some of it due to cultural changes.
- fx churches in Christianity now in many cases accept homosexuals
- many people in Christianity no longer think, men ae superios to women
- some muslims, will drink alcohol
- etc
But, the dogma about these things, did not change. So at the heart of the religion, these things are still wrong, and the people who do follow the doctrines, will claim, that these people are “sinners” or “not living according to the religions doctrine”.
Sciense has no doctrines og dogma.
Science is always changing. As soon as scientists lear something new, and is able to “prove” is (I write prove like this, because you do not really prove things in science, what you do is ask your peers to try to disprove it) then this become the new accepted reality within the specific field.
Religions have clergies or other forms of holy men. These people are held to a “higher” standard and has authority over other followers of the religion.
Catholosism has this insane system that ens with the pope. Islam has imams and Christianity has priests. In all these religions these people are seen as authorities and followers will seek guidance and answers to questions from them.
In science there are no authorities. There are people who have more knowledge about a specific field, and they will there for be consideed more knowledgeable about their are, bevåcause they simply have studied it more.
But people are always welcome to challenge them on their study. You can claim something is wrong with in a field, but you would then follow up with evidence for it.
In religion you can challenge something, but a priest will go back to the holy book, and this holy book will never be altered.
In science how ever, if you challenge the current accepted “science” in a specific field, with a claim and evidence. Your peers will test your claim and look at your evidence. If the scientific community, the are unable to disprove it, the your “claim” become the new scientific “status” and the we change the science books.
So no, science is nothing like religion. And I suspect the people who claims this does it because at their core, they understand that organized religion is a terrible thing. So they need to make science just as bad.
The doctrine
Dawkins moves the goalpost from "something more complex than the human brain can understand," which he concedes he can "buy," to a created god, demonstrating he doesn't understand what theists mean by "God"
@@deldomino Ask 1000 theists what they mean by God and get 3000 different answers.
@@TurinTuramberAsk 1000 athiests what caused the big bang or to explain their consciousness/rational minds and you’ll get 1000 non-answers
@@KuroToshiro And? You don't need to know either of those things to be an atheist. I don't know the answers and neither does a theist.
@@KuroToshiro actualyl you would most likely get the answer
- I do not know.
@@KuroToshiro those atheists at least honest to say they don't know when they can not find evidence. You believe you know eventhough you don't have evidence. See the difference?
When Christians say God is unknowable in so far as there is more to Him than is revealed in the Bible and by the Holy Spirit, they admit He is a higher authority. Dawkins thinks physicists are in a superior category of human being for believing they know the origin of the Universe! A lack of understanding on Dawkins part shows he doesn't base his argument on reason or logic, but belief in physicists!
True
omg you clearly did not understand anything Richard Dawkins said..... this is probably the most insane comment I have ever seen. At absolutely no point, did Dawkins say "physicist are in a superior category" what he said was, that the "cause" of the Universe most have been a much more incredible thing than the origin of life.
How is it that when an Atheist asks a Theist "what came before God?" it's considered some kind of "gotcha" moment? But when a Theist asks an Atheist "what came before the Big Bang?" it's considered a nonsensical question?
It is because both are nonsensical questions. The atheist is not asking the question as a gotcha. They are asking it so that you realize that some questions are in fact nonsensical.
@@01MTodd No, it is almost 100% of the time asked as a gotcha. They are asking it to imply that the concept of an uncreated entity is nonsensical. The need to go read Flatland until they understand it.
If you cannot use the word before, then you cannot use the word cause.
@@stevewalsh23 And you cannot use the word armchair.
@@gweilospur5877 lol awful chirp, I'm still correct. A cause is something that happens before, learn language.
@@stevewalsh23 You are confusing “cause” with “first cause”. Obviously a cause can happen before or after another event.
@@gweilospur5877 No you are confused. He said you cannot use the word before because there was no before. So then you can't use the word cause, yes, in the sense of first cause. Since there is no before, there is no time or place for the first cause to have happened.
In all fairness, asking what was before the big bang is essentially equivalent to asking where God come from..
It is not wrong for physicists to say there was no time before time began. That does make sense. God is not part of physical time so it is not a problem. I say go with it, nothing physical happened before physical time. This only proves that a transcendent being Initiated physical time since non-time could not have created the time event without the benefit of time. Why argue against "nothing before time"? Both sides are just opposing what the other is saying because they're saying it.
True! God spoke, thus energy was released and that was the big bang! The Bible mentions that God is Energy, that He is a Spirit, the time does not exist as a thousand years is like one day and one day is like a thousand years to Him. Perhaps it is the term/name God that Dawkins cannot understand. That same energy is within us, the life force. Electricity meters can pick it up.
I think ultimately the reason dawkins, atheists and evolutionists reject God. Is not because of a lack of evidence or even if there was. I feel they reject God because they don't like being told what to do, so they don't like that God hates sin, and he doesn't want us to do sinful things. He still lets us choose if we want to be sinful or not. But then you must face consequences. That's the reason why they despise God so much.
Well you are clearly wrong in that. We just dont believe a god exists. As we do not believe sin is a real thing. We do not believe in a soul and we do not worry at all about an imaginary being thought up by goat herders in bronze age.
@@larsrathsach3477 What if I am right and you are wrong? what then. So if I die and I am right, I will die and be with Jesus. But if I die and you are right, then I will just die and disappear into nothing, that's not so bad. Now if you die and I am right then you will be separated from Jesus. or if you die and you are right you will also just disappear. Your odds are 50/50 and my odds are a 100. Would you not want your odds to be 100 to? It's a good thing to just ask questions about life, that's why we have a brain. You might think I say this, because I think I am better than you or I am a judgemental Christian just judging people. I am not like those type of people, I do this even if people hate me. doing this doesn't benefit me, it will make a lot of people not like me. Then ask yourself the question why do I do this? I do this for you because I love you, I mean that in kind way. Just like Jesus loves me I love you the same way he loves you. So all I am asking is that you will think and ask questions.
@@joshua35619 what if I'm right and there really is no god, but there is an afterlife with a hell. But Hell is meant for the people who stuck to their irrational belief in a god. How ever the rational people (athiests) are given the choice of a an eternal afterlife in bliss or just to end it.. Or what if we are both wrong and the 800th Scandinavians were right, so it is only people who died in war who goes to heaven "Valhalla" and the rest of us go to hell the realm of the Dead? No the ods are not 50/50. See there are a billion afterlife scenaries seeing, they are all man made. How ever you have decided to cling onto the one afterlife presented in a holy book from the Bronze Age.
That being said, I do hope that then I die I "disappear". I have no interest in an eternal afterlife. Ofc I have no reason to think, that there is an afterlife (and I dont) but if I by some chance find myself still being Conscience after I die, then I hope I am given the choice to just end it and let me Conscience fade away.
@@joshua35619 it is not a 50/50 chance. First of all, there are thousands of religions with all their different view of an afterlife.
And then there are the infident other possibilities which you have not though up yet.
Now, I do not believe in an afterlife. But just for fun. Let's say I am right.
Now, there is no god, but there is an afterlife.
And in this afterlife all the people who believed in a god, is sent to be punished for eternity.
But heck, maybe the vikings were right. And when we die we all go to the underworld in Hell's realm, and the ones who gets a cool afterlife are all the people who died in war. .
I am sorry to say this. But claiming a character from a book loves you, just sounds a a delusion. It's like thinking that Sansa from Game of Thrones is in reality in love with me, and wants a relationship with me.
Why do people despise Santa Claus?
Dawkins is no Hitchens. At least Christopher you could enjoy hearing him speak and admire his erudition, though one may disagree.
Most of Hitchens’ rhetorical flourishes were ways to demonize Christians. He was also philosophically illiterate. As society continues to break apart from God and poison itself it’s very difficult to respect any part of that guy’s legacy looking back.
Hitchens was funny for sure but these guys are all priests that get paid to spew false doctrines contrary to their beliefs.
These guys are Freemasons lol
They are both ignorant pricks
Hitchens was a better speaker but the same arguments. Hitchens was still New Age Atheist that was more of a comic than an intellectual in debates.
Make fun of the Christian and get the mob behind you… without actually disproving anything.
@@Jessehermansonphotography You don't really have to disprove religion, if you have higher than a 70 iq and read the bible it disproves itself.
Just because a physicist says so, it doesn't mean we are required to listen to them, especially when it contradicts logic.
dawkins is basically saying that he is too stupid to answer the question which is an amazing admission.
the issue that dawkins is exhibiting is that he is willing to have faith in human physicists but not god, which is clear evidence of an attitude, not an appeal to data.
if he continues to be challenged like this he will certainly suffer an existential crisis, he can not continue to exist in this state of insanity indefinitely.
That IS exactly what he's saying. He's not even trying to pretend he's not saying that. That's the entire point. No one, not even physicists can explain what happens "before" the big bang. It's a nonsensical concept. All these comments saying he is trusting physicists on faith are ridiculous. He's trusting the science yes and when science can't answer something, he doesn't make the leap to a god. He simply states it's a mystery and we can't know that. I can't understand how this is so difficult to grasp. He makes no claims that aren't backed by evidence.
@@bangjoeofficialwe all literally just watched a clip of the man saying “there was no “before” the Big Bang” as if he didn’t know what was being asked.
While I disagree with his atheism I would respect his position more if he was at least blatantly honest about his opinion.
I respect it a lot more when people just say “I just don’t think there’s a God, I don’t think there’s enough reason to, maybe I’m wrong, but I’m willing to roll those dice at this moment and that’s the way it is.” Instead of trying to talk around the issue.
@@wowitsfrostygames155being an atheist is akin to being a religious zealot they literally do the exact same thing when it comes to critical analysis and logical reasoning. I’m agnostic so you may like my explanation better. It’s rather odd to say there was no before the Big Bang imho…the comparative theistic equivalent is like saying there was no before god…they’re unironically forced into a similar but the same conundrum. The theist believes God is eternal there is no before God…if that belief is held then the atheist can attribute the same thing to the Big Bang model…the universe being eternal before the singularity.
@@bangjoeofficial he is trusting them in faith because he’s saying they’re the only one that can understand, that he can’t, so he chooses to trust them
@@Droppin_up_productions I'm sorry but that is just a complete misrepresentation of the scientific method. It's not faith even in the slightest. He trusts the scientific method because he knows how rigorously theories are picked apart by his peers in other fields because he's a scientist himself. I'll cede that you could make a case that the average person has some degree of faith in science but even that I don't agree with cuz I think we all have the ability to practice the scientific method on our own, albeit on a smaller scale at home or in nature.
Everything we have ever studied in science is backed by evidence. And of course, at times, there are wrong findings or theories that need to be updated with new information, and what we previously thought was true turned out not to be, but that's all wrapped up in the scientific method. None of it is faith based. I think people who are critical of science don't realize that the entire premise of the scientific method is that we don't know. We know nothing, we only build a best guess model from the evidence we gather. When a scientist says "we know xyz is true..." or says "it's a fact", embedded in that is the understanding that it's based on what information we have at that time.
It's religion that asks one to believe something without evidence. And, that is fine. I have no issues with religion and I myself am not even an atheist. But, let's not pretend science is faith based. The scientific community trusts each other because they've formed a method that has checks and balances. Religious scholars can not do that (and nor should they have to, that's the entire point of faith)
The reason such language as “before the Big Bang” is counterintuitive to RD is based on his refusal to acknowledge and accept the supernatural.
Even if the cause of the universe were not an Intelligent Designer, its existence would be outside nature, making it, by definition (drumroll, please)… supernatural.
Well that's because the supernatural isn't real.
@ronpatton5721 - I assume that you failed science class?
Just because you don't want to put the work in to understand the evidence, mathematics, theory, testing and reasoning behind the physicists' explanations, it doesn't make it nonsense, when you're the one believing in a book with almost 0 evidence and in fact contradictory with itself let alone reality.
that is because there is no such thing as super natural
@@ronpatton5721 Supernatural means that which cannot be demonstrated by science, so there is never any reason to believe in it.
It is hard to be civil when a biologist is asked question about physics and some random christian claims that the biologist finally is up against the wall.
I pray for Dawkins. He is a good man. I know Jesus christ the lord and savior loves him just like all of you. Christ is Lord always and forever. I hope Richard Dawkins comes to understand the true love of God. And follows him. God bless you all everyday.
I can't believe that I'm going to defend Dawkins, but even religion teaches us that God lives outside of time as He created time. So the word "before" doesn't belong when discussing the origin of the big bang or the start. Only God existed, as far as we know. Not even time existed.
So the “before” is God ! 🤔
"Before" is a word denoting time, so no, not exactly. Of course He was already here and caused creation, but He also caused time. He caused "before and after." Philisophecally speaking, we are really into the weeds here.
Dawkins mocks God in any regard. Yet, he calls Piers the fool.
I feel sorry for him.
Don't recall Piers sending 10 plagues against Egypt.
@@pauls7803 Confused by your response but it is funny, nonetheless.
@@veronical3135I feel sorry for you for not accepting Zeus.
Dawkins does not mock god, he does not believe god is real. He believe it to be a fictional character and not a very pleasant one.
Physicists "don't have different brains"... they have years of learning, discovery and insight.
So that's exclusive to them?
Physicists are a special form of retard.
The same can be said with ALL those that approach the biblical annuals with systematic and an empirical methodological manner. And NOT as most do from mere unbalanced emotional feelings of what they believe to be truth.
@@marietighe6328 NO its NOT. Most people that claim to believe in God DO NOT systematically put effort to know and understand for themselves the "whats" and "whys" of what is written in the bible preferring to hear and "learn" from someone else.
And most of all, evidence.
richard dawkins says you just need to have faith in the physicist