science reached the correct conclusion. we dont know. And that is what is great about science, it attempts to find out and also dismisses previous theories that turned out to be wrong.
Not until the scientist that promoted those wrong theories have died. A scientist who have written essays, books, papers on a theory like multiverses, or string theory or whatever...will never admit to have proposed something wrong, to have worked for decades on nothing.
@@francesco5581 It's rare, certainly. I've seen colleagues go both ways. Those who are able to accept that they've bet on the wrong model can find a way to wrap up their work in good grace and move on to something more promising, or they can retreat into a private narrow world of dogma. A lot has to do with the balance between natural curiosity and emotional need for security.
Because the sciences have seen no need of any gods in any of the processes in Nature - then the sciences have essentially shown that no gods need to even exist!!!
@@francesco5581 not true. There have been many occasions where a living scientist have been proved wrong and most accept the correction because science goes where the evidence leads.
Religion, moving goalposts. If science worked out everything in the universe the religious people will say "yes that is Gods plan". I don't know why you bother arguing about such nonsense.
Light is omniscience. Light knows who or what will recieve at which appointed time. That's why religious people are right in saying that it's God's plan.
@@S3RAVA3LM Are you saying that photons are all knowing? And, if so, that somehow makes the assertion that it's "god's plan" correct? I hope that I misinterpreted something here, as none of it makes sense or has any empirical evidence.
@@S3RAVA3LM You know that what we call light is in fact photons. They don't experience time. They are characterized by a very small number of parameters. There's no magical wisdom to be found here, although I would be interested in what drugs you're taking.
The questioner is a weak feeble mind. There is no REASON for existence, OR any MEANING of anything. Other than what each human places upon it!! It is magnificently empowering to know there is no REASON for existence, OR any MEANING of anything; the questioner's weak feeble mind NEEDS reassurance, needs comfort, needs an 'alleged' protector, needs an external strength!!! There is ONLY one question and it is WHAT IS GOD?? NOT DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD??? What you believe proves NOTHING WHATSOEVER!!! ALL IS KNOWN IN 21C Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia !!Physicawww.academia.edu/12805065/21C_Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Physica
I think he's confused... Science has always been about HOW (the universe works). Religion and spirituality has always been about WHY (we are here in the first place). They shouldn't contradict, but complement each other. Can science explain consciousness? Can it explain the power of beliefs (placebo effect for instance)? What about immense feelings of LOVE or GRIEF?. Dreams, psychadelic experiences, deja vu, gut feelings, OBE's, extra sensory experiences, etc, etc? It seems like science have hit a road block, when they can't even explain how quantum entanglement work. Or the mere fact that wether certain experiments have a conscious observer, or not, will affect the results...
@@chetanpatil1654 You are absolutely right... But is life all about proving or disproving something? There are obviously parts of our lives that are REAL, but can't be either proven, nor disproven. As humans, we are also looking for answers to meaning and purpose, and many other non materialistic questions.
@@humlakullen those are largely just semantics and are not questions that can be coherently answered. Meaning is relative to us not some kind of cosmic absolute.
@@henrim9348 Science is all about reducing reality to data that can be gathered=simplistic worldview...and pretending that is objective truth= monopoly on what is truth...and it is not about control minds and people. They surely are in your head LOL
Exactly. Just like religion used to claim it knew how the Earth was created or where humans and animals came from. Of course we now know those claims were all made up but are still expected to believe the ‘God’ part is not also made up.
I don't agree a whole lot with him. He says that there is no proof of the existence of a superficial being. But he is not giving any justification as to why there is no one. Just because we have science doesn't justify rejecting religion. I can believe in both and still be happy
@@fr3d42 What people tend to get wrong about Religion is that they always tend to link it to why people are dumb in believing that God exists. They tend to ignore why religion has a place in the society. This mainly boils down to the fact, religion in the past has taught people to be nice to others, although this might be contradicted by many wars because of religion, which to be fair were caused because few powerful people misused it to gain trust of the people. Just going around calling people dumb because they follow religion and god isn't doing anything other than proving their point that atheists are ignorant. Honestly, this is my take. I hope you accept it in good will mate. Cheers!
@@anuragnair4601 Thank you for your honest opinion. I would have liked my previous comment to be acknowledged, As I think my point is valid. If I tell you "I have no cookies in my house" you don't expect me to provide evidence for the absence of cookies. However, if you find a cookie in the cabinet, my claim would be proven wrong. Same thing here.
@@anuragnair4601 religion teaches people to be homophobic and misogynistic. I really don't think that religious people are any nicer, its the same mixed bag of flaws and virtues you find in any group.
Agree,there is something beyond our senses that only gives us a false ultimate reality,but this ultimate reality is not abrahamic god that reward his believers.this underlying ultimate reality is non personal and its law apply whether youre a believer or not.eg.law of karma,or science says,for every action,there is a opposite reaction.🙂
@@dongshengdi773 the point being is that this force is governed by laws of physics and not by a god. and if a god had created these physics then one would assume that his would be perfect and not bring suffering to some. fundamentally why scientists don't believe in the bible god. do trey believe the bible? no. you can't deny physics. then of course you will have to explain why they are not perfect. i know you are not god but you appear to know him very well. ask him.
@@fraser_mr2009 If something is imperfect that doesn’t mean it has no creator. Man suffers from disease,hunger and eventually man shall die.Universe shall cease to exist. It is not imperfection in God's creation rather it's His plan.
But the many achievements and object that science has since brought us does not in anyway address our ultimate concerns or questions in life, or satisfy our innermost needs for understanding ourselves better other than a cold slogan keeps telling us that we are just an ever-evolving animal and that we are a random product among other biological machineries in this unapologetic nature.
and what are the ultimate questions? whether the condome or the universe wins, when it comes to antinatalism? whether there is a true random function? first we must know whether we have true liberty to ask questions. and for this we need a true random function.
It actually does though, it is just that most people don’t like the implications. Yes, science doesn’t directly give you answers regarding thise “big questions”. But it tells you about the universe you are in, and it is up to you to make up what you want with this info. If science tells you humans are biological machines, maybe you should consider this as you build your worldview, instead of disregarding this info as a “cold slogan”.
Hard core materialist vs someone who wants so badly to believe in the existence of God. There must be a causation to our existence but that does not mean it is the God of the Bible. God of the Bible is a human created narrative and most likely as far from the truth about the causation as you could imagine. So there must be a causation but what that is nobody has any right to speculate. We just do not know.
I am not a writer but “god” whatever that is wants me to write a book explaining who he really is in terms of the subatomic electromagnetic energy fields and self aware consciousness that we use to create this perception of a physical reality… that gives purpose and meaning to an existence that has no purpose except to make our existence as enjoyable as possible
One can always pretend that a god exists. When I win a game of cards I can believe that a god gave me good cards and guided my playing. When I lose, god is keeping me humble. Every day you do not die has god protected you? You can pretend that’s true. When you die that’s how he made people. Simple isn’t it.
Another scientist that totally misses the question He is not asking the right question, He is talking about what he knows, but are too scared to go out of his small boundaries. We dont need more scientist like this, he is like Newton when asked about gravity.
This 'god of the gaps' argument is pathetic: There are things we may never know, therefore god. This is the definition of a logical fallacy. The conclusion does not follow the statement. You can't see past the observable universe? So what. Depositing a unicorn where your ignorance resides offers no explanatory clarification. I can see no reason for doing this beyond supporting a crumbling fantasy... and that's not a good reason.
Exactly. Using ‘God’ to explain how consciousness was created or what caused the Big Bang doesn’t answer anything. If God created those things then who created God? Religion is never able to explain that, other than a vague ‘God has always existed’ nonsense. If God can exist without a creator, guess what? The universe can too.
If God exists, then God is part of existence. If God is part of existence, then what does he consist of? Atoms and elements just like us, or something else? What else is there?
The matter of the fact of god argument is that it is so strange to know from a knower perspective that you cannot know anything. God gives a little manuscript on how to live on earth and the whole story is about afterlife where god has those fruitful rewards.
You're a fool. Or can you tell us what water and wine are metaphorical of? And if you knew anything, you'd know the Jesus is not God as he cleary says so in scripture saying, "i of myself can do nothing, it is the father in me".
Parks has a chip on his shoulder. God is EASY to dismiss, if you think science works for you, but science is about knowledge, so has nothing to say about the subject reality, about what consciousness is from the inside, or what enables its existence, or what its potential limits are. Yes, we don't need a sky god to explain lightning, but how about Jung's collective unconscious, or genius, intuitive knowledge that wasn't learned. Who is to say there are not angels helping to direct human activities, not as masters, but servants, showing those who can see.
I love the pragmatist. He has the right questions: What has God been doing since the big bang? What else is he good for? My question: Does he have a mate with him, perhaps his son's mother? Or is he a lonely bugger?
@Jasmine Really??? There are millions hungry. Approximately 9 million children die every year, too many of them of hunger and dehydration. So really, what does the so called loving all mighty god has done for thousands of years?
Hopefully in the not too distant future, people will move away from religion and lead logical, rational lives without superstition and deities. Well, God-willing.
RELIGION AS A BELIEF SYSTEM Human beings are inherently creating religions , Although atheists don't see it that way. Religion is a belief system that even includes atheism. Just like when Gautama Buddha tried to eradicate religion (Hindu), and Jesus Christ tried to eradicate his religion (Judaism) as well , but Both of their followers just created another religion knowingly or unknowingly, Buddhism and Christianity, respectively. Same goes with political systems like Communism becoming a religion to reach even cult-like status as in CCP China and North Korea. Xi and Kim are Both worshipped like gods. … Religions are belief systems that relate humanity to spirituality. The following definition from Wikipedia provides a good overview of the many dimensions of religion: Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. ~ Council of Europe .
Well, the Catholic Church, for one, still can't get itself to admit women into priesthood and it still keeps telling mothers who have lost their babies that those babies are in a state of hell called limbo. Yeah... not much has changed, for sure.
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ... It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. Intelligence/consciousness/mind is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific". Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Mind Exists Before Matter.
Is that the same Max Planck who wrote "The faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time."? Cool bro.
Imagine believing that a LOVING ALL MIGHTY god exists while millions die of hunger & dehydration every year. Millions of children are abused, hungry, thirsty, cold, die horrible deaths and yet a loving, merciful higher power just watches.
science explains quite a bit about love. so does psychology. www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/ are you suggesting that religious belief in supernatural beings will make everything better?
That article speaks of hormones being released, not the thoughts of the person. That’s very different. Yes I’m saying that believing in the One true God will make everything better. You see, without a supernatural being we must conclude there really isn’t anything good or evil. It’s all just human constructs. So it’s great that someone may like to help people, but realize if someone else comes to the opposite conclusion, neither one is right or wrong. It’s just human constructs. In reality, God has defined right and wrong and he’s written those truths on the hearts of all people. So because of our God given conscience, we already live as though treating your neighbor as your self is the best way to live. Because God made the world and all things in it, wrote the laws and holds all things together, don’t you think we should give more reverence to the creator rather than the creation?
@@nickhanley5407 well first you have you prove a god exists before you assert that everything is meaningless without it and when it comes to the question of good and evil theres a simple question If you take something immoral like murder for example. Is murder wrong because YOU think its wrong? Or Is murder wrong because a god says its wrong? Because if its wrong because YOU think its wrong..then theres no need for a god to decide whats good and bad But if its wrong because a god says its wrong..then morals are arbitrary therefore the only reason people do good is out of fear and not by choice Personally id rather live in a community that wants to do good because they want to do good rather just doing good because there afraid.
On which basis does religion tell us the meaning.of life or the origin of the universe? What kind of answers does it give us? Wishes? Soeculations? Baseless claims? Because if thise answers are not based on evidence,what are they based on? What makes them qualify as correct answers?
Humans create religion. It is an inherent human behavior. Siddhartha Gautama tried to abolish Hinduism, but instead, the people created Buddhism, a religion. Jesus Christ tried to abolish Judaism, but instead, the people created Christianity, a religion. Atheists tried to abolish Organized Religions, but instead, they made Science (ie, scientific method, materialism) and Politics (ie, Communism) their religion.
Captivated by the comment “removing barriers”. Immediately made me leap to the concept of rational based knowledge of the Universe. Has any theist based religion removed barriers?
anyone else tired of "God works in mysterious ways"... wars, pandemics, famines, inequality, are more than mysterious for an all-loving all-powerful deity... downright negligent
I don't the slightest chance or tiny possibility that you might define, or set out clearly what you mean by, or seek to convey, when you use the word "God" No, I rather thought not. If you have not the faintest idea what you mean by God why do you use the word God?
You have not the faintest idea what you mean by intelligence or intelligent either, I suppose. It's the good old human psychological algebra: X=Y=X, simply substituting for one unknown and undefined term for another. What in blue blazes is the point of X=Y=X where both X and Y are unknown, undefined, and have no value?
"We can eradicated suffering." 3:21 Say that to the single, 23 year old man sitting on the edge of his tempurpedic mattress, in his air condition room, next to his laptop and cellphone streaming p0rn in 4k who just put a gun in his mouth. This guy is so short-sighted as to be blind. Where in science can you light upon meaning? Anyone with the scientific method can determine, "How does this work?" But this can't give you the answer to, "What does this mean?"
What about the people who are driven to suicide because their families rejected them? Many, many broken homes out there because religious parents can't accept their children's identity / sexuality. I was near suicide at one point, tormented over christian thought crime. I could never measure up. I only began to heal once my faith was out of the way. We have both committed consequentialism fallacies. My point is there is two sides to this coin, and presenting only one side as if you have the magic tonic to fix all our depression is just awful. Sometimes faith isn't the magic bandaid people make it out to be.
This point/corner believers find themselves in where science ends and religion/supernatural begins... That's really the beginning of agnosticism. It may be difficult, but at some point we may have to just admit we don't know or maybe cannot know.
He clearly did not explain anything. He just ignored the question . Science doesn't know the cause of the Big Bang and why everything seems to have a programmed function. Why would even life exist in the first place , only to die a very short life. Why the universe would even exist at all from Nothing. Why not remain nothing .
If i decide that god is a true random function, then at least we can have a random will and a non forseable future, if such a true random function exists.
I want to offer a reward - how about $500? - for anyone who can tell me what does one DO in Heaven? No, I am not talking of getting bored, I am talking WORK - you know the thing we do to put food on the table, a roof over our heads, pay for healthcare, commute, vacations? People talk of living in mansions - are these being given away for free? Is it like living in Communist countries where the state used to give away apartments? Down here prostitutes/gigolos/leeches/freeloaders live a life of comfort doing nothing - doing no work - well at least the first two do earn their keep but the latter two don't Is living in Heaven something like that? Amazingly I can see even the best of educated running away from such a question
If science can't have an answer today, that doesn't mean it won't have answer tomorrow. Because of human impatience, we need religion or philosophy to nourish our burning curiosity. And some of us like this type of food full of speculative arguments, temporarily appeasing.
Right after the big bang, many different forms of physics could be happened but everything has led to this moment at the current form. It is the job of the great GOD, he was busy until now.
Some compelling evidences suggesting intelligent design: Our universe is made up of these elements : 1. Reality is made up of Information, Mathematics everywhere Symbols everywhere . Meaning is subjective , it requires a choice by a conscious being . 2. Causality Loops , Time is an illusion . (All of time) Every moment in time exists all the time . The universe is like a single DVD movie , the beginning , the middle , and the end of the story are all inside the disk . 3. Non-deterministic universe, We have free will because of our consciousness to decide as proven by the modified double-slit experiment (delayed-choice quantum eraser). 4. Cosmic Consciousness , placebo effect, Mind over matter , double-slit experiment . A conscious entity capable of generating information by observing. Matter doesn't exist until we observe it . (Frank Wilczek) 5. Quantized universe , Pixelation (Werner Heisenberg - Matrix Theory) planck length and planck time . 6. E8 Crystal Lattice shape of the fundamental particles in 8 Dimensions , when projected as 4D becomes 2 shapes in different sizes with a Ratio of 0.618 , 7. Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Sequence existing everywhere in the universe from quantum Scale to Celestial Scale . Conclusion: 1. Universal Collective Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness coined by Dr. Michio Kaku . Our body is a collection of microbes (microbiome) with a single collective consciousness. Electrons and Quarks self-organize into 81 stable atoms to become self-aware into human consciousness . There is no upper limit on the number of atoms and energy to self-organize and become self-aware, therefore the earth could also be conscious (Gaia Hypothesis) 2. Our universe is a code-based Simulation in a super computer in another universe .
@@donaldclifford5763 Eric Lerner favors the model of Plasma Cosmology that the universe always existed in such a way that it is always changing and evolving without beginning or end instead of the Big Bang. So are you stating that the universe always existed?
If this super-smart scientist could set aside his massive ego to understand even the most elementary facts about the spiritual world, God, metaphysics etc, he would not say the ridiculous things he does.
Yes. Thank you. The fact is that God is not a scientific proposition, and to demand a scientific type of proof of God is doomed to failure. Very many of the world’s most brilliant minds in the sciences, medicine, law, and the humanities have been believers in God. Of all of the Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences over the past hundred years or so, more than seventy percent were committed theists. In America, medical doctors believe in God at a rate of around three in four, or closer to ninety percent if one doesn’t include doctors from the two coasts. Surveys of PhD-level scientists conducted at regular intervals over the past 100+ years have shown consistently that just under half of scientists believe in God. Clearly, brilliant thinkers can disagree about whether there is enough cause to justify belief. In my experience as a Christian with a science PhD, virtually all scientists who are hard atheists have not explored what God or spirituality really mean, and they are almost always bad philosophers.
Where did God come from? It created itself. And the orderly laws of that God? It created itself. Where did the first God come from? It created itself. And the purposeful intention of that God? It created itself.
How can you be smart when you are narrow minded with black and white world views mainly based upon data collected by science? I call such person a simpleton.
Exactly ! He talked about fallacies in proving god's exist, but still the first argument he used after saying that we shouldn't believe, is " all physical events have physical causes " so how are we living in physical world without a cause ??
what’s God been doing since Big Bang? allowing us to exercise free will and when someone prays to God to make a successful mission like 9-11 … they are not praying to the One True God they think they are .. but they are not and we know this because THEY are not qualified to do God’s job and it is God’s job to preserve the ones doing his will not the ones pretending they are qualified to, and, have the right to do God’s job 1 Cor 5: 12 & 13
Question should be who created the laws of physics. Science just explored and make us to see the law. Science never created a single stom. Science never created gravity and so on...
@@decentali3399 natural laws are a way to conceptualize specific patterns in reality. Your question is then: who made reality? Reality is what exists, and we don't know if an absolute nothing would have even been possible.
@@fr3d42 we have senses and mind and we judges think on that basis. If nothing is reality u r also nothing then. First accept that u r a reality u exist and other things also exist.
What about HOPE. EVERY PERSON ALIVE at one time or another “HOPED” for a certain outcome in life whether you believe in a GOD or not.... To what power are you directing your request if you don’t believe in a HIGHER power? Please answer.....I am curious.
Have you ever hoped for something that didn't turn out? Does hope in any way inform you about the way things actually are? Imagine going your whole life hoping for another life after, only to find out there is none. All the time and money spent on churches, singing to imaginations.. Now imagine not having that hope. Knowing that death is just lights out, you live this life now, no second chances. You make the most of what you have here and now. It seems to me there is a genuine risk to false hope.
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist who can create the concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, One (1) exists before zero (0) can exist.
@@xxxs8309 The people who follow them accepted the claim. Let's assume God did show up and announce his identity, how would anyone know he is the same god of the Christian bible... an eternal all knowing disembodied being who created the entire universe and not an alien from another galaxy? BTW, there's a higher probability that extraterrestrials are real.
@@deepashtray5605 that's my point ,Scientists say that they have not been able to detect God ,but even if God appeared today and announced that he is God , atheists would find a hundred ways to discredit that claim.Even if God does something supernatural they would claim it is magic or an optical illusion
What purpose is served by discussing whether or not something exists without either defining what you mean by whatever it is - say for example God, whatever that is, and what you mean by exist. I suppose that different words evoke different associations in different people which is to say that they have different meanings to different people, and so far as the word God is concerned, there seems to be no commonly understood definition or meaning. So far as "exists" is concerned, surely that can only mean is capable of direct immediate apprehension or experience. Thus first define what you mean by exist and then define what you mean by God. If you do neither you are simply wasting your time or pouring from the empty into the void If you are going to debate or discuss whether or not Omblidook exists, would it not be sensible to come to some common understanding of whatever it is you mean by or seek to convey when you use the word, Omblidook?
He has nothing to do with us? but then what's that voice saying should I do this or shouldn't I do this and to fully think it through on the pros and cons of whether it's selfish or for all three parts.
@@fr3d42 I can't create life without a woman. So evidently is not me. I can accept the two parts now to have all three parts in the end, or I could deny them and have no parts at all.
@Jasmine You do realize it's not a statutory law, right? A natural law is an observation with highly predictable results. There is a 2nd law of thermal dynamics because it consistently describes the observations.
We cannot possibly ever solve this argument. We simply can't know, because we can always imagine a reason for anything ... and our imaginations are limitless. If I were to fall off the fence though, I'd land on the side of science.
IM also on the side of science , That's.why i clearly believe in a Creator the evidencs lean toward a Creator , the first cause , residing outside our known universe , outside the laws of current physics
@@dongshengdi773 You totally missed the point. We can always ask why, and imagine a creator or work on a scientific theory based on no creator which answers our question. Your belief, as respectful of it as I am, begs the question "Who created the creator?" And don't tell me it's "turtles all the way down."
When it comes to the question of the existence of God, anyone who begins by saying, “The reasons [for or against belief] are very simple”, should be distrusted, prima facie. Facile discussions of God are bad discussions.
You can't eliminate God because you can't eliminate randomness. If I go to Vegas and pull the lever on a slot machine, if I get a jackpot, it is because God wanted me to have it. If I lose, God feels I don't need any more money, even if I pray every day and need to pay for an operation to survive. What if the truth of our reality is way larger than we can accept, hence the great mystery?
If you can prove "God" exists, you have a problem with your math. And if you DO prove it - WHICH ONE? Zeus? Yahweh? Allah? Krishna? So many choices, so few real...
There must be one creator. More than one creator make no sense. Ur question is Allah or jesus or krishna which one.. did ever u search and try to find which one is real and true???? Be truthful to urself and find i bet u.. u will definetly know whichone is true
if you care to know the answer to your question... here it is : all religions are fake. All were created by "Yahweh-Jehovah" = (a diabolical entity from the 4th Dimension that no longer exist).
@@alfredoysada1999 u dont have any prove . But there are lot of signs of creator. One of the most famous anthiest antony flew accepted that there is a God. any logical amd reasonable person easily know that there is a God.
But doesn't the belief in purely materialistic Darwinian Evolution lead one to believe, albeit falsely, that there is no Free Will? And if there is no Free Will, then there is no Right and Wrong and no Moral Law, which is completely contrary to everything that is practiced and observed in humanity and the cosmos regarding cause and effect.
If you want, then anything can be rationalized and logiced out to death- Leo Gura. This is powerful because it shows the enormous limitations and hypocrisy within the domain of science.
Therefore god? So you want to argue god into existence? Did god create the technology for you to type your message and send it through the internet? Science works.
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 Absolute, and a god satisfied that, even if it not the truth. Truth us something theists are not really comfortable with, they were any the absolute, so they will make up one to satisfy this need though it us not a truth they can prove.
Regarding the timeline of creation stated in Genesis 1 of the Bible, many people think that creation occurred within a 7 "earth-day" period. However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed. Because, what is a “day” on earth? Isn’t a "earth-day” the single revolution of the earth around its axis? (By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history. Additionally, every celestial body has a different length for its "day".) According to the Bible, the Earth was not "formed" until the 3rd day of creation. Prior to the 3rd day of creation, the earth was "without form and void". So, how could an "unformed" earth have rotated about its non-existent axis during the first two days of creation to provide a measure of time? Clearly, God was using a different measure of time for a “day” during the “seven days of creation”. In other words, God was not using an “earth-day” as a unit measure of time during creation. To think that God would use an "earth-based time clock" to measure the creation of the universe is akin to the out-dated geocentric belief that the universe revolves around the earth. Even though God is everywhere at all times, God did not have to be "on" earth [Obviously, since the earth had not even been formed until the third "day" of creation.] and therefore not limited by an earthly time frame, when He created the heavens and the earth. (By the way, when was the clock invented? When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established? These are all relatively new innovations. So, how could they have measured time at the moment of creation.) God is beyond heaven, earth ... and time. Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
If one actually reads Genesis 1, then one will find that there was no creation, to begin with, only a preparation of already existing elements. Bummer.
No Kuhn has been searching for the heart of his individual consciousness , like most of us we may believe this just end with a grinding halt , some essence of what we have been most go on , Most of these questions would be impertinent if we suffered for no reason other than to vanished from all existence .
Reaching the end, or the limits, of our knowledge does not constitute proof of "god." It just means that we are at the end of our ability to know. I'm not sure when or if that time will come (how would we even know that it had?), but if somehow it does, we might just have to get used to the fact that certain things will always remain mysteries to humans. The mistake is facing that mystery and being so uncomfortable with it that you then make up something (god) to explain it.
While it may be that there is no creator God, there could be a realm of existence where the beings are god-like. That is, due to the laws of physics in that realm, to us they'd seem like Gods. For instance their lives would be extremely long lived, and they'd come and go in a manner that we wouldn't understand, etc. While there may have been some interaction with humans, for the most part, they have no interest in humans.
Please tell me the truth am I the only one that hears a Rockefeller old guys type voice granddad holy and a truck driver voice they feed me fresh air cold and have blown me with some kind of spiders web ? Be honest I know im not mentally ill please comment tell me the truth ?
You're trying to argue science vs. Religion. You are going about it wrong. Religion is likely the result of a reality in which consciousness is central to all existence. Thousands of years ago people took this reality and made it into false religions which all reflect only a portion of the true reality. The real question is: how does science fit into a reality in which consciousness is central to all things? If you go about it that way real experiments can in fact be done to test this.
Pitting the meaning of God against scientific materialism is a straw dog argument . God will not be found in the physical universe, but only within the heart of the human experience . God is not a thing at all, but all that is all life imbued with, and moving through causal reality, is in grace with God.
The very first statement the guest made is known to be false: "One of the things we have learned is that all physical events have a physical cause." PROVEN FALSE. Quantum mechanics, which has never failed any test of even its most unlikely predictions, tells us clearly that, for example, the decay of a radiosctive atom happens at a random time, uncaused by anything in our physical universe. The position of a photon hitting a screen is determined by the probability wave function, and within the limits of those probabilities, it hits a random location. The problem I have with "Closer to Truth" is that it seems to go deeply into puddles and never ventures into the ocean. Expert after expert proves on even a short examination to be talking in assumptions common in high philosophy, but long known to be absolutely false to the real experts in physics.
Watched a bit more, and it gets worse. "Religion retreated" assumes that the purpose of religion is to explain the world. A common idea, but shallow. Religion, OF COURSE, explains things in terms of ideas believed at the time (exactly what this particularly foolish guest is doing). But it has much more to do with patterning life, morals, connection to the infinite (whatever that is - and yes, there are atheistic religions). He then mentions the retreat from creationism. Does he imagine every believer is a fundamentalist Christian?? What about Hindoism, with its multi-billion year creation cycles - which roughly match the currently accepted time since the big bang, btw? The guy's a pompous idiot so secure in his "knowledge" that he talks trash about communities that include millions much more insightful than himself. Kuhn then makes his own mistake in his objection: the limits of science, he thinks, are explanatory limits. The real limits are in purpose, kinds of knowledge, etc. "How should I live my life" is informed by facts, but not limited to them. Science and religion do not divide the set of all possible beliefs. They concern different categories, where some concerns figure in only one set, some in both, some in neither.
That's why if an individual believes his scientific achievement has the power to convince the truth about nature and trashing God out of the equation bcoz it's a trap/dead-end. It means, a puny little idiot is at work, it's laziness or excuses only to exclude the supernatural causes of all things, remember science was born bcoz of supernatural events.
(Note: Please disregard the all caps. They were included in a previous YT post for emphasis. Thank you.) DNA code is like computer language. And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence. "The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes." (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com)
every tool can work and let us call that science in a physical world but then everything is not about physicality. if you are imprisoned in a box of what you currently know about science or treat God as a human person then being in that box you may perhaps not know what is God. Think out of the boxes, learn meditation, because an experience out of the body and into new worlds and understanding of a life out of physicality may perhaps change your perspective.
@@mohamedtaqi2941 because consciousness lingers beyond death. search in TH-cam. Life After Death Proven By Scientists … ; Using Science To Study The 'Afterlife': Closer To An Answer | TODAY ; CBS News : Researchers say there's evidence that consciousness continues after clinical death ; Life After Death Proven By Scientists? ; I See Dead People: Dreams and Visions of the Dying | Dr. Christopher Kerr | TEDxBuffalo ; Dr. Sam Parnia series … Unraveling the Mystery of the Self ; Is There A Soul? (ABC's Beyond Belief) ; Using Science To Study The 'Afterlife': Closer To An Answer | TODAY ; Scientists Discover What Happens After Death - Soul Goes To Another Universe ; How Life May Exist Beyond Death ; Life After Death Live Event with Gary Wood & Jim Woodford
This guest does not seem know that each species is limited in its cognition and conceptualization by evolutionary constraint. So, there are unknowables, only possible by revelation by higher intellect. His argument about 9/11 is specious . In logic it is a device to appeal to common sentiment rather than addressing the issue.
what if the multiverse is represented as a cylinder? i.e,... this single universe changing into different physics overtime. maybe there is a function catering to every possible scenario... this through the evolution of physics.
science reached the correct conclusion. we dont know.
And that is what is great about science, it attempts to find out and also dismisses previous theories that turned out to be wrong.
Not until the scientist that promoted those wrong theories have died. A scientist who have written essays, books, papers on a theory like multiverses, or string theory or whatever...will never admit to have proposed something wrong, to have worked for decades on nothing.
@@francesco5581
It's rare, certainly. I've seen colleagues go both ways. Those who are able to accept that they've bet on the wrong model can find a way to wrap up their work in good grace and move on to something more promising, or they can retreat into a private narrow world of dogma.
A lot has to do with the balance between natural curiosity and emotional need for security.
@@starfishsystems and our beloved ego :)
Because the sciences have seen no need of any gods in any of the processes in Nature - then the sciences have essentially shown that no gods need to even exist!!!
@@francesco5581 not true. There have been many occasions where a living scientist have been proved wrong and most accept the correction because science goes where the evidence leads.
Religion, moving goalposts. If science worked out everything in the universe the religious people will say "yes that is Gods plan". I don't know why you bother arguing about such nonsense.
Light is omniscience. Light knows who or what will recieve at which appointed time.
That's why religious people are right in saying that it's God's plan.
@@S3RAVA3LM light knows things now? What about radio wave?
@@S3RAVA3LM Are you saying that photons are all knowing? And, if so, that somehow makes the assertion that it's "god's plan" correct? I hope that I misinterpreted something here, as none of it makes sense or has any empirical evidence.
@@S3RAVA3LM
You know that what we call light is in fact photons. They don't experience time. They are characterized by a very small number of parameters.
There's no magical wisdom to be found here, although I would be interested in what drugs you're taking.
The questioner is a weak feeble mind. There is no REASON for existence, OR any MEANING of anything. Other than what each human places upon it!! It is magnificently empowering to know there is no REASON for existence, OR any MEANING of anything; the questioner's weak feeble mind NEEDS reassurance, needs comfort, needs an 'alleged' protector, needs an external strength!!! There is ONLY one question and it is WHAT IS GOD?? NOT DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD??? What you believe proves NOTHING WHATSOEVER!!! ALL IS KNOWN IN 21C Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia !!Physicawww.academia.edu/12805065/21C_Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Physica
I think he's confused... Science has always been about HOW (the universe works). Religion and spirituality has always been about WHY (we are here in the first place). They shouldn't contradict, but complement each other.
Can science explain consciousness? Can it explain the power of beliefs (placebo effect for instance)? What about immense feelings of LOVE or GRIEF?. Dreams, psychadelic experiences, deja vu, gut feelings, OBE's, extra sensory experiences, etc, etc?
It seems like science have hit a road block, when they can't even explain how quantum entanglement work. Or the mere fact that wether certain experiments have a conscious observer, or not, will affect the results...
I was about to post a comment but you wrote it for me ;) 100% agree with you.
You talk about how religion deals with why questions, then proceed to ask "how" questions...
Classic god of the gaps
But religion and spirituality also dont have answers for consciousness, dreams etc, Religions only give speculations without proof
@@chetanpatil1654 You are absolutely right... But is life all about proving or disproving something? There are obviously parts of our lives that are REAL, but can't be either proven, nor disproven. As humans, we are also looking for answers to meaning and purpose, and many other non materialistic questions.
@@humlakullen those are largely just semantics and are not questions that can be coherently answered. Meaning is relative to us not some kind of cosmic absolute.
Religion is, and always has been, about power and control.
Period.
Bingo !!! Nothing to add.
..so is science.
@@fortynine3225 Sciences is used to explain reality around us. Religion is used to control minds and people.
@@henrim9348 Science is all about reducing reality to data that can be gathered=simplistic worldview...and pretending that is objective truth= monopoly on what is truth...and it is not about control minds and people. They surely are in your head LOL
@@fortynine3225 Science is a process for gaining knowledge. Religion is about maintaining ignorance.
Science doesn't currently have answers to everything but religion asserts it knows answers to those things that it can't possibly know.
Exactly. Just like religion used to claim it knew how the Earth was created or where humans and animals came from.
Of course we now know those claims were all made up but are still expected to believe the ‘God’ part is not also made up.
Very disappointed. He only knows the god of the gaps (6:00).
I don't agree a whole lot with him. He says that there is no proof of the existence of a superficial being. But he is not giving any justification as to why there is no one. Just because we have science doesn't justify rejecting religion. I can believe in both and still be happy
i dunno i've met quite a few superficial beings in my time. they definitely do exist
You cannot expect someone to provide evidence for a claim of absence.
However, you can provide an exemple to falsify his claim.
@@fr3d42 What people tend to get wrong about Religion is that they always tend to link it to why people are dumb in believing that God exists. They tend to ignore why religion has a place in the society. This mainly boils down to the fact, religion in the past has taught people to be nice to others, although this might be contradicted by many wars because of religion, which to be fair were caused because few powerful people misused it to gain trust of the people. Just going around calling people dumb because they follow religion and god isn't doing anything other than proving their point that atheists are ignorant. Honestly, this is my take. I hope you accept it in good will mate. Cheers!
@@anuragnair4601 Thank you for your honest opinion.
I would have liked my previous comment to be acknowledged,
As I think my point is valid.
If I tell you "I have no cookies in my house" you don't expect me to provide evidence for the absence of cookies. However, if you find a cookie in the cabinet, my claim would be proven wrong.
Same thing here.
@@anuragnair4601 religion teaches people to be homophobic and misogynistic.
I really don't think that religious people are any nicer, its the same mixed bag of flaws and virtues you find in any group.
God only exists as a concept in the brain, nothing else.
"All physical events have physical causes"
Yeah, but you cannot determine that there's nothing "non-physical" sustaining this interaction.
Totally agree.
No one can prove that love exists .
You cant prove your wife loves you . perfect example of limitations.of science
Agree,there is something beyond our senses that only gives us a false ultimate reality,but this ultimate reality is not abrahamic god that reward his believers.this underlying ultimate reality is non personal and its law apply whether youre a believer or not.eg.law of karma,or science says,for every action,there is a opposite reaction.🙂
@@dongshengdi773
the point being is that this force is governed by laws of physics and not by a god. and if a god had created these physics then one would assume that his would be perfect and not bring suffering to some.
fundamentally why scientists don't believe in the bible god. do trey believe the bible? no.
you can't deny physics. then of course you will have to explain why they are not perfect. i know you are not god but you appear to know him very well. ask him.
@@fraser_mr2009 If something is imperfect that doesn’t mean it has no creator.
Man suffers from disease,hunger and eventually man shall die.Universe shall cease to exist. It is not imperfection in God's creation rather it's His plan.
@@sujamahmudasad8548 How convenient.
But the many achievements and object that science has since brought us does not in anyway address our ultimate concerns or questions in life, or satisfy our innermost needs for understanding ourselves better other than a cold slogan keeps telling us that we are just an ever-evolving animal and that we are a random product among other biological machineries in this unapologetic nature.
Why would we be entitled to have those answers?
and what are the ultimate questions?
whether the condome or the universe wins, when it comes to antinatalism?
whether there is a true random function?
first we must know whether we have true liberty to ask questions. and for this we need a true random function.
Well, if the sun was a great big ball of hot plasma in the sky, then I'd get burnt going out on a hot summer's day. And I don't like that.
It actually does though, it is just that most people don’t like the implications. Yes, science doesn’t directly give you answers regarding thise “big questions”. But it tells you about the universe you are in, and it is up to you to make up what you want with this info. If science tells you humans are biological machines, maybe you should consider this as you build your worldview, instead of disregarding this info as a “cold slogan”.
Hard core materialist vs someone who wants so badly to believe in the existence of God. There must be a causation to our existence but that does not mean it is the God of the Bible. God of the Bible is a human created narrative and most likely as far from the truth about the causation as you could imagine. So there must be a causation but what that is nobody has any right to speculate. We just do not know.
If God existed, then there would be a bloody fight between Ra, Zeus, Odin, Buddha, Yehova, etc. Thus, there is no God.
I am not a writer but “god” whatever that is wants me to write a book explaining who he really is in terms of the subatomic electromagnetic energy fields and self aware consciousness that we use to create this perception of a physical reality… that gives purpose and meaning to an existence that has no purpose except to make our existence as enjoyable as possible
One can always pretend that a god exists. When I win a game of cards I can believe that a god gave me good cards and guided my playing. When I lose, god is keeping me humble. Every day you do not die has god protected you? You can pretend that’s true. When you die that’s how he made people. Simple isn’t it.
The most fucking question among exist in mind of all Scientist- Is God Exist?
Another scientist that totally misses the question He is not asking the right question, He is talking about what he knows, but are too scared to go out of his small boundaries. We dont need more scientist like this, he is like Newton when asked about gravity.
If there is proof, it is not faith. It is group dynamics.
This 'god of the gaps' argument is pathetic: There are things we may never know, therefore god. This is the definition of a logical fallacy. The conclusion does not follow the statement. You can't see past the observable universe? So what. Depositing a unicorn where your ignorance resides offers no explanatory clarification. I can see no reason for doing this beyond supporting a crumbling fantasy... and that's not a good reason.
Exactly. Using ‘God’ to explain how consciousness was created or what caused the Big Bang doesn’t answer anything. If God created those things then who created God? Religion is never able to explain that, other than a vague ‘God has always existed’ nonsense.
If God can exist without a creator, guess what? The universe can too.
There are far too many True Believers who strive for nothing less than "the end of science". There's a reason for that.
Science itself wants to end us. They developed the hydrogen bomb for that specific purpose.
@@bradleymosman8325 Not exactly.
Paul Tillich say: "That the human mind incessantly produces idols is one of the deepest things that can be said about our thoughts about God".
If God exists, then God is part of existence. If God is part of existence, then what does he consist of? Atoms and elements just like us, or something else? What else is there?
We're in God.
Materialists should not be taken seriously. Let them have their say.
@@S3RAVA3LM "We're in God". Woo. Woo. Woo. Gibberish, you got nothing.
@@NeverTalkToCops1
Not gibberish at all. If God exists then we also share in that existence, thus we are in God.
The matter of the fact of god argument is that it is so strange to know from a knower perspective that you cannot know anything. God gives a little manuscript on how to live on earth and the whole story is about afterlife where god has those fruitful rewards.
GOD then: can turn water to wine and recover a mans sight
GOD now: Shows up in toast and paintings
You're a fool.
Or can you tell us what water and wine are metaphorical of?
And if you knew anything, you'd know the Jesus is not God as he cleary says so in scripture saying, "i of myself can do nothing, it is the father in me".
Parks has a chip on his shoulder. God is EASY to dismiss, if you think science works for you, but science is about knowledge, so has nothing to say about the subject reality, about what consciousness is from the inside, or what enables its existence, or what its potential limits are.
Yes, we don't need a sky god to explain lightning, but how about Jung's collective unconscious, or genius, intuitive knowledge that wasn't learned. Who is to say there are not angels helping to direct human activities, not as masters, but servants, showing those who can see.
I love the pragmatist. He has the right questions: What has God been doing since the big bang? What else is he good for?
My question: Does he have a mate with him, perhaps his son's mother?
Or is he a lonely bugger?
@Jasmine Ok, so next question... what was God doing for the first 10.3 billion years of the universe before the earliest life evolved?
@Jasmine Really??? There are millions hungry. Approximately 9 million children die every year, too many of them of hunger and dehydration. So really, what does the so called loving all mighty god has done for thousands of years?
At last you have someone talking sense on your TH-cam, that spells it out as it is . Hallelujah
fyi, hallelujah means 'praise ye the Lord"
@@strugglingathome sarcasm is where you say a thing but mean the opposite, with the goal of being both insulting, and comedic to others watching.
Hopefully in the not too distant future, people will move away from religion and lead logical, rational lives without superstition and deities. Well, God-willing.
Science is their new religion.
Science is nothing like a religion. It's a methodology.
🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@fr3d42 you are right, his religions is reductionist materialism
@@francesco5581 still not a religion
@@fr3d42 it you start to worship a point of view to the point that you accept only things that fit in that way of thinking. Yes is a dogma.
"God's existence does not depend upon our arguments." - Carl Gustav Jung.
Neither does his nonexistence
RELIGION AS A BELIEF SYSTEM
Human beings are inherently creating religions , Although atheists don't see it that way.
Religion is a belief system that even includes atheism.
Just like when Gautama Buddha tried to eradicate religion (Hindu), and Jesus Christ tried to eradicate his religion (Judaism) as well , but Both of their followers just created another religion knowingly or unknowingly, Buddhism and Christianity, respectively.
Same goes with political systems like Communism becoming a religion to reach even cult-like status as in CCP China and North Korea. Xi and Kim are Both worshipped like gods.
…
Religions are belief systems that relate humanity to spirituality. The following definition from Wikipedia provides a good overview of the many dimensions of religion: Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
~ Council of Europe .
"Nothing has changed in religion in a thousand years." -Robert L. Park
What a naive statement.
Well, the Catholic Church, for one, still can't get itself to admit women into priesthood and it still keeps telling mothers who have lost their babies that those babies are in a state of hell called limbo. Yeah... not much has changed, for sure.
And what a naive comment you make!
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ...
It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. Intelligence/consciousness/mind is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific".
Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Mind Exists Before Matter.
Is that the same Max Planck who wrote "The faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time."? Cool bro.
This man is a true believer in science. A fundamentalist.
i think he is a fundamentalist in materialist reduction-ism , science is just a method to discover reality, is not a dogma.
The difference is when you can show to him the new proven evidence is the correct way.. he'll be happier.
If a God thing does exist, what makes you think it is anything like your preconceptions?
Imagine believing that a LOVING ALL MIGHTY god exists while millions die of hunger & dehydration every year. Millions of children are abused, hungry, thirsty, cold, die horrible deaths and yet a loving, merciful higher power just watches.
Can science explain love? Not really. Science can’t explain morality, yet he thinks a “science based” community will make everything better.
science explains quite a bit about love. so does psychology. www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/
are you suggesting that religious belief in supernatural beings will make everything better?
i would like to know your explanation for love? does it involve invisible beings?
Love is not mystical
That article speaks of hormones being released, not the thoughts of the person. That’s very different.
Yes I’m saying that believing in the One true God will make everything better. You see, without a supernatural being we must conclude there really isn’t anything good or evil. It’s all just human constructs. So it’s great that someone may like to help people, but realize if someone else comes to the opposite conclusion, neither one is right or wrong. It’s just human constructs. In reality, God has defined right and wrong and he’s written those truths on the hearts of all people. So because of our God given conscience, we already live as though treating your neighbor as your self is the best way to live. Because God made the world and all things in it, wrote the laws and holds all things together, don’t you think we should give more reverence to the creator rather than the creation?
@@nickhanley5407 well first you have you prove a god exists before you assert that everything is meaningless without it and when it comes to the question of good and evil theres a simple question
If you take something immoral like murder for example.
Is murder wrong because YOU think its wrong?
Or
Is murder wrong because a god says its wrong?
Because if its wrong because YOU think its wrong..then theres no need for a god to decide whats good and bad
But if its wrong because a god says its wrong..then morals are arbitrary therefore the only reason people do good is out of fear and not by choice
Personally id rather live in a community that wants to do good because they want to do good rather just doing good because there afraid.
On which basis does religion tell us the meaning.of life or the origin of the universe? What kind of answers does it give us? Wishes? Soeculations? Baseless claims? Because if thise answers are not based on evidence,what are they based on? What makes them qualify as correct answers?
"...where comes the explanatory power of religion."
What "explanatory power" are you talking about?
Fairy tales one?
Precisely. Religion offers *guesses*, not explanations.
@@mmxbass
Period.
What ever created everything certainly seems connected to me.
Why?
@@fr3d42 because I am a part of everything.
@@SimpleBach I'm not convinced that follows
@@SimpleBach
do you know, that you are a part of _EVERYTHING_ ? Or are you just saying that you are not nothing within nothing?
You must have a close relationship with gravity.
Its funny the speaker doesn't say anything 🤣🤣🤣🤣
What is there to say after all
Humans create religion.
It is an inherent human behavior.
Siddhartha Gautama tried to abolish Hinduism, but instead, the people created Buddhism, a religion.
Jesus Christ tried to abolish Judaism, but instead, the people created Christianity, a religion.
Atheists tried to abolish Organized Religions, but instead, they made Science (ie, scientific method, materialism) and Politics (ie, Communism) their religion.
Captivated by the comment “removing barriers”. Immediately made me leap to the concept of rational based knowledge of the Universe. Has any theist based religion removed barriers?
the anti-God arguments here are childishly silly!
@@mmmail1969 my “silly” is a substantive debating point.
They did: condoms.
@@mmmail1969 And even so, they are a lot less silly than religion.
@@timmulhern8188 where did I even raise your "silly"?
Questions you can't answer are better than answers you can't question.
anyone else tired of "God works in mysterious ways"... wars, pandemics, famines, inequality, are more than mysterious for an all-loving all-powerful deity... downright negligent
I don't the slightest chance or tiny possibility that you might define, or set out clearly what you mean by, or seek to convey, when you use the word "God"
No, I rather thought not.
If you have not the faintest idea what you mean by God why do you use the word God?
You have not the faintest idea what you mean by intelligence or intelligent either, I suppose.
It's the good old human psychological algebra: X=Y=X, simply substituting for one unknown and undefined term for another.
What in blue blazes is the point of X=Y=X where both X and Y are unknown, undefined, and have no value?
"We can eradicated suffering." 3:21
Say that to the single, 23 year old man sitting on the edge of his tempurpedic mattress, in his air condition room, next to his laptop and cellphone streaming p0rn in 4k who just put a gun in his mouth. This guy is so short-sighted as to be blind. Where in science can you light upon meaning? Anyone with the scientific method can determine, "How does this work?" But this can't give you the answer to, "What does this mean?"
What about the people who are driven to suicide because their families rejected them? Many, many broken homes out there because religious parents can't accept their children's identity / sexuality.
I was near suicide at one point, tormented over christian thought crime. I could never measure up. I only began to heal once my faith was out of the way.
We have both committed consequentialism fallacies. My point is there is two sides to this coin, and presenting only one side as if you have the magic tonic to fix all our depression is just awful. Sometimes faith isn't the magic bandaid people make it out to be.
This point/corner believers find themselves in where science ends and religion/supernatural begins... That's really the beginning of agnosticism. It may be difficult, but at some point we may have to just admit we don't know or maybe cannot know.
agnostic theism is more logical than agnostic atheism ..
He explains this very well.
It’s only because that’s what you like to hear!!
He clearly did not explain anything. He just ignored the question .
Science doesn't know the cause of the Big Bang and why everything seems to have a programmed function. Why would even life exist in the first place , only to die a very short life. Why the universe would even exist at all from Nothing. Why not remain nothing .
First you must know what God is before deciding if God exists.
god is fraud
If i decide that god is a true random function, then at least we can have a random will and a non forseable future, if such a true random function exists.
This moderator is...a religious guy. And deep down...he doesn’t want to accept the fact that there is no god, and...religion is none sense.
Should be titled "Fallacies in proving God does NOT exist"
I want to offer a reward - how about $500? - for anyone who can tell me what does one DO in Heaven?
No, I am not talking of getting bored, I am talking WORK - you know the thing we do to put food on the table, a roof over our heads, pay for healthcare, commute, vacations?
People talk of living in mansions - are these being given away for free? Is it like living in Communist countries where the state used to give away apartments?
Down here prostitutes/gigolos/leeches/freeloaders live a life of comfort doing nothing - doing no work - well at least the first two do earn their keep but the latter two don't
Is living in Heaven something like that?
Amazingly I can see even the best of educated running away from such a question
If science can't have an answer today, that doesn't mean it won't have answer tomorrow. Because of human impatience, we need religion or philosophy to nourish our burning curiosity. And some of us like this type of food full of speculative arguments, temporarily appeasing.
Right after the big bang, many different forms of physics could be happened but everything has led to this moment at the current form. It is the job of the great GOD, he was busy until now.
And which 'God' would you be referring to?...
When you create something it evolves.
Always?
@@fr3d42 if you don't have all the parts then no.
@@ChuckBrowntheClown can something be created without "evolving"? That seems obvious
@@fr3d42 and yet we still degenerate.
It's like if you can take it you can make it
Some compelling evidences suggesting intelligent design:
Our universe is made up of these elements :
1. Reality is made up of Information,
Mathematics everywhere
Symbols everywhere . Meaning is subjective , it requires a choice by a conscious being .
2. Causality Loops , Time is an illusion . (All of time) Every moment in time exists all the time . The universe is like a single DVD movie , the beginning , the middle , and the end of the story are all inside the disk .
3. Non-deterministic universe, We have free will because of our consciousness to decide as proven by the modified double-slit experiment (delayed-choice quantum eraser).
4. Cosmic Consciousness , placebo effect, Mind over matter , double-slit experiment . A conscious entity capable of generating information by observing. Matter doesn't exist until we observe it . (Frank Wilczek)
5. Quantized universe , Pixelation (Werner Heisenberg - Matrix Theory) planck length and planck time .
6. E8 Crystal Lattice shape of the fundamental particles in 8 Dimensions , when projected as 4D becomes 2 shapes in different sizes with a Ratio of 0.618 ,
7. Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Sequence existing everywhere in the universe from quantum Scale to Celestial Scale .
Conclusion:
1. Universal Collective Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness coined by Dr. Michio Kaku . Our body is a collection of microbes (microbiome) with a single collective consciousness. Electrons and Quarks self-organize into 81 stable atoms to become self-aware into human consciousness . There is no upper limit on the number of atoms and energy to self-organize and become self-aware, therefore the earth could also be conscious (Gaia Hypothesis)
2. Our universe is a code-based Simulation in a super computer in another universe .
Design exists prolifically in nature. No need to devise a non natural attribution.
I don't what subject requires more faith: god or big bang. They are both believes.
We have evidence for one of those which is the redshift of Galaxies and the cosmic microwave background.
@@timterrell8678 We have evidence contrary to Big Bang. Which do you prefer?
@@donaldclifford5763 what’s the source?
@@timterrell8678 Many YT souces, especially Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened".
@@donaldclifford5763 Eric Lerner favors the model of Plasma Cosmology that the universe always existed in such a way that it is always changing and evolving without beginning or end instead of the Big Bang. So are you stating that the universe always existed?
If this super-smart scientist could set aside his massive ego to understand even the most elementary facts about the spiritual world, God, metaphysics etc, he would not say the ridiculous things he does.
And what are these elementary facts about the spiritual world if I may ask?
Yes. Thank you. The fact is that God is not a scientific proposition, and to demand a scientific type of proof of God is doomed to failure. Very many of the world’s most brilliant minds in the sciences, medicine, law, and the humanities have been believers in God. Of all of the Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences over the past hundred years or so, more than seventy percent were committed theists. In America, medical doctors believe in God at a rate of around three in four, or closer to ninety percent if one doesn’t include doctors from the two coasts. Surveys of PhD-level scientists conducted at regular intervals over the past 100+ years have shown consistently that just under half of scientists believe in God. Clearly, brilliant thinkers can disagree about whether there is enough cause to justify belief. In my experience as a Christian with a science PhD, virtually all scientists who are hard atheists have not explored what God or spirituality really mean, and they are almost always bad philosophers.
Where did God come from? It created itself.
And the orderly laws of that God? It created itself.
Where did the first God come from? It created itself.
And the purposeful intention of that God? It created itself.
How can you be smart when you are narrow minded with black and white world views mainly based upon data collected by science? I call such person a simpleton.
Salvation through science
like the gnostics...
Whose science?
I noticed many atheist are refusing to believe for a personal emotional reasons and then blame it on lack of evidence .
What's my personal emotional reason? Let's hear it for the boys.
Do next one with a experienced Buddhist or Taoist. polytheist instead of monotheistic religions.
Yes please im sick of jesus
Science would still exist if they were a creator it just demonstrates the way he works
Exactly ! He talked about fallacies in proving god's exist, but still the first argument he used after saying that we shouldn't believe, is " all physical events have physical causes " so how are we living in physical world without a cause ??
Sam, Who decides what life should be? What if I don’t accept your view Sam? “We are working on that”. Well you better get on that Sam,.
what’s God been doing since Big Bang?
allowing us to exercise free will
and when someone prays to God to make a successful mission like 9-11 …
they are not praying to the One True God
they think they are .. but they are not
and we know this because THEY are not qualified to do God’s job
and it is God’s job to preserve the ones doing his will
not the ones pretending they are qualified to, and, have the right to do God’s job
1 Cor 5: 12 & 13
Why science work? why the laws of physics? How do you know that there is only the big bang?
Are you asking why is reality reality?
Question should be who created the laws of physics. Science just explored and make us to see the law. Science never created a single stom. Science never created gravity and so on...
@@decentali3399 natural laws are a way to conceptualize specific patterns in reality. Your question is then: who made reality?
Reality is what exists, and we don't know if an absolute nothing would have even been possible.
@@fr3d42 we have senses and mind and we judges think on that basis. If nothing is reality u r also nothing then. First accept that u r a reality u exist and other things also exist.
@@decentali3399 I am part of reality, obviously.
This video adresses the majority of the comments, yet people give the same bs arguments...
Logic needs to be learned and understood, - once that is done - then these bad arguments will fade away.
god is Santa for grown ups
What about HOPE. EVERY PERSON ALIVE at one time or another “HOPED” for a certain outcome in life whether you believe in a GOD or not.... To what power are you directing your request if you don’t believe in a HIGHER power? Please answer.....I am curious.
The power of your mind to take action and change your outcome. It doesn’t require any supernatural forces.
Have you ever hoped for something that didn't turn out?
Does hope in any way inform you about the way things actually are?
Imagine going your whole life hoping for another life after, only to find out there is none. All the time and money spent on churches, singing to imaginations..
Now imagine not having that hope. Knowing that death is just lights out, you live this life now, no second chances. You make the most of what you have here and now.
It seems to me there is a genuine risk to false hope.
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist who can create the concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, One (1) exists before zero (0) can exist.
You can't ever point to "God" ,even if God appeared today and said I am God scientists would say he is an alien from another galaxy
52% of the world scientists are religious to various degrees.
Given how many people have claimed they were a god throughout history, making such a declaration would hardly be worth a second look.
@@deepashtray5605 yeah but those were humans like Emperors and Pharaohs
@@xxxs8309 The people who follow them accepted the claim. Let's assume God did show up and announce his identity, how would anyone know he is the same god of the Christian bible... an eternal all knowing disembodied being who created the entire universe and not an alien from another galaxy? BTW, there's a higher probability that extraterrestrials are real.
@@deepashtray5605 that's my point ,Scientists say that they have not been able to detect God ,but even if God appeared today and announced that he is God , atheists would find a hundred ways to discredit that claim.Even if God does something supernatural they would claim it is magic or an optical illusion
What purpose is served by discussing whether or not something exists without either defining what you mean by whatever it is - say for example God, whatever that is, and what you mean by exist.
I suppose that different words evoke different associations in different people which is to say that they have different meanings to different people, and so far as the word God is concerned, there seems to be no commonly understood definition or meaning. So far as "exists" is concerned, surely that can only mean is capable of direct immediate apprehension or experience.
Thus first define what you mean by exist and then define what you mean by God. If you do neither you are simply wasting your time or pouring from the empty into the void
If you are going to debate or discuss whether or not Omblidook exists, would it not be sensible to come to some common understanding of whatever it is you mean by or seek to convey when you use the word, Omblidook?
Arrogance and denial. I understand to an extent.
"Science" denies God but God doesnt deny Science, he made it.
"Science" another one of man's idols.
I believe the Angel moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in a cave somewhere and revealed all to him.
"...he made it."?
You simply do not have empirical evidence for that assertion.
@@derekallen4568 You are free to believe that, but I believe Joseph Smith "revelations" were not of God.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Correct.
@@jellojiggle1 I was being sarcastic about Joseph Smith.
He has nothing to do with us? but then what's that voice saying should I do this or shouldn't I do this and to fully think it through on the pros and cons of whether it's selfish or for all three parts.
That's you😉
@@fr3d42 I can't create life without a woman. So evidently is not me. I can accept the two parts now to have all three parts in the end, or I could deny them and have no parts at all.
@@ChuckBrowntheClown your answer does not make any sense. Please think.
@@fr3d42 we open the door to our feelings so then that lets in good or bad.
How does causation fit in? Where does it come from and why is there causation in physical reality?
Causation can be explained as the process of the second law of thermal dynamics.
@Jasmine You do realize it's not a statutory law, right? A natural law is an observation with highly predictable results. There is a 2nd law of thermal dynamics because it consistently describes the observations.
We cannot possibly ever solve this argument. We simply can't know, because we can always imagine a reason for anything ... and our imaginations are limitless. If I were to fall off the fence though, I'd land on the side of science.
IM also on the side of science , That's.why i clearly believe in a Creator
the evidencs lean toward a Creator , the first cause , residing outside our known universe , outside the laws of current physics
@@dongshengdi773 You totally missed the point. We can always ask why, and imagine a creator or work on a scientific theory based on no creator which answers our question. Your belief, as respectful of it as I am, begs the question "Who created the creator?" And don't tell me it's "turtles all the way down."
When it comes to the question of the existence of God, anyone who begins by saying, “The reasons [for or against belief] are very simple”, should be distrusted, prima facie. Facile discussions of God are bad discussions.
Prove it.
You can't eliminate God because you can't eliminate randomness. If I go to Vegas and pull the lever on a slot machine, if I get a jackpot, it is because God wanted me to have it. If I lose, God feels I don't need any more money, even if I pray every day and need to pay for an operation to survive. What if the truth of our reality is way larger than we can accept, hence the great mystery?
We know how slot machines work down to a science, including the odds of winning. No supernatural force is involved.
If you can prove "God" exists, you have a problem with your math.
And if you DO prove it - WHICH ONE? Zeus? Yahweh? Allah? Krishna? So many choices, so few real...
There must be one creator. More than one creator make no sense. Ur question is Allah or jesus or krishna which one.. did ever u search and try to find which one is real and true???? Be truthful to urself and find i bet u.. u will definetly know whichone is true
In pure determinism a true random generator is god.
@@decentali3399 i tried to find which relihion is real many times. I read and research all religions and i think Buddhism is closest to the real god.
if you care to know the answer to your question... here it is : all religions are fake. All were created by "Yahweh-Jehovah" = (a diabolical entity from the 4th Dimension that no longer exist).
@@alfredoysada1999 u dont have any prove . But there are lot of signs of creator. One of the most famous anthiest antony flew accepted that there is a God. any logical amd reasonable person easily know that there is a God.
But doesn't the belief in purely materialistic Darwinian Evolution lead one to believe, albeit falsely, that there is no Free Will? And if there is no Free Will, then there is no Right and Wrong and no Moral Law, which is completely contrary to everything that is practiced and observed in humanity and the cosmos regarding cause and effect.
If you want, then anything can be rationalized and logiced out to death- Leo Gura. This is powerful because it shows the enormous limitations and hypocrisy within the domain of science.
Therefore god? So you want to argue god into existence? Did god create the technology for you to type your message and send it through the internet? Science works.
@@andrebrown8969 did I mention the word God?
Works is a pragmatic word, which is an even more self-deception. I care about the absolute.
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 That is what you meant.
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 Absolute, and a god satisfied that, even if it not the truth. Truth us something theists are not really comfortable with, they were any the absolute, so they will make up one to satisfy this need though it us not a truth they can prove.
So his morality, is his opinion?
Regarding the timeline of creation stated in Genesis 1 of the Bible, many people think that creation occurred within a 7 "earth-day" period. However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed. Because, what is a “day” on earth? Isn’t a "earth-day” the single revolution of the earth around its axis? (By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history. Additionally, every celestial body has a different length for its "day".) According to the Bible, the Earth was not "formed" until the 3rd day of creation. Prior to the 3rd day of creation, the earth was "without form and void". So, how could an "unformed" earth have rotated about its non-existent axis during the first two days of creation to provide a measure of time? Clearly, God was using a different measure of time for a “day” during the “seven days of creation”. In other words, God was not using an “earth-day” as a unit measure of time during creation. To think that God would use an "earth-based time clock" to measure the creation of the universe is akin to the out-dated geocentric belief that the universe revolves around the earth. Even though God is everywhere at all times, God did not have to be "on" earth [Obviously, since the earth had not even been formed until the third "day" of creation.] and therefore not limited by an earthly time frame, when He created the heavens and the earth. (By the way, when was the clock invented? When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established? These are all relatively new innovations. So, how could they have measured time at the moment of creation.) God is beyond heaven, earth ... and time. Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
If one actually reads Genesis 1, then one will find that there was no creation, to begin with, only a preparation of already existing elements. Bummer.
It seems like Kuhn wants there to be a god but knows there is no good evidence or rationalization for one.
No Kuhn has been searching for the heart of his individual consciousness , like most of us we may believe this just end with a grinding halt , some essence of what we have been most go on , Most of these questions would be impertinent if we suffered for no reason other than to vanished from all existence .
@@wangchukngawang9242 Just another god of the gaps.
Even the pope knows there is No God. But they will never drop the charade.
Reaching the end, or the limits, of our knowledge does not constitute proof of "god." It just means that we are at the end of our ability to know. I'm not sure when or if that time will come (how would we even know that it had?), but if somehow it does, we might just have to get used to the fact that certain things will always remain mysteries to humans. The mistake is facing that mystery and being so uncomfortable with it that you then make up something (god) to explain it.
While it may be that there is no creator God, there could be a realm of existence where the beings are god-like. That is, due to the laws of physics in that realm, to us they'd seem like Gods. For instance their lives would be extremely long lived, and they'd come and go in a manner that we wouldn't understand, etc. While there may have been some interaction with humans, for the most part, they have no interest in humans.
Please tell me the truth am I the only one that hears a Rockefeller old guys type voice granddad holy and a truck driver voice they feed me fresh air cold and have blown me with some kind of spiders web ?
Be honest I know im not mentally ill please comment tell me the truth ?
You're trying to argue science vs. Religion. You are going about it wrong. Religion is likely the result of a reality in which consciousness is central to all existence. Thousands of years ago people took this reality and made it into false religions which all reflect only a portion of the true reality. The real question is: how does science fit into a reality in which consciousness is central to all things? If you go about it that way real experiments can in fact be done to test this.
A certain God, a certain morality, a certain power structure.
No God; well, maybe we should take another look at morality.
Pitting the meaning of God against scientific materialism is a straw dog argument . God will not be found in the physical universe, but only within the heart of the human experience . God is not a thing at all, but all that is all life imbued with, and moving through causal reality, is in grace with God.
So this god you've mentioned is imaginary, correct?
The very first statement the guest made is known to be false: "One of the things we have learned is that all physical events have a physical cause." PROVEN FALSE. Quantum mechanics, which has never failed any test of even its most unlikely predictions, tells us clearly that, for example, the decay of a radiosctive atom happens at a random time, uncaused by anything in our physical universe. The position of a photon hitting a screen is determined by the probability wave function, and within the limits of those probabilities, it hits a random location.
The problem I have with "Closer to Truth" is that it seems to go deeply into puddles and never ventures into the ocean. Expert after expert proves on even a short examination to be talking in assumptions common in high philosophy, but long known to be absolutely false to the real experts in physics.
Watched a bit more, and it gets worse. "Religion retreated" assumes that the purpose of religion is to explain the world. A common idea, but shallow. Religion, OF COURSE, explains things in terms of ideas believed at the time (exactly what this particularly foolish guest is doing). But it has much more to do with patterning life, morals, connection to the infinite (whatever that is - and yes, there are atheistic religions). He then mentions the retreat from creationism. Does he imagine every believer is a fundamentalist Christian?? What about Hindoism, with its multi-billion year creation cycles - which roughly match the currently accepted time since the big bang, btw? The guy's a pompous idiot so secure in his "knowledge" that he talks trash about communities that include millions much more insightful than himself.
Kuhn then makes his own mistake in his objection: the limits of science, he thinks, are explanatory limits. The real limits are in purpose, kinds of knowledge, etc. "How should I live my life" is informed by facts, but not limited to them. Science and religion do not divide the set of all possible beliefs. They concern different categories, where some concerns figure in only one set, some in both, some in neither.
That's why if an individual believes his scientific achievement has the power to convince the truth about nature and trashing God out of the equation bcoz it's a trap/dead-end. It means, a puny little idiot is at work, it's laziness or excuses only to exclude the supernatural causes of all things, remember science was born bcoz of supernatural events.
(Note: Please disregard the all caps. They were included in a previous YT post for emphasis. Thank you.) DNA code is like computer language. And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence. "The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes." (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com)
every tool can work and let us call that science in a physical world but then everything is not about physicality. if you are imprisoned in a box of what you currently know about science or treat God as a human person then being in that box you may perhaps not know what is God. Think out of the boxes, learn meditation, because an experience out of the body and into new worlds and understanding of a life out of physicality may perhaps change your perspective.
This guy's arguments are so bad, its hard to know where to begin.
Need help?
Park died about a year ago, so now he knows the answer.
@@mohamedtaqi2941
because consciousness lingers beyond death.
search in TH-cam.
Life After Death Proven By Scientists …
; Using Science To Study The 'Afterlife': Closer To An Answer | TODAY
; CBS News : Researchers say there's evidence that consciousness continues after clinical death
; Life After Death Proven By Scientists?
;
I See Dead People: Dreams and Visions of the Dying | Dr. Christopher Kerr | TEDxBuffalo ;
Dr. Sam Parnia series
…
Unraveling the Mystery of the Self
;
Is There A Soul? (ABC's Beyond Belief)
;
Using Science To Study The 'Afterlife': Closer To An Answer | TODAY
;
Scientists Discover What Happens After Death - Soul Goes To Another Universe
;
How Life May Exist Beyond Death
; Life After Death Live Event with Gary Wood & Jim Woodford
The easiest person to fool is yourself - Richard Feynman.
And evidently pretty much all theists.
@@andrebrown8969 yes absolutely. And all materialists too if you're honest.
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 And particularly the religious.
@@andrebrown8969 absolutely. I never disagreed with you in the first place. All of religion is fucking delusion.
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 It is.well maybe not a delusion for all, but a coping mechanism in many cases.
This guest does not seem know that each species is limited in its cognition and conceptualization by evolutionary constraint. So, there are unknowables, only possible by revelation by higher intellect. His argument about 9/11 is specious . In logic it is a device to appeal to common sentiment rather than addressing the issue.
No one knows what a number is. No one knows what existence means.
Yes, we do.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 ok explain...
what if the multiverse is represented as a cylinder? i.e,... this single universe changing into different physics overtime. maybe there is a function catering to every possible scenario... this through the evolution of physics.