Simple. 1) Because most people are NOT as well educated or trained in civil discourse as these individuals. 2) Also, nothing is at stake HERE. Neither personality has any skin in the game; they are equal and thus respectful of each other. 3) Plus, ground rules of engagement in anything are always helpful for a better outcome.
If you were a rational skeptic, you wouldn't hold to your position of skepticism in the first place due to the simple fact that you can offer zero evidence for your position, all the while demanding evidence from the only other possible position left.
In a world full of these two, we might be better without religion but since ours is a world full of simple human being, i think we should prolong religion a few hundred more.
I would say that the idea of design, even in engineering, needs to be qualified as many inventions were not designed at all but merely "discovered" through observation when the unknown but existing action/process took place. Archimedes did not predict nor designed the fluid displacement theory but he discovered when it happened that he was entering a bath filled to the brim with water which overflowed. Galileo did not invent the pendulum but he happened to be in a church noting that the suspended candle chandelier gave a constant periodic function oscillation. Both actions existed due to the states that occurred before Archimedes and Galileo ever existed. Actions come about because many states are just right for the action to occur. It gives us a good clue when it comes to evolving that the procreation of a species needs male and female parts and together they give birth to a child who could be more able and more intelligent than his parents because the many states that he meets along his life increase his complexity. So it does not follow to argue the point that anything that exists must be created by something more complex than the thing itself. One would suggest that the simple state that is very powerful to consider in evolving complexity, is any element existing in the universe which has volume and mass after electromagnetic energy existing in space changed from energy to mass according to E= mc^2. If one considers a volume of any element then the atoms at the center of the volume will be surrounded by other atoms and so the central atoms are homogeneously and symmetrically surrounded, but if one considers the atoms on the surface of the volume then the states of the surface atoms are totally different from those at the center and those atoms at a sharp point or a corner would still have a different unsymmetrical state to live in. These different states due to the different placement of atoms within the same volume of materials would give the material some particular characteristic due to the central state, the surface state, and the point or corner state. We all know that if the element was a conductor, then in a storm, the lightning strikes will have an effect on where to strike the conductor all due to the placement state of the atoms in a differently shaped volume metal. Surface effects when two dissimilar elements touch each other may cause rust as in iron and moisture and so rust can be regarded as a surface effect due to the states found in each of the dissimilar elements, Solar panels, diodes, transistors and most active and passive devices in electronics have a state which contributes to electrical engineering functions. All this was not designed nor invented but discovered as nature did it all on its own when a man was still very primitive and even non-existent. The complexity of a modern computer may be boiled down to the surface effect of a PN junction, Such a complexity originating from a simple junction which nature itself, provided freely through the turmoil of the universe, as it formed from a hot volume to a colder settlement, where elements moved around to come close together and somehow react as they do in their marriages of movements. Nothing in the universe is random, it happens because certain states come about after some previous states came to be. Simple states can give rise to more complex states through a long evolution of developed states through billions of years. The most difficult issue of understanding the universe is not to understand the evolution process as that is simply an evolution of states building up as time and space provided new additions in complexity. Presumably, all matter in the universe came to be through Energy transforming into the matter. I would say that the initial Energy was Electromagnetic energy which was always around and will remain around and our death is only our physical matter changing back to the original electromagnetic waves circling the universe which could be reincarnated into a new entity including feeding a worm. He who understands how a universe filled with electromagnetic energy changed into matter or what we call the big bang would come closer to the solution. It is known that an impulse function can be analyzed into its harmonics coming in phase at a particular location in space and time. Human intellect cannot explain that and so rather than say we are all ignorant, we need to appear to be clever amongst society for knowing that, "God made it" and we appear to be wiser by learning to make such vociferous statements backed by philosophies and postulates, rather than waiting a little longer to explain it using science. Humans, being limited in their knowledge are all like handicapped people with a missing leg needing crutches to hold on to and be able to limp and move forward rather than staying in the same place due to their body and mind limitations. Religions act like crutches and similar to artificial engineered prostheses to help mankind. To take away the artificial crutches from a handicapped man is to bring him to mental and physical inactivity and so one must always look upon an artificial crutch or prostheses which support a handicapped man as a very useful entity as long as one is not fanatical about using his artificial prostheses. Art could be looked upon as a religion is being a crutch and a prosthesis to help those needing emotional support. All military personnel is handicapped and like religious people wanting to hold on to a crutch to get by in life, and pilots, soldiers and sailors and Admirals, Wing Commanders and Army Generals all need to face their life wearing around them and attaching to themselves artificial prostheses as, rifles, guns, bombs, tanks, aircraft carriers, and destroyers and aircraft and ejector seats. Even atheists need to use their engineered prostheses in and outside their homes so religiously to get by in life and so they should not take away anyone's emotions supporting crutches, even if they are homemade simply made crutches or prostheses as shown in this submitted video. th-cam.com/video/hsZOxgvSKO8/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/HlPscuVbZlM/w-d-xo.html
Why do you expel the inteligence as it was described by Nick Bostrom? Of course the God of religions is fantasy of men and the philosophical God is an exaggration of philosophers but we could be a computer game of higher intelligence. Why not? Is it more complicated than the fallacy of multiverse?
Tim Mirabile "no explanatory power" The explanation doesn't need an explanation. The claim that it fails to explain is diametrically leveraged by a persons defiance to the idea of God. You cannot wrap finite mind around the infinite. Its a desire to wrap the mind around the concept of God, that is, to control God, a silly notion, almost as silly as trying to prove the none existence of what some claim doesn't exist, so why do they waste their time trying to convince themself. The simulation argument explains what we observe in physics today. The skeptical mind, which is never open, snaps shut at any implication for God. So where you stand at the beginning, your world view, dictates what you can accept.
***** Yep! All these theories are fraudulent. As for your name, I am just not a best christian, but I checked in Bible and here it is: Mark 13:6 "Many will come and claim to be me. They will use my name and fool many people."
There is nothing in any of our physical theories that suggests we are living in a computer games, whereas multiverse is strongly suggested by general relativity and inflation. That is why multiverse appears in some cosmological models and computer games don't.
Perhaps there is a god, perhaps there is no god. Now, how we can settled this ? We simply can't. So what should we do, if we are not that sure ? Look at religion instead....He said... SMFH!!!!
@@myothersoul1953 It can't be settled because god as defined by classical theism, for example, is beyond time, space and matter. In other words, there is no way for finite material beings (we humans) to investigate and determine the truth on this question. We are perpetually in the agnostic position, which is why questions about god are matters of belief and not knowledge.
A lot of respect for Dr. Blackburn, but he needs to point to the explicit contradictions (or at least bring out what I assume he thinks are the implicit contradictions) between a timeless God and a God who acts in time in order for his argument to have the power that he was shooting for. Great conversation, but I would have loved to have seen stronger followups of his assumptions - especially when that final argument has refutations dating back to the 13th Century (which, he will of course be aware of). Classic case of 'I just wish he said more... I'm left wanting', and because of that his argument contains leaks.
There are two premises: 1) God is timeless 2) God acts in time. Argument to show inconsistency: There are two and only two possibilities: God is acting on existence, or God isn't acting on existence. If he is acting on existence, then he is not timeless, as he acts at specific times. This violates the first premise If he is not acting on existence, then this also violates the second premise. Of course, this relies on a 3rd, hidden premise that action upon existence must occur at some time, a claim which is validated by experience and science but cannot be proven or disproven at present. QED
@@antoniolewis1016 If you arrive from USA to the UK and you want to charge your phone battery there is no US to UK adapter plug? You can only use one of these two different socket systems, right? 😊 Some may find this true but to me it sounds like a false dichotomy. The literal "adapter" is the person of JC who is compatible on both ends. Also it is impossible to define more complex systems while being locked in a simpler one. Insects can define humans just partially (for some gnats we are just a food target, for example) but humans can have way more thorough understanding of these less complex life forms
@@antoniolewis1016 Labeling a comment as "whoosh" doesn't prove your point is correct - although you might whoosh so :) What you need in order to set your premises correctly is some basic theological knowledge first. So called "hypostatic union" of the person of Jesus should be the starting point.
I am confused, he is a professional philosopher and it sounded like he combined the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning arguments. They are very different. I am may be wrong though. But like him, I am not convinced by the Fine-Tuning argument and think there are several issues with it. Same goes for the Ontological argument and some forms of the moral argument. I think the strongest philosophically argument is the argument from contingency. Now that also has two big divides. One set focuses on sort of backtracking the universe(meaning all what exists) to a single point where it doesn't go any further, because the past can't go on forever(what they argue). The other set focuses on what sustains existence contingently. Both I find very appealing. I also cringed at the "big daddy in the sky". Really? You? This is the sort of thing I expect from internet trolls
@@uthman2281 I rather should have said any universe would appear to be fine-tuned by anything with a self-centered ego. Any universe would have a set of parameters if changed would make it different so why are we important other than to ourselves? We have only existed for a speck of time and of speck size so how is it fined-tuned for us who are just a small aberration? Put plainly, if we didn't exist, we wouldn't exist so what? We aren't likely to exist in a few million years as we will have evolved into a new species or become extinct. We fit into the world because we are the world not because our sense of self makes us think we are separate thus needing someone like us to make us and make a world in which we can fit.
[Wrong God] If God is the most primordial being that must exist even without any physical world, it must exist completely by itself and absolutely self-sufficiently, without requiring or relying on anything. God must not be a tangible or personal being that think or act, being constrained by physical space and time. God does not need to create or judge the universe, and to hear individual prayers or wishes. God must be absolutely free from any responsibility or obligation. There is no reason that heaven and hell must exist. Greed, desire, and mental weakness make fiction and illusion. Humanity has so far established God as human center and earth center. All religions have wronged God by ignorance, greed and wishes, have blind believes and unscientific superstitions, and are corrupted. Physical worlds come out from God as secondary and temporary existences, but are never intentionally created by God. (When I enter deep meditation, I feel the phenomenon that energy is generated, gathered and scattered and disappears, and that the physical world is temporarily formed and then disappeared.) God certainly exists. However, human beings have erroneously erected gods centered on human beings and the earth based on human desires, ignorance, wishes and purpose. Human beings need to understand the right God to understand everything correctly and live free and peacefully. OnCharm Lee (Author of the Book “Humans & Truth - human life is the awakening process”)
That makes no sense as a comment. You cannot know from what I said that I am "no expert in the field", unless of course you can read my mind? I made that comment about a year ago but I can no longer recollect what he said. Perhaps you can summarize it? And, by the way, I have recently completed an MPhil in philosophical theology from Cambridge, so while that does not make me an expert it does mean that I can see a poor argument in my own field of study.
(1) Mr Blackburn claims that the most important reason that people believe in God is the Design Argument. This is not true at all; and it demonstrates that Mr Blackburn has only a superficial grasp of so-called design arguments (which are really teleological arguments). We did not need Charles Darwin to explain to us that the Design Argument is a poor argument; indeed most of the great theologians have either criticized it or ignored it. Thomas Aquinas is often erroneously associated with the Design Argument, whereas in fact he articulates a teleological argument (end-orientated activity). (2) The physical constants are not used as arguments for the existence of God. Rather they are shown to be consonant with belief in God; but not proving it. There might be a physical explanation for the constants, even though this looks unlikely, especially as Hawkings has said that the gravity constant is just a given. They seem to have no _raisin_ _d'etre_ . (3) I found it astonishing that Mr Blackburn invoked the appalling argument that to postulate something more complex to explain something less complex then we have a kind of regress on our hands. But as theists have been saying for millenia: God is not compounded; therefore he is not "complex". You have to distinguish between the non-compound nature of God's being and the thoughts that such a reality can have. The thoughts can be infinitely complex while remaining absolutely simple. When challenged about this he again invoked Design: but we do not accept Design! This is a mediocre performance.
I think it makes sense to argue that you need a more complex entity to design simpler entities. If the entities have minds, then those minds cannot be more complex than the mind of the designer. The sentence that "the thoughts can be infinitely complex while remaining absolutely simple" seems to be saying that infinitely complex thoughts are absolutely simple. If so, then what is the difference between "complex" and "simple"? Such an argument is equivalent to saying that black is white.
Sam O Its worse than that. We don't even have to stipulate that minds have to be more complex than their creations. (I do think this is correct). However his point is an epistemological one. The design argument is an argument by analogy, and given all the instances of design that we know about involve complex things creating simpler things the analogy doesn't hold if the theist wants to say "well actually its this whole new kind of relationship between a simple mind and a complex world." If we are warranted in inferring a designer than we are warranted in concluding that the designer is complex, leaving us with a regress. If we are not warranted in making this inference than the argument from design fails.
good voice... but out of the point, and wrong! reread Sir. Antony FLEW: there is a GOD. or wherever book from Dr. Gerald Schroeder... oh, by the way... God Bless!
![[TH] VALORANT Champions Seoul - Semi-Final - SEN vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IewhVY9cAmQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Why can't more debates, on any topic, be this civil?
Simple. 1) Because most people are NOT as well educated or trained in civil discourse as these individuals. 2) Also, nothing is at stake HERE. Neither personality has any skin in the game; they are equal and thus respectful of each other. 3) Plus, ground rules of engagement in anything are always helpful for a better outcome.
Thank you for this channel
No Atheist has ever said the world came from nothing..we know Complexity Science explains why we are here
Complexity science. Interesting. Explain: three sentences max!
If you were a rational skeptic, you wouldn't hold to your position of skepticism in the first place due to the simple fact that you can offer zero evidence for your position, all the while demanding evidence from the only other possible position left.
How do you explain causation by physical effects - such as heat and light caused by the sun, the information specified by DNA, etc.
My designer was Versace and after that there is no other designer
In a world full of these two, we might be better without religion but since ours is a world full of simple human being, i think we should prolong religion a few hundred more.
Yeah cuz *ancient stone temple blows up* religion is *gay person gets lynched* really holding *ethnic massacre occurs* things together.
I ask the designer for an explanation of the design and that son****** still not answering
I would say that the idea of design, even in engineering, needs to be qualified as many inventions were not designed at all but merely "discovered" through observation when the unknown but existing action/process took place. Archimedes did not predict nor designed the fluid displacement theory but he discovered when it happened that he was entering a bath filled to the brim with water which overflowed. Galileo did not invent the pendulum but he happened to be in a church noting that the suspended candle chandelier gave a constant periodic function oscillation. Both actions existed due to the states that occurred before Archimedes and Galileo ever existed. Actions come about because many states are just right for the action to occur. It gives us a good clue when it comes to evolving that the procreation of a species needs male and female parts and together they give birth to a child who could be more able and more intelligent than his parents because the many states that he meets along his life increase his complexity. So it does not follow to argue the point that anything that exists must be created by something more complex than the thing itself.
One would suggest that the simple state that is very powerful to consider in evolving complexity, is any element existing in the universe which has volume and mass after electromagnetic energy existing in space changed from energy to mass according to E= mc^2. If one considers a volume of any element then the atoms at the center of the volume will be surrounded by other atoms and so the central atoms are homogeneously and symmetrically surrounded, but if one considers the atoms on the surface of the volume then the states of the surface atoms are totally different from those at the center and those atoms at a sharp point or a corner would still have a different unsymmetrical state to live in. These different states due to the different placement of atoms within the same volume of materials would give the material some particular characteristic due to the central state, the surface state, and the point or corner state. We all know that if the element was a conductor, then in a storm, the lightning strikes will have an effect on where to strike the conductor all due to the placement state of the atoms in a differently shaped volume metal.
Surface effects when two dissimilar elements touch each other may cause rust as in iron and moisture and so rust can be regarded as a surface effect due to the states found in each of the dissimilar elements, Solar panels, diodes, transistors and most active and passive devices in electronics have a state which contributes to electrical engineering functions. All this was not designed nor invented but discovered as nature did it all on its own when a man was still very primitive and even non-existent. The complexity of a modern computer may be boiled down to the surface effect of a PN junction, Such a complexity originating from a simple junction which nature itself, provided freely through the turmoil of the universe, as it formed from a hot volume to a colder settlement, where elements moved around to come close together and somehow react as they do in their marriages of movements. Nothing in the universe is random, it happens because certain states come about after some previous states came to be. Simple states can give rise to more complex states through a long evolution of developed states through billions of years.
The most difficult issue of understanding the universe is not to understand the evolution process as that is simply an evolution of states building up as time and space provided new additions in complexity. Presumably, all matter in the universe came to be through Energy transforming into the matter. I would say that the initial Energy was Electromagnetic energy which was always around and will remain around and our death is only our physical matter changing back to the original electromagnetic waves circling the universe which could be reincarnated into a new entity including feeding a worm. He who understands how a universe filled with electromagnetic energy changed into matter or what we call the big bang would come closer to the solution. It is known that an impulse function can be analyzed into its harmonics coming in phase at a particular location in space and time. Human intellect cannot explain that and so rather than say we are all ignorant, we need to appear to be clever amongst society for knowing that, "God made it" and we appear to be wiser by learning to make such vociferous statements backed by philosophies and postulates, rather than waiting a little longer to explain it using science.
Humans, being limited in their knowledge are all like handicapped people with a missing leg needing crutches to hold on to and be able to limp and move forward rather than staying in the same place due to their body and mind limitations. Religions act like crutches and similar to artificial engineered prostheses to help mankind. To take away the artificial crutches from a handicapped man is to bring him to mental and physical inactivity and so one must always look upon an artificial crutch or prostheses which support a handicapped man as a very useful entity as long as one is not fanatical about using his artificial prostheses. Art could be looked upon as a religion is being a crutch and a prosthesis to help those needing emotional support. All military personnel is handicapped and like religious people wanting to hold on to a crutch to get by in life, and pilots, soldiers and sailors and Admirals, Wing Commanders and Army Generals all need to face their life wearing around them and attaching to themselves artificial prostheses as, rifles, guns, bombs, tanks, aircraft carriers, and destroyers and aircraft and ejector seats. Even atheists need to use their engineered prostheses in and outside their homes so religiously to get by in life and so they should not take away anyone's emotions supporting crutches, even if they are homemade simply made crutches or prostheses as shown in this submitted video.
th-cam.com/video/hsZOxgvSKO8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/HlPscuVbZlM/w-d-xo.html
Why do you expel the inteligence as it was described by Nick Bostrom? Of course the God of religions is fantasy of men and the philosophical God is an exaggration of philosophers but we could be a computer game of higher intelligence. Why not? Is it more complicated than the fallacy of multiverse?
Tim Mirabile
"no explanatory power"
The explanation doesn't need an explanation. The claim that it fails to explain is diametrically leveraged by a persons defiance to the idea of God. You cannot wrap finite mind around the infinite. Its a desire to wrap the mind around the concept of God, that is, to control God, a silly notion, almost as silly as trying to prove the none existence of what some claim doesn't exist, so why do they waste their time trying to convince themself.
The simulation argument explains what we observe in physics today.
The skeptical mind, which is never open, snaps shut at any implication for God.
So where you stand at the beginning, your world view, dictates what you can accept.
*****
Yep! All these theories are fraudulent. As for your name, I am just not a best christian, but I checked in Bible and here it is: Mark 13:6 "Many will come and claim to be me. They will use my name and fool many people."
There is nothing in any of our physical theories that suggests we are living in a computer games, whereas multiverse is strongly suggested by general relativity and inflation. That is why multiverse appears in some cosmological models and computer games don't.
Brilliant man found how God can't do what seems impossible to him. Nothing is too hard for God!!!
"There is no such thing as society" (Margaret Thatcher)
Perhaps there is a god, perhaps there is no god. Now, how we can settled this ? We simply can't. So what should we do, if we are not that sure ? Look at religion instead....He said... SMFH!!!!
Why can't we settle this? Aside from the mere assumption of a god.
@@myothersoul1953 It can't be settled because god as defined by classical theism, for example, is beyond time, space and matter. In other words, there is no way for finite material beings (we humans) to investigate and determine the truth on this question. We are perpetually in the agnostic position, which is why questions about god are matters of belief and not knowledge.
@@stevenhunter3345 Exactly, the only way to belief in god is by mere assumption.
@@stevenhunter3345 Then we should not believe in something we have no reasons to believe, otherwise all kinds of absurd theories would be "justified".
A lot of respect for Dr. Blackburn, but he needs to point to the explicit contradictions (or at least bring out what I assume he thinks are the implicit contradictions) between a timeless God and a God who acts in time in order for his argument to have the power that he was shooting for. Great conversation, but I would have loved to have seen stronger followups of his assumptions - especially when that final argument has refutations dating back to the 13th Century (which, he will of course be aware of). Classic case of 'I just wish he said more... I'm left wanting', and because of that his argument contains leaks.
There are two premises:
1) God is timeless
2) God acts in time.
Argument to show inconsistency:
There are two and only two possibilities: God is acting on existence, or God isn't acting on existence.
If he is acting on existence, then he is not timeless, as he acts at specific times. This violates the first premise
If he is not acting on existence, then this also violates the second premise.
Of course, this relies on a 3rd, hidden premise that action upon existence must occur at some time, a claim which is validated by experience and science but cannot be proven or disproven at present.
QED
@@antoniolewis1016 If you arrive from USA to the UK and you want to charge your phone battery there is no US to UK adapter plug? You can only use one of these two different socket systems, right? 😊
Some may find this true but to me it sounds like a false dichotomy.
The literal "adapter" is the person of JC who is compatible on both ends.
Also it is impossible to define more complex systems while being locked in a simpler one. Insects can define humans just partially (for some gnats we are just a food target, for example) but humans can have way more thorough understanding of these less complex life forms
@@bradalacki whoosh
@@antoniolewis1016 Labeling a comment as "whoosh" doesn't prove your point is correct - although you might whoosh so :)
What you need in order to set your premises correctly is some basic theological knowledge first. So called "hypostatic union" of the person of Jesus should be the starting point.
@@bradalacki again, whoosh.
I am confused, he is a professional philosopher and it sounded like he combined the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning arguments. They are very different. I am may be wrong though.
But like him, I am not convinced by the Fine-Tuning argument and think there are several issues with it. Same goes for the Ontological argument and some forms of the moral argument.
I think the strongest philosophically argument is the argument from contingency. Now that also has two big divides. One set focuses on sort of backtracking the universe(meaning all what exists) to a single point where it doesn't go any further, because the past can't go on forever(what they argue). The other set focuses on what sustains existence contingently. Both I find very appealing.
I also cringed at the "big daddy in the sky". Really? You? This is the sort of thing I expect from internet trolls
Any universe that exists would be fine turned to be the way it is.
@@bobs182
Why?
How?
@@uthman2281 I rather should have said any universe would appear to be fine-tuned by anything with a self-centered ego. Any universe would have a set of parameters if changed would make it different so why are we important other than to ourselves? We have only existed for a speck of time and of speck size so how is it fined-tuned for us who are just a small aberration? Put plainly, if we didn't exist, we wouldn't exist so what? We aren't likely to exist in a few million years as we will have evolved into a new species or become extinct. We fit into the world because we are the world not because our sense of self makes us think we are separate thus needing someone like us to make us and make a world in which we can fit.
Why should we categorise God is such a way? That's when we miss Him, He is God and He can be in time and out of time.
Please demonstrate this claim.
[Wrong God]
If God is the most primordial being that must exist even without any physical world, it must exist completely by itself and absolutely self-sufficiently, without requiring or relying on anything.
God must not be a tangible or personal being that think or act, being constrained by physical space and time. God does not need to create or judge the universe, and to hear individual prayers or wishes. God must be absolutely free from any responsibility or obligation. There is no reason that heaven and hell must exist.
Greed, desire, and mental weakness make fiction and illusion. Humanity has so far established God as human center and earth center. All religions have wronged God by ignorance, greed and wishes, have blind believes and unscientific superstitions, and are corrupted.
Physical worlds come out from God as secondary and temporary existences, but are never intentionally created by God. (When I enter deep meditation, I feel the phenomenon that energy is generated, gathered and scattered and disappears, and that the physical world is temporarily formed and then disappeared.)
God certainly exists. However, human beings have erroneously erected gods centered on human beings and the earth based on human desires, ignorance, wishes and purpose. Human beings need to understand the right God to understand everything correctly and live free and peacefully.
OnCharm Lee (Author of the Book “Humans & Truth - human life is the awakening process”)
Thats cool fanfic but absolutely nothing he said is in any way supportable.
Some basic misunderstandings here. It is clear that Mr Blackburn is not an expert in the field.
+bayreuth79 Comments like yours titilate but have no substance. Step up to the plate or remain silent.
That makes no sense as a comment. You cannot know from what I said that I am "no expert in the field", unless of course you can read my mind? I made that comment about a year ago but I can no longer recollect what he said. Perhaps you can summarize it? And, by the way, I have recently completed an MPhil in philosophical theology from Cambridge, so while that does not make me an expert it does mean that I can see a poor argument in my own field of study.
(1) Mr Blackburn claims that the most important reason that people believe in God is the Design Argument. This is not true at all; and it demonstrates that Mr Blackburn has only a superficial grasp of so-called design arguments (which are really teleological arguments). We did not need Charles Darwin to explain to us that the Design Argument is a poor argument; indeed most of the great theologians have either criticized it or ignored it. Thomas Aquinas is often erroneously associated with the Design Argument, whereas in fact he articulates a teleological argument (end-orientated activity).
(2) The physical constants are not used as arguments for the existence of God. Rather they are shown to be consonant with belief in God; but not proving it. There might be a physical explanation for the constants, even though this looks unlikely, especially as Hawkings has said that the gravity constant is just a given. They seem to have no _raisin_ _d'etre_ .
(3) I found it astonishing that Mr Blackburn invoked the appalling argument that to postulate something more complex to explain something less complex then we have a kind of regress on our hands. But as theists have been saying for millenia: God is not compounded; therefore he is not "complex". You have to distinguish between the non-compound nature of God's being and the thoughts that such a reality can have. The thoughts can be infinitely complex while remaining absolutely simple. When challenged about this he again invoked Design: but we do not accept Design!
This is a mediocre performance.
I think it makes sense to argue that you need a more complex entity to design simpler entities. If the entities have minds, then those minds cannot be more complex than the mind of the designer. The sentence that "the thoughts can be infinitely complex while remaining absolutely simple" seems to be saying that infinitely complex thoughts are absolutely simple. If so, then what is the difference between "complex" and "simple"? Such an argument is equivalent to saying that black is white.
Sam O Its worse than that. We don't even have to stipulate that minds have to be more complex than their creations. (I do think this is correct). However his point is an epistemological one. The design argument is an argument by analogy, and given all the instances of design that we know about involve complex things creating simpler things the analogy doesn't hold if the theist wants to say "well actually its this whole new kind of relationship between a simple mind and a complex world." If we are warranted in inferring a designer than we are warranted in concluding that the designer is complex, leaving us with a regress. If we are not warranted in making this inference than the argument from design fails.
God is the black woman end of story.
God creates the Universe yet cant write his own Book!!
He doesn’t know anything but that there is no God
good voice... but out of the point, and wrong! reread Sir. Antony FLEW: there is a GOD.
or wherever book from Dr. Gerald Schroeder... oh, by the way... God Bless!
Appeal to authority. Where is the evidence? There is none.
So basically people who aren't as smart as him need religion. How patronizing.
It's backed up by statistics.
Isn't it obvious, there is no "God ".
@@eduar2971 How not so?
@@eduar2971 No one knows if there is a God or isn't. Faith is not knowing.
@@eduar2971 No one knows "if there is a God " .
@@ingenuity168 I think you're talking to yourself, mate.