People often ask the question "then who created God?". In Christian theological tradition, the creator IS the uncaused cause, existing outside of time and space. If the universe was eternal, the universe would be the uncaused cause. But the universe is not eternal (as evidenced by the expansion of the universe), and the principle of causality tells us that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause. In other words, space and time had a beginning (the singularity theorems by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking describe this). It follows that the creator must reside outside of space and time, and must be eternal. The additional argument from design comes into play like this. *Given* that we have to deal with origins questions (e.g., the origin of the universe, the origin of the first form of life, etc...) this emergence of information, based on our knowledge of cause and effect, is a strong indicator of the activity of intelligence. In other words, the fine tuning of the universe, the fact that type of information that DNA carries is functional information, the fact that this information cannot be explained chemically by differential bonding affinities, the fact that DNA provides the instructions for building proteins but proteins are necessary for replicating DNA (meaning that the cell is irreducibly complex), all point to intelligent design like the Rosetta Stone points to a scribe, or a painting points to a painter, or code points to a programmer. These ideas form part of the Intelligence Design hypothesis (which differs from Creationism) and are expanded upon by people like Stephen Meyer, John Lennox, David Berlinski, David Gelernter, etc. Intelligence Design often gets labeled as pseudoscience simply because it does not adhere to a naturalistic worldview. But people like Stephen Meyer often argue that the naturalistic worldview actually limits intellectual freedom because it forces you to reject, a priori, any evidence of mind. For example, if you held tight to a materialist worldview, you would be forced to conclude that completely materialistic processes created a painting you see at a museum. If on the other hand you are open to considering evidence of a mind, you can speak about the increased likelihood of there being a painter (even if you can't see him).
The lack of support Denis received shows that atheists sure are scared of this god they don’t believe in. In other words, they claim to *know* there is no god, but they are not willing to support Denis’ rational argument because it would “bring god back in”. How illogical. What happened to letting ideas stand on their own merit?
Interesting parallels. Buddhist have a particular flavour of atheism in that the god they deny is the one that is immortal and the creator of all. Other gods they're okay with, they're just not that relevent. When innovative practices and ideas came in such as visualising enlightened beings or countenancing Buddha-nature many buddhists were concerned that god was being sneaked in through the back door.
@@Archeidos-Arcana Hmm... that strikes me as a rather snarky and disrespectful way to describe someone who you're supposedly trying to say something "nice" about.
@@RD-jc2eu Atheists are not a 'protected species' -- I hold respect for individuals, not ideological groups. I'm sure the mega-geniuses at r/atheism feel the same about the religious.
@@Archeidos-Arcana I agree there are atheists who also can be snarky and disrespectful. Bad faith participants on either side of that discussion are not a great excuse for also being a bad faith participant.
Only to those who are teleological. Why should I believe teleological arguments are a truth. Why should I chose to ignore cause and effect? Utilitarian arguments, such as creation/evolution etc, are insufficient to explain our morality.
@@vertigozNo matter the side of the coin, the question is still there. You have to accept an uncaused causer. Both of them are equally hard to conceptualise, and each of them are outside of our universe. It happens to be, that even with the degradation of human genes, there is still signs of intelligent design. Just as you would expect if there was a fall of mankind as Genesis says, and if we were truly created by God, Whom engineered us.
The obvious presence of intelligence in all creation is evidence of a very intelligent Creator, (Yahweh). This Creator told us in Genesis 1: 1 who He is and what he did. If you think evolution is the way; life coming from dead inanimate matter; surely any sincere intelligent person would say this is utter nonsense.
Perhaps, but reductionism is very useful for countering a specific God claim (the argument to design). Noble is saying that he has colleagues who are afraid to give it up for precisely this reason.
@@david672orford*Perhaps* No not _'perhaps'_ atheism *is* skepticism about god claims. *but reductionism is very useful for countering a specific God claim (the argument to design)* It's not reductionism it's the lack of demonstrable _evidence_ for that claim. *Nobel is saying that he has colleagues who are afraid to give it up for precisely this reason.* _What_ reason? There isn't one.
@@paulbrocklehurst3639 'Perhaps' means I accept your assertion that atheism and reductionism are not the same thing while noting that many prominent atheists seem to have a reductionist view of the world. Even if atheism is not a belief, reductionism and the Blind Watchmaker thesis are.
@@david672orford *'Perhaps' means I accept your assertion that atheism & reductionism are not the same thing* Then why not say _'Agreed, they're clearly different things'_ then? *while noting that many prominent atheists seem to have a reductionist view of the world.* But things aren't always as they may seem are they David? *Even if atheism is not a belief.* It _can't_ be because it's _skepticism_ so how could it be? *reductionism & the blind watchmaker are.* Well so is your _own_ reasoning since that's what you're reducing them both down to & if _you_ think that's okay then why isn't it okay for others to do as you do too?
@@david672orford Atheism is a belief in the 'absence of an idol', which according to Wittgenstein is a belief. John Grey, , in his book Seven Types of Atheism, identifies the seven types of belief that have emerged out of atheism, with anti-theism being one of them.
If you're so concerned about things like "meaning" and "purpose" why don't you go to church and preach those things there? What does any of that has to do with science?
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6lZ6b3_7Vo/mqdefault.jpg)
Denis Noble is a scientist who I come to respect the most. He is the embodiment of what a true scientist should be.
People often ask the question "then who created God?". In Christian theological tradition, the creator IS the uncaused cause, existing outside of time and space. If the universe was eternal, the universe would be the uncaused cause. But the universe is not eternal (as evidenced by the expansion of the universe), and the principle of causality tells us that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause. In other words, space and time had a beginning (the singularity theorems by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking describe this). It follows that the creator must reside outside of space and time, and must be eternal. The additional argument from design comes into play like this. *Given* that we have to deal with origins questions (e.g., the origin of the universe, the origin of the first form of life, etc...) this emergence of information, based on our knowledge of cause and effect, is a strong indicator of the activity of intelligence. In other words, the fine tuning of the universe, the fact that type of information that DNA carries is functional information, the fact that this information cannot be explained chemically by differential bonding affinities, the fact that DNA provides the instructions for building proteins but proteins are necessary for replicating DNA (meaning that the cell is irreducibly complex), all point to intelligent design like the Rosetta Stone points to a scribe, or a painting points to a painter, or code points to a programmer. These ideas form part of the Intelligence Design hypothesis (which differs from Creationism) and are expanded upon by people like Stephen Meyer, John Lennox, David Berlinski, David Gelernter, etc. Intelligence Design often gets labeled as pseudoscience simply because it does not adhere to a naturalistic worldview. But people like Stephen Meyer often argue that the naturalistic worldview actually limits intellectual freedom because it forces you to reject, a priori, any evidence of mind. For example, if you held tight to a materialist worldview, you would be forced to conclude that completely materialistic processes created a painting you see at a museum. If on the other hand you are open to considering evidence of a mind, you can speak about the increased likelihood of there being a painter (even if you can't see him).
The lack of support Denis received shows that atheists sure are scared of this god they don’t believe in. In other words, they claim to *know* there is no god, but they are not willing to support Denis’ rational argument because it would “bring god back in”. How illogical. What happened to letting ideas stand on their own merit?
Interesting parallels. Buddhist have a particular flavour of atheism in that the god they deny is the one that is immortal and the creator of all. Other gods they're okay with, they're just not that relevent. When innovative practices and ideas came in such as visualising enlightened beings or countenancing Buddha-nature many buddhists were concerned that god was being sneaked in through the back door.
Finally, an atheist who makes some sense.
Interesting reminder that not all atheists are dishonest and prideful, but just haven't happened to have found God.
re'you chus a tardre
@@Archeidos-Arcana Hmm... that strikes me as a rather snarky and disrespectful way to describe someone who you're supposedly trying to say something "nice" about.
@@RD-jc2eu Atheists are not a 'protected species' -- I hold respect for individuals, not ideological groups. I'm sure the mega-geniuses at r/atheism feel the same about the religious.
@@Archeidos-Arcana I agree there are atheists who also can be snarky and disrespectful. Bad faith participants on either side of that discussion are not a great excuse for also being a bad faith participant.
Very interesting. Proffesing to be wise they became fools. The evidence for creation is all around us
Stop with this nonsense, ffs.
It doesn't answer much, how would the creator be created then...
Only to those who are teleological. Why should I believe teleological arguments are a truth. Why should I chose to ignore cause and effect?
Utilitarian arguments, such as creation/evolution etc, are insufficient to explain our morality.
@@he1ar1 bias
@@vertigozNo matter the side of the coin, the question is still there.
You have to accept an uncaused causer. Both of them are equally hard to conceptualise, and each of them are outside of our universe. It happens to be, that even with the degradation of human genes, there is still signs of intelligent design. Just as you would expect if there was a fall of mankind as Genesis says, and if we were truly created by God, Whom engineered us.
Good gosh an open mind, rare amongst atheists and religous bigots.
I would recommend Matthew 12:35-37.
The obvious presence of intelligence in all creation is evidence of a very intelligent Creator, (Yahweh). This Creator told us in Genesis 1: 1 who He is and what he did.
If you think evolution is the way; life coming from dead inanimate matter; surely any sincere intelligent person would say this is utter nonsense.
Atheism is not reductionism, atheism is pointing out there's no good reason to believe god claims.
Perhaps, but reductionism is very useful for countering a specific God claim (the argument to design). Noble is saying that he has colleagues who are afraid to give it up for precisely this reason.
@@david672orford*Perhaps*
No not _'perhaps'_ atheism *is* skepticism about god claims.
*but reductionism is very useful for countering a specific God claim (the argument to design)*
It's not reductionism it's the lack of demonstrable _evidence_ for that claim.
*Nobel is saying that he has colleagues who are afraid to give it up for precisely this reason.*
_What_ reason? There isn't one.
@@paulbrocklehurst3639 'Perhaps' means I accept your assertion that atheism and reductionism are not the same thing while noting that many prominent atheists seem to have a reductionist view of the world. Even if atheism is not a belief, reductionism and the Blind Watchmaker thesis are.
@@david672orford *'Perhaps' means I accept your assertion that atheism & reductionism are not the same thing*
Then why not say _'Agreed, they're clearly different things'_ then?
*while noting that many prominent atheists seem to have a reductionist view of the world.*
But things aren't always as they may seem are they David?
*Even if atheism is not a belief.*
It _can't_ be because it's _skepticism_ so how could it be?
*reductionism & the blind watchmaker are.*
Well so is your _own_ reasoning since that's what you're reducing them both down to & if _you_ think that's okay then why isn't it okay for others to do as you do too?
@@david672orford Atheism is a belief in the 'absence of an idol', which according to Wittgenstein is a belief. John Grey, , in his book Seven Types of Atheism, identifies the seven types of belief that have emerged out of atheism, with anti-theism being one of them.
If you're so concerned about things like "meaning" and "purpose" why don't you go to church and preach those things there? What does any of that has to do with science?
Because if scientific investigation reveals that purpose exists, it doesn't suddenly cease to be science.
Teleology got you scared? It'll be okay.