Until you define what you mean by "God" in a precise way, what is it, what properties does it have, the conversation is essentially meaningless. What does it mean to assert that some undefined entity "exists"?
@@browngreen933 Existence might not just mean physical stuff. It could also include other things that manifest in nature like time, entropy, purpose, order as well as desires, morality, and aesthetical qualities (beauty, goodness, love, etc.) Even material "stuff" has immaterial qualities like spin, momentum, charge, particleness (for lack of a better word).
@@logosao88 Yes, but all the things you mention are either attributes of physical things (beauty, goodness, etc) or need physical things to make any sense (time). No matter how hard we try, we cannot escape the physical world.
@@browngreen933 “Attributes of physical things” Nope!! Sorry but no one has ever empirically observed “physical stuff”, that is no one has ever observed “matter” outside and independent of mind and consciousness, for we are forever locked in the fundamental primitive, that is any “empirical” observation is forever locked in mind and consciousness - yes? That is we are locked is soul/self. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally and consciously perceived - right? We usually infer the unknown from the known not the unknown, that is “matter”. No one even knows what “matter even is. So appealing to “physicalism” reverses the logical direction of inference!! According to the expert linguist and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky… “There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky). The irony is that quantum mechanics and in particular quantum superposition has actually demonstrated that classical materialism is dead, that is classical physicalism is dead!! Equally, according to Scientific American… “Atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of “physical” reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”-abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.” (Scientific American). Ouch!!
If you arr looking for an interesting logical argument for the existence of god, save yourself the time and skip this video. There is nothing in terms of evidence or compelling arguments. It’s just a declaration of blind faith.
You may disagree with the logic of Mr Stannard's statements but you are completely wrong about no evidence to support the claim of God's existence. The evidence is very compelling and it's all based on hard science. It's not that the evidence doesn't exist, it's just that you are unaware of it. 12
@@michaelmckinney7240Not only there is no evidence, but there can’t be evidence because the claims of the bible and early christianity are incoherent and impossible, as well as being clearly silly and childish. On top of that, you wouldn’t want to believe them anyway, because Jesus philosophy is completely awful and shouldn’t be followed by any rational person who values reason, logic, individual rights, private property rights, productivity, or achievement. Jesus is a total loser as far as relating or suggesting a good way to live this life.
Well, the video doesn’t make an individual argument for God’s existence like one of Aquinas’s five ways or whatever. But it does make an interesting suggestion about how to think about approaching the entire body of arguments. Definitely not a blind declaration of faith.
I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe. I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything. The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning.
I will add that we do not yet even know where consciousness comes from. There seems to be a quantum fabric connecting the universe that we don't fully understand. We are still learning about the makeup of the particles that make up everything. We can't even fully explain a neutron. Personally I go with experience I'm a better person connected to God than without. 🤔🙏⚛️
You’re more connected than you think. I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe. I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything. The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning.
Believing, as many scientists do, that the universe was created out of "nothing" seems to me just as difficult as believing in a higher power creating the world we live in. (Creation from a quantum fluctuation does not count as that would be "something" and not nothing. The question would then be what created the quantum base in which or from which the fluctuation occurred.)
Only in so far as one would need to personally, I suppose? You cannot argue deities into someone else’s belief system, but you can rationalise your own. It strikes me that one should never need to either. It is only due to the fact that, “institutions,” exist that such debates become necessary to some, important to all of us. I live in a country where the most senior clerics in the land are automatically granted seats in Parliament, provided they are clerics of the, “correct,” religions, by mere dint of representing their church. This is an unrepresentative state of affairs (especially given historically low church attendance and the population’s self reported beliefs) in what we call a, “constitutional monarchy,” and a modern democracy. So we still cannot afford to ignore the beliefs of others. At least, not so long as they are making decisions that effect us all.
@tomlee2651 Of course, you can't argue God / gods into existence; but I don't think that's what he's attempting to do. It seems to me-just like in his analogy of the evidence for the Big Bang-that he is simply updating his _degree of belief_ in God as new evidence presents itself.
The definition of faith is to believe something without this 'knock down' proof. Works for him and I respect that as long as he doesn't try and dictate it to me :)
I can understand that people may not find this man’s conclusion compelling or justified. But what does he demonstrate compellingly? To me: 1. That not everything we accept as true is (or can be) established by a singular knock-down argument (as it sometimes is in the hard sciences). (This ought to effect whether we expect all matters, including God’s existence to be established ‘scientifically’) 2. Even in these sciences, accepted conclusions are often established on the basis of a compelling ‘bouquet of evidence’ rather than by a singular irrefutable proof. (If we are demanding a proof on par with agreed science this ought to make us rethink whether singular irrefutable evidence is even what agreed science demands or provides). 3. Some claims that are true (subjective claims) cannot be empirically established but are nonetheless true. (This ought to make us rethink the role of subjectivity in relation to truth claims that are privately but not empirically accessible. It’s also a straightforward refutation that everything true is scientifically accessible and can be scientifically established). On this final point, it is interesting to me that in terms of consciousness, we cannot even establish that we exist (in the sense Descartes meant-self awareness-I think therefore I am) scientifically or from an exterior vantage; this knowledge is only accessible to us privately and from the inside. Again, it’s totally valid to say, point 1, if true, doesn’t prove God. Point 2, if true, doesn’t prove God. Point 3., if true doesn’t prove God. But if we don’t pause to think through what we mean by ‘demanding proof’ and what such proof might appropriately be after 1,2 and 3 we’re not engaging with the argument. If 3 doesn’t prove God what does it prove? How does that relate to a demand for scientific proof of God? These are not irrelevant questions to the conversation, (even if they don’t establish God’s existence).
Excellent analysis here. This man (Russell Stannard) was not claiming to prove or disprove the existence of God. Point 3 was the main point I was thinking about, but all your points are valid. Some of the comments have the wrong understanding on what he is claiming.
That's why the internet is filled with people rambling about the existence of banana's. Rarely is there a single knock down argument. Even in hard sciences there is a bouquet of evidence etc.
@@noelwass4738 Thank you. You’re right: Stannard isn’t proving or disproving the existence of God. I rewatched… the discussion points seem to be: Part 1 - Should we demand singular, knock-down ‘proof’ (is this even what science can give us on the big questions) or is it more appropriate that we ‘build a case’? Part 2 - (at the close of the interview) - how is the case we build for God like or unlike the case we build to answer large questions in science? If they are unlike each other in some respects… why should we admit and not dismiss arguments from subjective experience? It’s really a discussion about framing the inquiry (prior to, looking at the evidence).
@@bdnnijs192 agreed. Sometimes the more modest claims and subtle arguments are mishandled as though they were being put forward as a full, direct, ‘proof’ of God (then dismissed as absurd). It seems to me it’s OK sometimes to go one step at a time… almost like climbing a ladder. No single rung gets us to the top ‘all at once’ but it’s a bad reason to throw out your ladder… for the ladder ‘works’ by going 1 modest step at a time.
I don't blame people for reacting badly to religious Dogma, but it's wise to leave God out of human folly....Science is not out to disprove God, but is a path to define God, coherently in whatever way that eventuates based on facts, not belief....
@@roamingwildcampers2745 Nope! The “natural sciences” has limitations. This is philosophy of science 101. Logical positivism and verificationism was demonstrated to be self refuting which is why Karl Popper formulated the principle of falsification and the demarcation line in the first place - yes? Sorry but in its publication (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science), the National Academy of Sciences explicitly asserts that religion and science answer different questions about the world and the fundamental nature of reality: According to the National Academy of Science… "Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science." (National Academy of Science). The academy also points out that the conflict myth between science and faith is exactly that, a myth and a false dichotomy: According to the academy… "Consequently, many people including many scientists, hold strong religious beliefs and simultaneously accept the occurrence of evolution." (National Academy of Science). Look up straw man argument! The irony, of course, is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took no time to turn nothing into everything] - right? A belief that is actually synonymous with the belief in MAGIC at worst and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles - yes? Or even worse a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] - yes? Sorry but I don’t need your “secular” myths nor your “secular” religion to ground metaphysics. That is to ground Truth and value and human dignity and respect. I don’t need your “secular” materialistic quasi religion to know what right and wrong is!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to RIDICULE, GASLIGHT, OR LECTURE A BEREAVED MOTHER during a pandemic whose only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife!! The fact is that the belief that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] is synonymous with the belief in MAGIC - isn’t it? I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!! Do you any atheists in the comments section have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!
If I start with epistemology, as did Descartes (in contrast to beginning with metaphysics as in premodern philosophy), my own consciousness is what i am most sure of. That being the case, it seems to me that a subjective experience in my own consciousness of God would be the most compelling way to be convinced of God's existence.
That definitely is for you, and I discuss why in my books, but the most important part is that your consciousness itself is symbolic of the higher universal consciousness that created nature and universes. This is key. I wrote a book recently about the human eye and its symbolic structure that underlines this. All symbols are smaller, local devices used for communication and coordination. Like your eye and consciousness. In matter, gravity is the “meaning” that assembles, and it is reflected everywhere. Read my book on your eye and you will never look at the universe the same way again I promise you. I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe. I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything. The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning.
@@Isovapor “Should be dismissed without prejudice. Fact!!” Militant atheists and pseudo sceptics are easily triggered by the slightest evidence that a prime reality/ultimate intelligence exists! Fact!! Listening to triggered atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
For one to ask whether god exists or ...not... first the bigger question must be answered. What is god. If god is inside the boundaries of the universe then definitely such a possibility 'can' exist. Why not. If it is beyond then, why are we even bothered with the mental question.
I can definitely answer this question in great technical detail and depth if anyone ever wants to interview me. These are extremely important questions and points that you make!!! ❤ I had to start from the ground up to reformulate everything. Once you start seeing the patterns of symbols you recognize the language and you can actually know these things. Like for sure with actual staggering amounts of evidence literally everywhere: I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe. I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything. The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning. Once you read this book and recover from the shock of your entire life and world being re-defined please do consider helping me with references and citations because I have been through hell and sacrifice for this that most people don’t even imagine. Thank you for your being you, for your absolutely staggeringly beautiful existence! ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥 Much love.
The existence of teleology, or purposeful direction, in the universe is a profound question. At its core lies the most fundamental: why something exists instead of nothing. This question is compounded by the remarkable fact that mathematical concepts, residing in a Platonic realm, possess predictive power over physical phenomena, as evidenced by the universe's evolution. Furthermore, even randomness is underpinned by mathematical models, suggesting an inherent order. The emergence of conscious experience adds another layer of complexity, as it remains unclear how subjective awareness arises from objective reality. Furthermore, the universe lacks fundamental self explanatory-causation, with all phenomena relying on external even metaphysical factors. The limitations of our understanding are perhaps best showrd by Gödel's mathematical paradox, which reveals that mathematical systems require conscious insight or need of " understanding " to overcome their inherent limitations. These considerations collectively contribute to a case of teleology in the universe instead of a brut force that exists for no reason that has no purpose based on an ontological randomness based on not even mathematical fundamental because they are invented not discovered.
Wow, an amazing concise focus on the main issues 😮 ❤ I don’t normally see this. 😊❤ I wanted to help you out with your thinking since you are obviously intelligent and motivated. I wrote my first book 20 years ago on the epistemological teleological aspects of the history of human inquiry. Left graduate school after 4.5 years in the PhD program at Emory University to write that book. My latest book you will be extremely interested in: I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe. I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything. The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning. Meaning is the future progressively symbolized in the now. It’s the buffer of creation we live in. It’s supported by every field of human knowledge and history. This is basically a revolution in thought beyond anything else in history. My book again is: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” it’s on Amazon by S.E. Romer. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can give in helping me get this out. Citations, references 😊 I sacrificed everything in my life for this-not just my PhD (which I didn’t get because I thought everyone was wrong-and that doesn’t fly when everyone is working on grants… and NEVER in the history of anything has a degree ever been awarded for finding new paradigms 😂🤷♀️ There is no degree in that. 😐)
@spiralsun1 I didn't delve deeply into your conjecture about human eyes being a symbolic and real reflection of ontology, but I can say that your idea resonates with me. The notion that human eyes not only symbolize but could also fractally reflect ontology strikes a chord, particularly when considering our eyes as a symbolic means of knowing. They embody the anthropic principle at its best, where the universe factually embodied in us watches itself, understands itself, and may eventually bend its own laws.
@joseleon8235 You are the first person who I have spoken to about these things who actually UNDERSTANDS what I am talking about. It’s pretty much the greatest day of my life right now… 😂🤷♀️ and you are probably just scrolling on your phone… and I have spoken to Nobel Prize winners, and once had a 2-hour conversation with Jordan Peterson one-on-one years ago when he was at Harvard and unknown 😂👍🏻 A mathematician from Caltech who worked with Stephen Wolfram no less, who I am friends with in my MENSA group I pressed to be honest basically said he thought it was crazy BUT also didn’t read the book 🤔 which is weird. People dismiss it before looking through the telescope I constructed (note that beyond my metaphorical use here, telescopes have 2 lenses and we peer through them at the bodies symbolized.. which shows the fractal/holographic nature of our own technological symbolic creations, an example I also use in the book). So I wanted to thank you. I have been alone, lost my family, my home, everything over this. I wanted to let you know what you did for me today: today I received the greatest gift. An intelligent open mind not afraid of new ideas, who obviously loves ideas, and learning like I do. The funny thing is I feel like the higher intelligence which made reality was so beyond lonely making things, traveling for billions of years through all the forms, that this is the greatest gift you could ever give to that higher intelligence in return for life. Understanding. Seeing. Knowing. Epistemology is a holy path, a pilgrimage like the original gamete finding the egg which made you. The sun shines in the heart and we are forced to grow, and the path is old but shining. We are children in this place. Thank you for your life and mind. THANK YOU 🙏🏻 ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥 I wonder who you are in the eyes of society because you are obviously extremely intelligent. But I already know who you are in the eyes of universal mind. 🥰
I hoped more skeptics would be willing to engage at length on this subject but apparently they become more circumspect when challenged to defend their views. I need to make one more general comment about an aspect of this topic that's frequently mentioned as a rebuttal to theism. The notion that belief in God is based on an anthropomorphic desire to project our human desires and latent psychological preferences on the universe, and whether or not this universe is friendly, unfriendly or totally indifferent to human welfare. This line of thinking is rooted in an undeniably real phenomenon. Ascribing human tendencies to nonhuman things is common. We talk to our pets conversationally, albeit briefly. Phrases like "the man in the moon", or "the hand of God" clearly show this tendency. Are we then to assume that all theistic belief is motivated by this conditioned subconscious response? If so then we've just categorically ruled out any possibility of being objective and impartial about anything with a direct bearing on our lives. If our assessment of reality is subliminally conditioned by a biased desire to see or derive a certain outcome favorable to us then where is that dividing line that separates objectivity from subjective predilection? Those who hold that theism is based solely on the human desire to live in a friendly universe fall silent when asked if this mindset holds for all other serious challenges that humans face. For example; humans have shown a willingness, however reluctant to go to war repeatedly in our history. This was and still is based on hard headed realism and a sober acceptance of reality, not anthropomorphic or wishful thinking. For example; most young people fully expect to work and build a life of their own rather than stay with their parents because realism demands or at least prods them to accept responsibility, no anthropomorphic wishful thinking here. I could list dozens and dozens of life experiences that repeatedly drive home the point that there is no free lunch, that no matter how much we wish for a certain outcome, wishing alone will never make it happen. Humans are fully capable of accepting reality on it's terms and not flinching at any form of adversity. This is the story of mankind. Despite the exceptions, humans are mature and realistic in how they view the world, so to say that all belief in a supreme being is based on wishful thinking is specious and unconvincing.
@@michaelmckinney7240 Exactly!! It's not the parts of Darwin’s book the “PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES” that I can't understand and the way this book is worshipped that really creeps me out and makes me cringe, it’s the parts that I do understand!! The irony is that in her books, the prominent intellectual and humanist Mary Midgley points out that the theory of evolution is not only a scientific theory, but also a political one - right? The new middle-class bigoted plutocrats of the so called “ENLIGHTENMENT” period needed a CREATION MYTH for the elites that would explain why they ALONE deserved to rule - right? The answer was Darwin's theory: the “PREFERRED RACES“ and “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST” coined by Herbert Spencer and later expanded by Nietzsches “WILL TO POWER” and the “SOCIAL DARWINISM” adopted by Ernst Haeckel and N A Z I Germany - right? Moreover, the humanist Mary Midgley helpfully points out that Marxism and evolutionism have been the two greatest “FAITHS” of modern times. Both ideologies expressed themselves as superior in “RATIONALITY” to all other philosophies as secular and social religions. Which speaks volumes!! The irony is that Marxism, that is a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or communism in action leads to hundreds of millions of DEATHS and undermines faith in a transcendental outlook, that is undermines human values. Equally, the double irony is that in their self-proclaimed role as the liberators of the working classes, Marxists and Communists spawned the most horrific and most murderous THOUGHT POLICE in history - yes? “Death is the solution to all problems, no man no problem.” - [Joseph Stalin]. There is no HATRED quite like left wing, atheistic so called “liberal” love!!
@@AzimuthTaoWe’re not talking about medicine, which is not a science. Medicine is in a class of its own, though it uses science in practice, biology and chemistry for example.
Before we ask the question wether God exist or not, we need to know what or who God is. I don't think we know. We're trying to get an answer to a question raised on ignorance, religions and belief. No wonder we are confused.
God is an idea, and the ego is also an idea. God is boundless, unchanging source of love, completely separate from the perceived world and its illusions, and the only true reality is within the divine mind of God. The kingdom of God is within everyone but the ego obscures it. The kingdom of God represents a state of pure love, unity, and oneness with the divine, essentially signifying your true, unseparated self, while the ego is a separate, Illusory identity based of fear and separation, creating the perception of individual limitations and the need for control, directly opposing the kingdom's message of love and unity.
"The God Hypothisis"nocks down all other arguments and believe in god is a gestalt experience. I question that a Professor of Physics has any more credibility regarding Gods than I do.
My wife is willing to work for another 5 years if needed. Are we in good shape? Will we be okay if I begin withdrawing from Social Security when I'm 41 and my wife is 40? Should we hire a financial planner to help us navigate this?
These are crucial questions for a financial planner. I met mine at a NYSE summit, and with her help, my wife and I reallocated our $1.7M portfolio between a traditional IRA and a brokerage account. She's been making investments with our approval and has helped us recover twice our losses. We're holding steady and carefully navigating more markets
To the non-believers in the comments. Does it make you feel better to express something you can't prove wrong under a TH-cam video? And don't try the whole burden of proof thing. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and wielding that as your only shield doesn't make your argument any stronger. It’s not about winning or losing-it’s about engaging meaningfully, not just dropping contrarian comments to feel superior.
Whether God exists or not depends on how you define the word God, and that is a complex matter. Put to put it simply, no, God does not exist except in the minds of believers
First there was a beginning. Now there is an image. That image is the morphology of your brain. It is a mathematical formula derived pattern. It has a beginning and an ending. It is simultaneously infinite and finite. As structure it is ( as a transformation) the Bose-Einstein condensate to the largest structures in the universe. There are an infinite number of mathematical formulas and patterns from which to choose ( select). By being in everything it is everywhere. Given its ubiquitousness it can know everything known. Being the structure it makes/creates everything. If I describe a sphere you would not mistake it for the description of a cube. If I described a flower you would not claim that I described a house. Sufficient to the description is the reality.
Let me guess did you make up your faith on your own or was it inherited from hundreds of years of tradition? Before you respond let me remind you that it was the church that gave you the Bible not the other way around.
@@vecumex9466I think you misunderstood the statement. The OP is criticizing religion, not using it as an excuse. I agree, organized religion is just a way to organize and control people. The only true faith is that which you hold personally. You don't need organized religion to have faith in an ultimate Creator. You could isolate a human since birth from all of society, never exposing them to religion, and they will still question where they and everything around them come from, and develop their own beliefs.
many people "know" that they're good singer until they participate in The Voice or Idol competitions and realised all the "know" is just an illusion! man "know" he loves his wife until he meet another woman much prettier and much smarter and more charming!
Now we’re learning that our perception of the universe’s expansion speeding up is possibly an illusion, which is throwing all kinds of standard physics into doubt, yet again. I doubt we will ever be able to look to science for solid answers to these kinds of questions. Faith is necessarily subjective. That much is pretty well explained in the literature for the three big monotheistic religions. My problem with discussions like these is that what people are arguing about is often very different inside their heads. For me, I don’t have any issue with what people choose to believe or how they express their faith, since that has nothing to do with how I live my life. My problem starts where, “institutions,” start exercising power over communities in the name of faith and crossing into politics.
Did god come into existence at some point ? Is God a phenomenon without logicall explanation? Does God need to exist for everything else to exist? Could the universe exist without God?
"Exist" is one extreme. "Doesn't exist" is the other. "Arising, enduring, and ceasing with the arising, enduring, and ceasing of causes" is the right view
(*^^*) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.
This is very enjoyable to listen to. We all try to make sense of the world. We all eventually come to our own conclusions about how we arrive at truth and what we accept as truth. Even then it is not static but changing. There are many facets to what we are prepared to believe, and it appears to be very much an individual experience. Talking about 'love' was amusing to me. It is of course more complex than spoken of. 'Love' is a strong human connection whenever it exists. How does one make it real? For some romantic love happens and for others it does not. It is all part of human experience.
"Does God Exists" Our lost souls were not sent here to know GOD exists... We are here to have a chance TO BELIEVE that a loving GOD exists... Now, applying your good common sense, it is way a lot saner to believe that your "Awareness with Freedom to Choose" could only possibly originate from Aware SOURCE or GOD.. ..but you are always free to choose to believe that you are a conscious produuct of Unconscious Bigbang out of NOTHING... The free will to choose covers everything, including the freedom to choose to be stoopid...
Fact based on evidence or fiction based on intuition. They are all constructs of the mind. Reality is never what it appears to be when we paint over what we choose to ignore. Like thousands of documented reincarnation cases, past life memories and near death experiences. We opt for the safety of conformed opinion. Reality, after all, is only the reality that we made up and concluded within our own minds, not the reality that actually exists, but our interpretation of it.
You can believe or not believe, but it is beyond human capability to know. And this applies not only to the concept of a Creator but in the origin of the universe and everything we know in all existence in general. It's fish in a fishbowl trying to reason what is beyond the fishbowl.
Yes he's right that all of his arguments can be knocked down because they are without exception flawed in one way or another. Notice just how many times he says he _feels_ this or that. Feeling something is true isn't a good reason to believe that it's true & feeling that you're never alone doesn't mean that's a good reason to think that you're not alone. He spoke of loving his wife but I would bet he has _good_ reasons for doing so which can all be seen by anyone who seeing how she acts but nobody can show that that any of the many gods claimed to exist is even there & they can't all be real however they certainly can all _seem_ to be in various _different_ cultural circumstances can't they?
It’s absurd to think there is some eternal existent person or personality that creates the universe and billions of souls for his own satisfaction and entertainment. The real question humans are asking is there an eternal persistence of our consciousness and personality. The western monotheism was preceded by the spiritual existence of many eternal spirits or gods.
Despite the fact, I’ve encountered religious arguments for many decades, I’m still astonished at how bad the reasoning offered often is. This gentleman’s arguments are just mind-boggling awful . For instance, that hoary old apologetic trope “ we can’t prove that we love somebody; therefore it’s OK to believe in God, even though we can’t prove God” is ridiculous. They are completely different situations . If Russel was going to convince me, he loves his wife … of course he could convince me of that! First of all, he could easily demonstrate that he actually has a wife, by presenting her to me. Secondly, she could list all the way in which Russel indicates he loves her, and Russel himself could list many of the ways as well. I would have no reason to doubt them and every reason to believe them . Because people love each other all the time. It’s hardly some extraordinary claim. And they would be giving me the type of evidence of how people act when they love one another. Can they “prove” this to me such that I can have absolute certainty? Of course not. But that’s a complete red herring. we don’t have that in any of our inferences. We simply look at the evidence we have suggests, and make conclusions on that unless some counter evidence or better explanation is presented. So yes, of course Russ could demonstrate he loves his wife. And it can be demonstrated that what is eliciting, or is the object of his love, actually exists: his wife. On the other hand , he’s making a claim to “ know” God exists, without any demonstration of this or any good reason to think it is true. The analogy to loving his wife, certainly doesn’t give any strength to this claim as we’ve seen, and all he’s got is that “ I just know,” which is about the most naïve possible stance. Has Russel suddenly forgotten human fallibility? Has he taken into account just how often people are wrong when they think they “ know” something? There are people who fall in love with fictional characters in literature . They “ know” they feel love for this character… what does that mean? The character is therefore real? Of course not. How exactly does Russel ‘s confidence in his “ knowledge of God” square with the gazillion people who have different and contrasting claims of “ knowledge.” Plenty of people feel they absolutely no their particular God exists, which would be in contradiction to Russel’s claimed God. There have been countless people who have “ just known as a fact” that their cult leader was divine. It’s something they “ knew” whether they could convince you or not. Does that equate to their belief being justified? Or take the atheist who feels or believes in his bones that there is “ no one there” in terms of a God. How does Russel’s experiential “ knowledge” trump any of these? Of course, it doesn’t at all. Russel is just another example of how belief in God and religion basically exists in the mushiness of human thinking .
And to add to your point, Russell is equivocating between knowing feelings and knowing truths about the external world. The only way to know your own feelings or sensations is by introspecting. However, when it comes to truths about the external world, there are other ways to know them. The methodology is different. So, he is engaging in a category error here by applying a methodology of knowing feelings (i.e., introspection) to a context where we should use empiricism (i.e., where sensory perception and reason have to be employed).
@@QuintEssential-sz2wnSuppose there is a group of people sleeping (maybe small or any large number), so now, one person woke up, so my question is, Can he explain what is wakefulness to those who are sleeping? Certainly not. Next after sometime, another one woke up...now will he raise any question about wakefulness? Certainly not. The same thing is about God. You may counter argue, one may stir up sleeping guys & make them realise, hey buddy, the state you are in now is called wakefulness. In physical realms, yes this is true but in divine realms, preceding logic holds, that God realisation is too personal thing.
@ you don’t seem to realize that the type of logic you are presenting could be used to justify literally any possible crazy belief. “ I just know it’s true, too bad for you if you haven’t woken up!” And you’ve completely ignored the actual context of such God claims , which is the context of countless people believing “ I know something” and being wrong, and this includes countless propositions that are logically contradictory with what other people think they “ know” and that is especially true in the realm of religion. If one of the features of being human is to be fallible in our beliefs , and you are a human, then you are fallible in your beliefs, And so you should approach your own beliefs with a level of skepticism, marathon simply accepting them, and therefore investigate how well your belief fits within the wider set of observations. Your logic may as well lead somebody on LSD to think it’s justified to believe “ the moon really is conscious and loves me” The fact that people have completely contradictory beliefs formed on LSD …who cares?
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn Look up appeal to incredulity fallacy and appeal to “MUSHINESS” fallacy - yes? By the way you just totally and utterly refuted yourself. Even the prescriptive laws of logic, inductive reasoning, cause and effect, sensory data, empiricism, the myth of the given, freewill, that is rational decision making itself, the ultimate axiological is “MUSHY” using your ultimately meaningless, arbitrary, subjective standard. Listening to triggered atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” and preaching about the dangers of “MUSHINESS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
0:46 RS: I think when you ask that sort of question you might be looking for some kind of evidence which is absolutely knockdown proof you know that's happens therefore you must believ in God it's certainly true that in science there are occasions when things are absolutely clearcut you know so and so exists therefore it follows but even in science there are situations particularly if you're dealing with the big questions like how did universe begin how did humans evolve um it's not like that you can't pin everything on a piece of knock down evidence and it's a bit like that with God whawt you have to do is to build up a case for example in sciecne if you all of the scientists now believe that the world began with a big bang now why where's the knockdown truth well all the galaxies are moving apart from each other and the further away the galaxies the faster they're receding into the distance so if you run the tape backwards everything was squashed to gether to a point therefore a big bang took place no because when that was the only pieces of evidence there were many people who subscribed to a different cosmology what was called the steady state 2:15 theory where all right things expanded but new matter formed and new galaxies where formed and so the general picture always remained the same there was there was no beginning point so then not everyone was convinced what then happened was that if there had been a big bang one could argue well it would be very violent there would be a blinding flash of light and that light must be around in the unviverse somewhere cooled down now and when you look sure enough you see it it's the cosmic micowave background radiation so 2:52 multiple pieces of evidence RS: so that's the second piece of evidence and then you say well okay um that then is the
＼(^-^)／ We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
:-) Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean there is a God in the Christian sense nor does that indicate any after life, without an after life why would God have any meaning to us?
It shouldn't have any meaning for us. We should live our lives in accordance with our nature, cooperate and strive for a better functioning society and harmony with nature. Belif in god and especially worshipping god are completely unnecessary. Afterlife is totally irrelevant. Afterlife is just an invention of humans created out of fear of life and death. We should live our lives here to the best of our abilities, there is nothing more important than this experience now.
It's a delight, a great joy, to seek God. Learning about science, theology, field theory, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophia, scripture(Greek, Indian, and Egyptian), is a lot of fun, figuring out enigmas, recollecting deeper meaning - the very fact of deeper meaning is an inner impetus. Everybody, as they were growing up and go through life, there's a change in perception and perspective, and why should this ever come to an end, rather why not continue on. Because we come in to being, i.e., life, therefore who wouldn't seek their Source.... you know, people there are who state that others believe in God and an afterlife, so to console their minds....if you were to ask me, really, truely seeking God is, to me, terrifying; even daunting, for any such beliefs I once had are now gone - up is no longer up, down is no longer down, what something seems is no longer what it seemed. This is what others are afraid of. Nobody likes change or lost and we all cleave to what's familiar to us, thus we find our identify in it such things but really they're delusion.
Could a baby's@new born developed "speaking@language" by itself without mimicking their ancestor/parents ? It's started from Adam&Eave, and we are mimicking both of them. Peace be upon ya'll and assalamualaiqum wmt
I wish you could have asked Alan Watts. Everthing would be clear. I give you one alternative: Even just sitting there without speaking any word would be another answer. It's way way more simple than you think.
The big bang happens forever. One happens and then it does its thing and it ends in its mission completed. And then what after that ? Does this way go on and on for eternity. Or does it. But all this proves a physical plane. Ever changing continually. On God's wish and will. But definitely there is something more to what we know and experienced.
G- Generator O- Organiser D- Destroyer Generator is Lord Brambhya 4 headed Organiser is Lord Vishnu Destroyer is Lord Shiva This is the basic Hindu cosmology. Legendary Astrophysicist Carl Sagan explained it briefly in a TV Series.
Universe can’t exist from nothing according to thermodynamics laws. A creator not created must be existing. That represents a self referential paradox. Logic suggests a resolution to this paradox by stating that the uncreated creator must be outside on the whole universe boundaries. An uncreated creator exists out of universe and created the universe is proven by logic/science.
@@VeljaPopovIt's actually plausible. It's a fact that nothing inside this universe can exist without a cause. Outside this universe? Well, we don't know. Things could have completely different rules, if there is indeed more beyond the confines of this universe. Two of things are certain. One, nothing can exist within this universe without a cause. Two, God, if God exists, cannot exist within this universe because in order for there to be God, there must be an uncaused cause, which can't exist in this universe. Outside of this universe, nothing is certain. So my points don't answer anything (not that anyone ever has or could answer the question of existence), but they do set some boundaries. In conclusion, God CAN exist, and if so must be outside of this universe, and because of this, we can't ever prove it. Outside of the universe is like the singularity inside the black hole. We can theorize all we want about it, but can never reach it
@@100percentSNAFU exactly, if we don't know then we say we don't know. We don't make claims based on our personal beliefs and feelings. In the same way we can say cookie monster outside of everything is creating everything. Basically everything we think of is possible, but we still don't know and have no evidence, so to claim that we know is just ridiculous and childish. Especially if we understand how beliefs in gods were formed in the first place. It's in the same way possible that the universe itself is intelligent and infinite and that it always existed in some form. That everything is the universe and it works according to its own laws. In that case it would be something like the idea of pantheism. So everything is possible but we just don't know. So scientists say we don't know but we'll suspend our beliefs until we have proof for whatever. Believers on the other hand say we know for sure, it's god. And on top of that they say we even know what god is and what are his attributes. Now that's pure nonsense.
@@100percentSNAFU if I would rephrase the argument saying that it is impossible to have GOD/creator within the boundary of our universe, and impossible to exist without a cause, couldn’t be that leading to the conclusion stating the needed proof of GOD existence outside of our universe boundary.
Oh the irony!! The irony is that according to one of the fathers of analytical psychology Carl Jung wether you are an atheist, agnostic, deist, panentheist, panpsychist or theist etc what we all share is an hierarchy of values and what ever is at the top of that hierarchy of values functions as “God” for you. It may be a “god” that you don’t believe in or a “God” that you can’t name but it is irrelevant. Because the fact is that what ever you think about this concept, highest value, ground of all being/prime reality at the top of your hierarchy of values has very little impact on how your “god” is acting in you!! The irony and the absurdity, of course is that there are plenty of creation myths that is plenty of “atheistic gods” to choose from. The most popular ones being the worship of nature and the worship of scientism and your own “superior atheistic intelligence” - yes? Especially if you worship a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism. There was also the worship of the atheist god of the Big Bounce, The Bubble universe god, The atheistic god of the eternal Steady State universe used to be quite popular until the “Big Bang” came along and burst that little bubble - right? Then there was the Black Hole universe god, Simulation universe god, Flat Earth universe, Plasma electric universe, The gods of Electric light Orchestra universe etc. Not to mention the atheists currently very popular God of the mystical, magical, invisible multiverse!! The list of gods of relativism/ gods of atheism goes on but some of us just go one god of relativism/atheism further by believing that the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea just unwittingly created everything - yes? Basically, militant atheists deny one less god of relativism/one less god of atheism than theists do. Militant atheists don't believe in the 4300 gods of relativism/atheism debunked by real science and theists don't believe in just one more god of atheism/god of relativism!! Gotcha!! drum roll, kerching (Applause).
Probably not. Stop making assumptions about unprovable things and go and live your life. The answer that claims to explain everything doesn’t explain anything.
Oh the irony!! You just totally and utterly refuted your self!! That’s a universal truth claim buddy? CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!! Listening to militant atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!! Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!
Just another smart man who wants to believe in god and therefore comes up with really poor evidence to justify his believe. I mean, if the evidence is how it makes him feel and that it just makes sense is a lot like how the Vikings felt about Thor.
Evidence for God: • Design • Morality • Meaning • Information • Rationality • Knowledge • Intelligibility • Laws of logic • Consciousness • Identity over time • Uniformity of nature • Existence of anything • Beginning of the universe • Impossibility of the contrary • Near death experiences
@@beemersboomersandbrews8206 More like everything you do understand. You choose not to believe that it comes from God. You are so close minded that you turn your head to all the evidence. It’s a choice
It's not a scientific question, it isn't falsifiable. You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe, just don't pretend it's a question that could ever be answered with evidence, because it can't. I choose evidence first.
“I choose evidence first” Oh the irony!! The irony and the absurdity, of course, is that the statement "We should only accept that which can be empirically evidenced using the “natural sciences" is itself a statement that cannot be empirically proven using the “natural sciences” - right? Hence, if it's true, it's false. A self-refuting statement! Equally, you can’t empirically prove empiricism. You can’t prove sense data using sense data. The belief that the external world is providing accurate information about reality and existence is a philosophical presupposition, that is a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category right? You just totally and utterly refuted yourself! According to the Nobel prize winner Sir William Bragg…. “Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - (Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics). Furthermore, despite appearances, the “natural sciences” offers no certainty. Decades of progress in the philosophy of science have led us to accept that our prevailing scientific understanding is a limited time offer, valid only until a new observation or experiment proves that it’s not. Equally, it is impossible even to formulate a scientific theory without philosophical presuppositions, that is without metaphysical presuppositions and transcendental categories such as Truth itself, that is value claims, ought claims, absolutes and universals, including abstract, immaterial, invariant conceptual realities such as the prescriptive laws of logic!! The fact is that it turns out to be impossible even to formulate a scientific theory without metaphysics, without first assuming some things we can’t actually prove, such as the existence of an objective reality, conscious agents/FREEWILL, that is RATIONAL DECISION MAKING ITSELF, inductive reasoning, identity over time, empiricism the myth of the given, the ultimate axiological etc!! The list goes on. Classical materialism is DEAD!! I rest my case!!
Thoughts about God are one of the earliest thoughts of humans, at least. Because thoughts about God are hardwired in our brains. Because God is our Creator and imprinted thoughts about Him in our minds.
There’s no evidence whatsoever to support your conclusion. The only evidence we have of gods show up 40,000 years ago, about 260,000 years after our species.
"...Does God Exist?..." If it were conscious enough and could ponder such things, a human embryo - suspended in the amniotic water of its mother's womb - might ask: "...Does my 'mother' exist?..." Well, I suggest that we are all in that exact same situation right now relative to God.
@@jimliu2560 Do you mean the human "science" that doesn't know what 96% of the universe is made of? Besides, the "familial" connection between our souls and that of the greater SOUL of this universe will be made clear to us after we cross the threshold of death.
He is a very respectful honorable scientist man .. but a feel his religious childhood .. He believes that BigBang as a fact is answer to this crazy universe .. theory of god is absolutely obsolete as we conceive the Universe right now .. we are far away from anthropomorphism biases.. religion at first years of conscience is a devastating recurring old focus ..
Contrary to the video, the universe isn't fine tuned for life. The universe is fine tuned for....universe as we know it. Without the existing fine tuning no formation of atoms, no formation of stars !
The Creator sits back sipping tasty fruit juice icecream, some cheese crackers & a red button under the table ". Says.... " Look at those little insects I made sitting there chatting ..is there a God?". Naaa...I won't press the red button, I'm in a good mood, they amuse me...until I'm bored with them !!!
I thought the holidays were a time for resting (the brain in particular) not philosophizing; spending time with loved one? That's why it is a bit odd to bring up such a question today
@@sujok-acupuncture9246I don't know if the gods ever are born into mortal men, but man is related to the gods, for in the upanishads declare: indra as the sun is linked to the eye of man, and atman the very seer or witness of the eye. Through the pranas, there is Vayu....many organs of man are related to a gods. But I imagine your comment refers to Christ as God incarnate, so the Christians believe. The knowledge depths of christ are deep, as he's an avatara like many in hinduism, but God couldn't ever become a mere mortal, but his spirit, sure, and it's through this spirit that we come to....
For believers It becomes increasingly more difficult to prove, or even give a semi-coherent explanation of the invisible sky-god. After all the talk the professor came up with a good old "I don't feel alone" and "subjective does not mean its wrong". Weak tea.
Personally, I don't care so long as we keep church and state separate. And keep God out of science. It's not does God exist - but do you believe that God exists?
Stannard demonstrates the difficulty of trying to prove something he already believes in, trying to fit the evidence into his beliefs. It should be about following the evidence where it takes you.
...Man's learning is so short of a in Time, I think everyone needs to relax and see how knowledge will increase. GOD & all sciences will co-exist in marvelous harmony resulting in Perfect Eternity living with & encapsulated with GOD'S Love, respectfully ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis... you tube... Blessings...
The preponderance of *ALL* the evidences gathered from within the factual reality of *ALL* the sciences, i.e. geology, biology, philosophy, mathematics, physics, genetics, chemistry and anthropology, etc., proves beyond *ALL* doubt that the universe was “Intelligently Designed” and Created in and by the mind of the Judeo-Christian GOD.
@@barry.anderberg It's self evidently uninformed because you neither know the nature of consciousness nor that of matter from which you can derive any meaningful inference about which precedes which. On top of that you've got the 'simple' fact that the singular example of consciousness we're aware of appears to be the emergent product of, and wholly reliant on, pre-existing material systems and so inferring that consciousness is the precursor is even less well grounded.
@sierrabianca Nonsense. All of the evidence for emergence is equally evidence for idealism or the thesis that the brain is what localizes consciousness as a radio localizes radio waves
Just an idea: This celestial object that attracted me in quantum state is a data store, and I suspect they're many in the Universe. Our quantum replica could be transferred anywhere in the Universe where there are conditions - in our case, where there are phosphates, our earthly bio cannot do without phosphates. Nitrogen is everywhere but phosphates are only in the vicinity where a super nova had exploded.
Believe whatever you want. But if you want to use that belief to dictate how others should live, you ought to have evidence or reasoned support for that belief. It's really that simple.
Exactly!! Totally agree. The fact is that militant atheism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is a CULT MOVEMENT hidden behind the cloak of “rationality” and scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacies, that constantly uses anti religious Soviet hate propaganda left over from the Cold War. That is history revisionism and dishonest memes and buzz words to mock, badger and demonise anyone who challenges its secular myths and metaphysical presuppositions. Militant atheism is no different to debating a recruiter from the church of Scientology who just won’t leave you alone!!
One hundred and ten percent correct. The comparison with trying to prove real and deeply felt love is an apt one because a love profoundly felt cannot be seen to outsiders. What is subjective to others is often what is the most deeply felt reality to us Russell is 💯% right 👏👌
@@VeljaPopov that is not what is being said. Logic doesn't help when talking about God. What is being said is that subjectivity should not be considered as lack of credibility or validity when dealing with the nature of love or that of God.
@@catherinemira75 it absolutely should, because your thoughts will give you the experience of what you believe in. So if you for some reason, that is because of your psychological conditioning, believe in god you can have that experience. But that is just because you believe in that, or it is implemented into your subconscious, again by programming in your life, thorough parents, education, culture, society etc.
@@VeljaPopov Your inaccurate reference to what Stannard said is apparent. His point was that he loves his wife and if prodded to explain why, he might list a number of reasons that to an observer may sound trite. Mr. Stannard accepts this as valid from the observers point of view and yet just as valid is his subjective certainty that he in fact does love his wife, and he is making a perfectly logical statement in saying as much. Stannard never said anything about making something a reality by "loving" that person or thing. You, and no one else is making this false analogy. Yes you're right no matter how much I love Santa Clause, I don't expect to see him coming down the chimney. All Stannard is saying is there's a subjective element to this question that shouldn't be so easily dismissed and it's shared and experienced by hundreds and hundreds of millions of people daily.
“Feel like you’re talking to someone.” Lmao I thought this guy was a scientist. Bigfoot is real because it feels like I’m talking to him. I know Bigfoot is real because I can feel it just like I love my dog.
It's fair to say that the Abrahamic gods and others don't exist. A creator god is a lazy way of making sense of things that happened billions of years ago.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
Until you define what you mean by "God" in a precise way, what is it, what properties does it have, the conversation is essentially meaningless. What does it mean to assert that some undefined entity "exists"?
They also need to define what they mean by "exists." Existence suggests elements, compounds, particles, stuff, etc.
@@browngreen933 Existence might not just mean physical stuff. It could also include other things that manifest in nature like time, entropy, purpose, order as well as desires, morality, and aesthetical qualities (beauty, goodness, love, etc.) Even material "stuff" has immaterial qualities like spin, momentum, charge, particleness (for lack of a better word).
@@logosao88 Yes, but all the things you mention are either attributes of physical things (beauty, goodness, etc) or need physical things to make any sense (time). No matter how hard we try, we cannot escape the physical world.
@@browngreen933
“Attributes of physical things”
Nope!! Sorry but no one has ever empirically observed “physical stuff”, that is no one has ever observed “matter” outside and independent of mind and consciousness, for we are forever locked in the fundamental primitive, that is any “empirical” observation is forever locked in mind and consciousness - yes? That is we are locked is soul/self. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally and consciously perceived - right?
We usually infer the unknown from the known not the unknown, that is “matter”. No one even knows what “matter
even is. So appealing to “physicalism” reverses the logical direction of inference!!
According to the expert linguist and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky…
“There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky).
The irony is that quantum mechanics and in particular quantum superposition has actually demonstrated that classical materialism is dead, that is classical physicalism is dead!!
Equally, according to Scientific American…
“Atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of “physical” reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”-abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.” (Scientific American). Ouch!!
God is reality in its totality.
If you arr looking for an interesting logical argument for the existence of god, save yourself the time and skip this video. There is nothing in terms of evidence or compelling arguments. It’s just a declaration of blind faith.
You may disagree with the logic of Mr Stannard's statements but you are completely wrong about no evidence to support the claim of God's existence. The evidence is very compelling and it's all based on hard science. It's not that the evidence doesn't exist, it's just that you are unaware of it.
12
Arr...avast ye maties! 🏴☠️🦜
@@michaelmckinney7240Not only there is no evidence, but there can’t be evidence because the claims of the bible and early christianity are incoherent and impossible, as well as being clearly silly and childish. On top of that, you wouldn’t want to believe them anyway, because Jesus philosophy is completely awful and shouldn’t be followed by any rational person who values reason, logic, individual rights, private property rights, productivity, or achievement. Jesus is a total loser as far as relating or suggesting a good way to live this life.
Well, the video doesn’t make an individual argument for God’s existence like one of Aquinas’s five ways or whatever. But it does make an interesting suggestion about how to think about approaching the entire body of arguments. Definitely not a blind declaration of faith.
I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe.
I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything.
The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning.
I will add that we do not yet even know where consciousness comes from. There seems to be a quantum fabric connecting the universe that we don't fully understand. We are still learning about the makeup of the particles that make up everything. We can't even fully explain a neutron. Personally I go with experience I'm a better person connected to God than without. 🤔🙏⚛️
You’re more connected than you think.
I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe.
I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything.
The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning.
Believing, as many scientists do, that the universe was created out of "nothing" seems to me just as difficult as believing in a higher power creating the world we live in. (Creation from a quantum fluctuation does not count as that would be "something" and not nothing. The question would then be what created the quantum base in which or from which the fluctuation occurred.)
Agreed. Belief in "something from nothing" creates a causal paradox.
Build up a case? You can't argue God/gods into existence.
No need to argue. God is.
Only in so far as one would need to personally, I suppose? You cannot argue deities into someone else’s belief system, but you can rationalise your own. It strikes me that one should never need to either. It is only due to the fact that, “institutions,” exist that such debates become necessary to some, important to all of us.
I live in a country where the most senior clerics in the land are automatically granted seats in Parliament, provided they are clerics of the, “correct,” religions, by mere dint of representing their church. This is an unrepresentative state of affairs (especially given historically low church attendance and the population’s self reported beliefs) in what we call a, “constitutional monarchy,” and a modern democracy.
So we still cannot afford to ignore the beliefs of others. At least, not so long as they are making decisions that effect us all.
@tomlee2651 Of course, you can't argue God / gods into existence; but I don't think that's what he's attempting to do. It seems to me-just like in his analogy of the evidence for the Big Bang-that he is simply updating his _degree of belief_ in God as new evidence presents itself.
@@Ekam-Sat
You mean your concept of a god is ?
Abiogenesis fails
The definition of faith is to believe something without this 'knock down' proof. Works for him and I respect that as long as he doesn't try and dictate it to me :)
Faith = belief with no evidence.
I can understand that people may not find this man’s conclusion compelling or justified. But what does he demonstrate compellingly? To me:
1. That not everything we accept as true is (or can be) established by a singular knock-down argument (as it sometimes is in the hard sciences).
(This ought to effect whether we expect all matters, including God’s existence to be established ‘scientifically’)
2. Even in these sciences, accepted conclusions are often established on the basis of a compelling ‘bouquet of evidence’ rather than by a singular irrefutable proof.
(If we are demanding a proof on par with agreed science this ought to make us rethink whether singular irrefutable evidence is even what agreed science demands or provides).
3. Some claims that are true (subjective claims) cannot be empirically established but are nonetheless true.
(This ought to make us rethink the role of subjectivity in relation to truth claims that are privately but not empirically accessible. It’s also a straightforward refutation that everything true is scientifically accessible and can be scientifically established).
On this final point, it is interesting to me that in terms of consciousness, we cannot even establish that we exist (in the sense Descartes meant-self awareness-I think therefore I am) scientifically or from an exterior vantage; this knowledge is only accessible to us privately and from the inside.
Again, it’s totally valid to say, point 1, if true, doesn’t prove God. Point 2, if true, doesn’t prove God. Point 3., if true doesn’t prove God.
But if we don’t pause to think through what we mean by ‘demanding proof’ and what such proof might appropriately be after 1,2 and 3 we’re not engaging with the argument.
If 3 doesn’t prove God what does it prove? How does that relate to a demand for scientific proof of God? These are not irrelevant questions to the conversation, (even if they don’t establish God’s existence).
Excellent analysis here. This man (Russell Stannard) was not claiming to prove or disprove the existence of God. Point 3 was the main point I was thinking about, but all your points are valid. Some of the comments have the wrong understanding on what he is claiming.
That's why the internet is filled with people rambling about the existence of banana's. Rarely is there a single knock down argument. Even in hard sciences there is a bouquet of evidence etc.
So the most honest answer is...I don't know if God exist.
@@noelwass4738 Thank you. You’re right: Stannard isn’t proving or disproving the existence of God. I rewatched… the discussion points seem to be:
Part 1 - Should we demand singular, knock-down ‘proof’ (is this even what science can give us on the big questions) or is it more appropriate that we ‘build a case’?
Part 2 - (at the close of the interview) - how is the case we build for God like or unlike the case we build to answer large questions in science? If they are unlike each other in some respects… why should we admit and not dismiss arguments from subjective experience?
It’s really a discussion about framing the inquiry (prior to, looking at the evidence).
@@bdnnijs192 agreed. Sometimes the more modest claims and subtle arguments are mishandled as though they were being put forward as a full, direct, ‘proof’ of God (then dismissed as absurd). It seems to me it’s OK sometimes to go one step at a time… almost like climbing a ladder. No single rung gets us to the top ‘all at once’ but it’s a bad reason to throw out your ladder… for the ladder ‘works’ by going 1 modest step at a time.
I don't blame people for reacting badly to religious Dogma, but it's wise to leave God out of human folly....Science is not out to disprove God, but is a path to define God, coherently in whatever way that eventuates based on facts, not belief....
Abiogenesis fails
@@roamingwildcampers2745
Nope! The “natural sciences” has limitations. This is philosophy of science 101. Logical positivism and verificationism was demonstrated to be self refuting which is why Karl Popper formulated the principle of falsification and the demarcation line in the first place - yes?
Sorry but in its publication (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science), the National Academy of Sciences explicitly asserts that religion and science answer different questions about the world and the fundamental nature of reality: According to the National Academy of Science…
"Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science." (National Academy of Science).
The academy also points out that the conflict myth between science and faith is exactly that, a myth and a false dichotomy: According to the academy…
"Consequently, many people including many scientists, hold strong religious beliefs and simultaneously accept the occurrence of evolution." (National Academy of Science). Look up straw man argument!
The irony, of course, is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took no time to turn nothing into everything] - right? A belief that is actually synonymous with the belief in MAGIC at worst and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles - yes?
Or even worse a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] - yes?
Sorry but I don’t need your “secular” myths nor your “secular” religion to ground metaphysics. That is to ground Truth and value and human dignity and respect. I don’t need your “secular” materialistic quasi religion to know what right and wrong is!!
I wouldn’t have the arrogance to RIDICULE, GASLIGHT, OR LECTURE A BEREAVED MOTHER during a pandemic whose only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife!!
The fact is that the belief that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] is synonymous with the belief in MAGIC - isn’t it?
I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!!
Do you any atheists in the comments section have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!
If I start with epistemology, as did Descartes (in contrast to beginning with metaphysics as in premodern philosophy), my own consciousness is what i am most sure of. That being the case, it seems to me that a subjective experience in my own consciousness of God would be the most compelling way to be convinced of God's existence.
Or at least convinced of your capacity to imagine a god.
@@jonnanderson6489 Since you have no access to my consciousness you'll never know either way.
@@jonnanderson6489 And since you have no access to my consciousness you will never be able to evaluate my experience either way.
@@James-v1o True
That definitely is for you, and I discuss why in my books, but the most important part is that your consciousness itself is symbolic of the higher universal consciousness that created nature and universes. This is key. I wrote a book recently about the human eye and its symbolic structure that underlines this. All symbols are smaller, local devices used for communication and coordination. Like your eye and consciousness. In matter, gravity is the “meaning” that assembles, and it is reflected everywhere. Read my book on your eye and you will never look at the universe the same way again I promise you.
I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe.
I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything.
The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning.
Which god/God is it this time? Mine, yours, or that of a random person?
Why is it that the so-called "intelligent believers" always twist themselves into philosophical pretzels to explain their belief in God?
Excuses for the lack of evidence for his god is not evidence for anything and should be dismissed immediately without prejudice. Fact!
@@Isovapor
“Should be dismissed without prejudice. Fact!!”
Militant atheists and pseudo sceptics are easily triggered by the slightest evidence that a prime reality/ultimate intelligence exists! Fact!!
Listening to triggered atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
For one to ask whether god exists or ...not... first the bigger question must be answered. What is god.
If god is inside the boundaries of the universe then definitely such a possibility 'can' exist. Why not.
If it is beyond then, why are we even bothered with the mental question.
Weak sauce!
I can definitely answer this question in great technical detail and depth if anyone ever wants to interview me. These are extremely important questions and points that you make!!! ❤ I had to start from the ground up to reformulate everything. Once you start seeing the patterns of symbols you recognize the language and you can actually know these things. Like for sure with actual staggering amounts of evidence literally everywhere:
I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe.
I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything.
The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning.
Once you read this book and recover from the shock of your entire life and world being re-defined please do consider helping me with references and citations because I have been through hell and sacrifice for this that most people don’t even imagine. Thank you for your being you, for your absolutely staggeringly beautiful existence! ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥 Much love.
Energy can not be adequately defined and finite beings can not understand an infinite power.
The existence of teleology, or purposeful direction, in the universe is a profound question. At its core lies the most fundamental: why something exists instead of nothing. This question is compounded by the remarkable fact that mathematical concepts, residing in a Platonic realm, possess predictive power over physical phenomena, as evidenced by the universe's evolution. Furthermore, even randomness is underpinned by mathematical models, suggesting an inherent order. The emergence of conscious experience adds another layer of complexity, as it remains unclear how subjective awareness arises from objective reality. Furthermore, the universe lacks fundamental self explanatory-causation, with all phenomena relying on external even metaphysical factors. The limitations of our understanding are perhaps best showrd by Gödel's mathematical paradox, which reveals that mathematical systems require conscious insight or need of " understanding " to overcome their inherent limitations. These considerations collectively contribute to a case of teleology in the universe instead of a brut force that exists for no reason that has no purpose based on an ontological randomness based on not even mathematical fundamental because they are invented not discovered.
Wow, an amazing concise focus on the main issues 😮 ❤ I don’t normally see this. 😊❤ I wanted to help you out with your thinking since you are obviously intelligent and motivated. I wrote my first book 20 years ago on the epistemological teleological aspects of the history of human inquiry. Left graduate school after 4.5 years in the PhD program at Emory University to write that book. My latest book you will be extremely interested in:
I have been writing about the evidence for 30 years. People don’t have a framework for understanding the higher mind. It’s not the proof of whether you love your wife, it’s the invisible meaning between words, the unity and coherence of things that shows a higher mind at work. Science oddly enough cannot ever show the meaning between words-the unity we call meaning. Start there-it’s the same problem as the “binding problem” in neuroscience. Eventually I found that “extraordinary evidence” in the human eye-not in the hand-waving “complexity” touted by religious people, but the actual symbolic value of everything in the universe.
I wrote a 100-page book about JUST the inherent symbolism of the human eye. It’s not just something projected onto it by a human-because the symbolism is technically related to the functioning of the universe. Long before science ever discovered it. Only recently has science allowed decoding and it signals a new era for life on earth. The eye symbolizes the sun (whites of the eye), the Earth (Earth tones of the iris, or the Earth seen from space in Europeans blue eyes) and a singularity (pupil as black hole that draws light in). The decoding method is built into the geometric shapes of the eye 👁️ which is two overlapping circles intersecting and then the lens as a 3-d version with two spheres overlapping. We see through the sun and Earth. And in the spirit of this discussion in this video in regard to the Big Bang, this is definitely not the only piece of evidence. I figured out WHY, and how it relates to the shapes of everything else-at least every single symbol I have decoded so far. The entire human body, the development in the womb, everything. We live in symbolic structures and the Earth itself is a symbolic structure. It tells us who we are, as living communication from universal mind that shapes everything.
The book on the eye: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” is worth reading because it’s actually true. It’s hard to imagine how it all works together because we don’t normally think about nature and the universe as symbolic, or if we do, we try to relate it to our own particular lives-not a higher mind. It solves a lot of problems in every area of science like heliocentrism solved the errors in orbits, but it connects all areas of human inquiry and fits them perfectly into a single frame. It is absolutely the future of human thought and the next step or level we were meant to reach. Meaning drives everything. Evolution ultimately is shaped by meaning-even though it has to have something surviving in order to build. So it’s vitally important to understand this, take it into account. All life ultimately depends on coherent meaning.
Meaning is the future progressively symbolized in the now. It’s the buffer of creation we live in. It’s supported by every field of human knowledge and history. This is basically a revolution in thought beyond anything else in history.
My book again is: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” it’s on Amazon by S.E. Romer. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can give in helping me get this out. Citations, references 😊 I sacrificed everything in my life for this-not just my PhD (which I didn’t get because I thought everyone was wrong-and that doesn’t fly when everyone is working on grants… and NEVER in the history of anything has a degree ever been awarded for finding new paradigms 😂🤷♀️ There is no degree in that. 😐)
@spiralsun1 I didn't delve deeply into your conjecture about human eyes being a symbolic and real reflection of ontology, but I can say that your idea resonates with me. The notion that human eyes not only symbolize but could also fractally reflect ontology strikes a chord, particularly when considering our eyes as a symbolic means of knowing. They embody the anthropic principle at its best, where the universe factually embodied in us watches itself, understands itself, and may eventually bend its own laws.
@joseleon8235 You are the first person who I have spoken to about these things who actually UNDERSTANDS what I am talking about. It’s pretty much the greatest day of my life right now… 😂🤷♀️ and you are probably just scrolling on your phone… and I have spoken to Nobel Prize winners, and once had a 2-hour conversation with Jordan Peterson one-on-one years ago when he was at Harvard and unknown 😂👍🏻 A mathematician from Caltech who worked with Stephen Wolfram no less, who I am friends with in my MENSA group I pressed to be honest basically said he thought it was crazy BUT also didn’t read the book 🤔 which is weird. People dismiss it before looking through the telescope I constructed (note that beyond my metaphorical use here, telescopes have 2 lenses and we peer through them at the bodies symbolized.. which shows the fractal/holographic nature of our own technological symbolic creations, an example I also use in the book). So I wanted to thank you. I have been alone, lost my family, my home, everything over this. I wanted to let you know what you did for me today: today I received the greatest gift. An intelligent open mind not afraid of new ideas, who obviously loves ideas, and learning like I do. The funny thing is I feel like the higher intelligence which made reality was so beyond lonely making things, traveling for billions of years through all the forms, that this is the greatest gift you could ever give to that higher intelligence in return for life. Understanding. Seeing. Knowing. Epistemology is a holy path, a pilgrimage like the original gamete finding the egg which made you. The sun shines in the heart and we are forced to grow, and the path is old but shining. We are children in this place. Thank you for your life and mind. THANK YOU 🙏🏻 ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥 I wonder who you are in the eyes of society because you are obviously extremely intelligent. But I already know who you are in the eyes of universal mind. 🥰
I hoped more skeptics would be willing to engage at length on this subject but apparently they become more circumspect when challenged to defend their views.
I need to make one more general comment about an aspect of this topic that's frequently mentioned as a rebuttal to theism. The notion that belief in God is based on an anthropomorphic desire to project our human desires and latent psychological preferences on the universe, and whether or not this universe is friendly, unfriendly or totally indifferent to human welfare. This line of thinking is rooted in an undeniably real phenomenon. Ascribing human tendencies to nonhuman things is common. We talk to our pets conversationally, albeit briefly. Phrases like "the man in the moon", or "the hand of God" clearly show this tendency. Are we then to assume that all theistic belief is motivated by this conditioned subconscious response? If so then we've just categorically ruled out any possibility of being objective and impartial about anything with a direct bearing on our lives. If our assessment of reality is subliminally conditioned by a biased desire to see or derive a certain outcome favorable to us then where is that dividing line that separates objectivity from subjective predilection?
Those who hold that theism is based solely on the human desire to live in a friendly universe fall silent when asked if this mindset holds for all other serious challenges that humans face.
For example; humans have shown a willingness, however reluctant to go to war repeatedly in our history. This was and still is based on hard headed realism and a sober acceptance of reality, not anthropomorphic or wishful thinking.
For example; most young people fully expect to work and build a life of their own rather than stay with their parents because realism demands or at least prods them to accept responsibility, no anthropomorphic wishful thinking here. I could list dozens and dozens of life experiences that repeatedly drive home the point that there is no free lunch, that no matter how much we wish for a certain outcome, wishing alone will never make it happen.
Humans are fully capable of accepting reality on it's terms and not flinching at any form of adversity. This is the story of mankind. Despite the exceptions, humans are mature and realistic in how they view the world, so to say that all belief in a supreme being is based on wishful thinking is specious and unconvincing.
@@michaelmckinney7240
Exactly!!
It's not the parts of Darwin’s book the “PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES” that I can't understand and the way this book is worshipped that really creeps me out and makes me cringe, it’s the parts that I do understand!!
The irony is that in her books, the prominent intellectual and humanist Mary Midgley points out that the theory of evolution is not only a scientific theory, but also a political one - right?
The new middle-class bigoted plutocrats of the so called “ENLIGHTENMENT” period needed a CREATION MYTH for the elites that would explain why they ALONE deserved to rule - right?
The answer was Darwin's theory: the “PREFERRED RACES“ and “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST” coined by Herbert Spencer and later expanded by Nietzsches “WILL TO POWER” and the “SOCIAL DARWINISM” adopted by Ernst Haeckel and
N A Z I Germany - right?
Moreover, the humanist Mary Midgley helpfully points out that Marxism and evolutionism have been the two greatest “FAITHS” of modern times. Both ideologies expressed themselves as superior in “RATIONALITY” to all other philosophies as secular and social religions. Which speaks volumes!!
The irony is that Marxism, that is a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or communism in action leads to hundreds of millions of DEATHS and undermines faith in a transcendental outlook, that is undermines human values. Equally, the double irony is that in their self-proclaimed role as the liberators of the working classes, Marxists and Communists spawned the most horrific and most murderous THOUGHT POLICE in history - yes?
“Death is the solution to all problems, no man no problem.” - [Joseph Stalin].
There is no HATRED quite like left wing, atheistic so called “liberal” love!!
Another master class in the power of indoctrination, cognitive bias and fallacious reasoning.
Sounds like today's science.
Same can be said for naturalism.
Abiogenesis fails
@@woofie8647 Tell that to the Emergency Room Dr. the next time you end up there.
@@AzimuthTaoWe’re not talking about medicine, which is not a science. Medicine is in a class of its own, though it uses science in practice, biology and chemistry for example.
God is always with us
So interesting that i never feel alone in broader context
When you separate love from fake gods, what have you got? Love.
Before we ask the question wether God exist or not, we need to know what or who God is. I don't think we know. We're trying to get an answer to a question raised on ignorance, religions and belief. No wonder we are confused.
_"...we need to know what or who God is."_
Well... first of all, she's Black.
As this universe appears infinite, any creator god would need to be infinite plus.
God is an idea, and the ego is also an idea. God is boundless, unchanging source of love, completely separate from the perceived world and its illusions, and the only true reality is within the divine mind of God. The kingdom of God is within everyone but the ego obscures it. The kingdom of God represents a state of pure love, unity, and oneness with the divine, essentially signifying your true, unseparated self, while the ego is a separate, Illusory identity based of fear and separation, creating the perception of individual limitations and the need for control, directly opposing the kingdom's message of love and unity.
@@jonnanderson6489If the universe is infinite, then there are infinite exact copies of everything you see, including yourself.
I don't know what causes lightning.
But is my ignorance good evidence for Zeus ?
"The God Hypothisis"nocks down all other arguments and believe in god is a gestalt experience. I question that a Professor of Physics has any more credibility regarding Gods than I do.
He's more trained and experienced in trying to prove something. But this time he failed
The fact that you say "Gods" shows that you simply don't understand what's being discussed
Great conversation! Russell does a great job in explaining what should be the obvious!
What? Is this guy saying his religious experiences are as affirmable as scientific experiences? I thought the same way when I was on LSD.
I'm glad you made this video it reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, $34k monthly and a good daughter full of love
$75k biweekly changed my mindset and behavior, my goals, my family and I've to say this video has inspired me a lot!!!!
wow this awesome I'm 41 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
No one likes market risk, but without longer retirement, taking on risk is often a necessary evil to compensate for inflation
My wife is willing to work for another 5 years if needed. Are we in good shape? Will we be okay if I begin withdrawing from Social Security when I'm 41 and my wife is 40? Should we hire a financial planner to help us navigate this?
These are crucial questions for a financial planner. I met mine at a NYSE summit, and with her help, my wife and I reallocated our $1.7M portfolio between a traditional IRA and a brokerage account. She's been making investments with our approval and has helped us recover twice our losses. We're holding steady and carefully navigating more markets
To the non-believers in the comments. Does it make you feel better to express something you can't prove wrong under a TH-cam video? And don't try the whole burden of proof thing. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and wielding that as your only shield doesn't make your argument any stronger. It’s not about winning or losing-it’s about engaging meaningfully, not just dropping contrarian comments to feel superior.
_"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence..."_
But it is.
@EvilXtianity Please do yourself a favor and do research before commenting
@@EvilXtianity Please do your research...
@@khaleelorwhatever
Wait. Are you really arguing that absence of evidence is _not_ evidence of absence?
LOL
@@khaleelorwhatever
Or are you arguing that the Bible character known as Jesus existed?
Whether God exists or not depends on how you define the word God, and that is a complex matter. Put to put it simply, no, God does not exist except in the minds of believers
First there was a beginning.
Now there is an image.
That image is the morphology of your brain.
It is a mathematical formula derived pattern.
It has a beginning and an ending. It is simultaneously infinite and finite.
As structure it is ( as a transformation) the Bose-Einstein condensate to the largest structures in the universe.
There are an infinite number of mathematical formulas and patterns from which to choose ( select).
By being in everything it is everywhere.
Given its ubiquitousness it can know everything known. Being the structure it makes/creates everything.
If I describe a sphere you would not mistake it for the description of a cube.
If I described a flower you would not claim that I described a house.
Sufficient to the description is the reality.
It's personal and, only thru faith , can you manifest his existence. It is not thru religion. That idea, belongs to the puppet masters in Rome.
Let me guess did you make up your faith on your own or was it inherited from hundreds of years of tradition? Before you respond let me remind you that it was the church that gave you the Bible not the other way around.
_"...only thru faith..."_
So a person must first believe that a god (or gods) exist to have evidence that they exist.
@@vecumex9466I think you misunderstood the statement. The OP is criticizing religion, not using it as an excuse. I agree, organized religion is just a way to organize and control people. The only true faith is that which you hold personally. You don't need organized religion to have faith in an ultimate Creator. You could isolate a human since birth from all of society, never exposing them to religion, and they will still question where they and everything around them come from, and develop their own beliefs.
So I now know that God exists…for Russell Stannard.
many people "know" that they're good singer until they participate in The Voice or Idol competitions and realised all the "know" is just an illusion! man "know" he loves his wife until he meet another woman much prettier and much smarter and more charming!
Now we’re learning that our perception of the universe’s expansion speeding up is possibly an illusion, which is throwing all kinds of standard physics into doubt, yet again. I doubt we will ever be able to look to science for solid answers to these kinds of questions.
Faith is necessarily subjective. That much is pretty well explained in the literature for the three big monotheistic religions. My problem with discussions like these is that what people are arguing about is often very different inside their heads.
For me, I don’t have any issue with what people choose to believe or how they express their faith, since that has nothing to do with how I live my life. My problem starts where, “institutions,” start exercising power over communities in the name of faith and crossing into politics.
Given the extreme paucity of evidence, the cumulative case works in the opposite direction as well ⚖️
Did god come into existence at some point ? Is God a phenomenon without logicall explanation? Does God need to exist for everything else to exist? Could the universe exist without God?
No, yes, no, yes.
No, yes, yes, no.
WOW! This is actually the first time someone explains this so well. Thank you!!
That was actually very eye opening interview. Brings to mind the fact that everything doesn't have to be scientific to be real.
"Exist" is one extreme.
"Doesn't exist" is the other.
"Arising, enduring, and ceasing with the arising, enduring, and ceasing of causes" is the right view
Insanity is one extreme. Sanity is another extreme. So one eschews sanity. OK buddy.
I think therefore I am.
@100percentSNAFU
More like, I think therefore you are.
What is God made of? Thin air?
God particles 😂
@100percentSNAFU 🤣
🤣
Notice he does not give even ONE shred of evidence of god.
(*^^*) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.
This is very enjoyable to listen to. We all try to make sense of the world. We all eventually come to our own conclusions about how we arrive at truth and what we accept as truth. Even then it is not static but changing. There are many facets to what we are prepared to believe, and it appears to be very much an individual experience. Talking about 'love' was amusing to me. It is of course more complex than spoken of. 'Love' is a strong human connection whenever it exists. How does one make it real? For some romantic love happens and for others it does not. It is all part of human experience.
"Does God Exists"
Our lost souls were not sent here to know GOD exists... We are here to have a chance TO BELIEVE that a loving GOD exists...
Now, applying your good common sense, it is way a lot saner to believe that your "Awareness with Freedom to Choose" could only possibly originate from Aware SOURCE or GOD..
..but you are always free to choose to believe that you are a conscious produuct of Unconscious Bigbang out of NOTHING... The free will to choose covers everything, including the freedom to choose to be stoopid...
WHat do you get out of telling all of these obvious lies?
Fact based on evidence or fiction based on intuition. They are all constructs of the mind. Reality is never what it appears to be when we paint over what we choose to ignore. Like thousands of documented reincarnation cases, past life memories and near death experiences. We opt for the safety of conformed opinion. Reality, after all, is only the reality that we made up and concluded within our own minds, not the reality that actually exists, but our interpretation of it.
Everyone commenting is absolutely blissfully ignorant of what classical theism is
You can believe or not believe, but it is beyond human capability to know. And this applies not only to the concept of a Creator but in the origin of the universe and everything we know in all existence in general. It's fish in a fishbowl trying to reason what is beyond the fishbowl.
Yes he's right that all of his arguments can be knocked down because they are without exception flawed in one way or another. Notice just how many times he says he _feels_ this or that. Feeling something is true isn't a good reason to believe that it's true & feeling that you're never alone doesn't mean that's a good reason to think that you're not alone. He spoke of loving his wife but I would bet he has _good_ reasons for doing so which can all be seen by anyone who seeing how she acts but nobody can show that that any of the many gods claimed to exist is even there & they can't all be real however they certainly can all _seem_ to be in various _different_ cultural circumstances can't they?
It’s absurd to think there is some eternal existent person or personality that creates the universe and billions of souls for his own satisfaction and entertainment. The real question humans are asking is there an eternal persistence of our consciousness and personality. The western monotheism was preceded by the spiritual existence of many eternal spirits or gods.
Based on what is seen in the world, it is more likely that Pod, a god that did none of the things claimed by the Bible, exists- rather than God.
I think this guys brings up some interesting points of view.
Despite the fact, I’ve encountered religious arguments for many decades, I’m still astonished at how bad the reasoning offered often is.
This gentleman’s arguments are just mind-boggling awful .
For instance, that hoary old apologetic trope “ we can’t prove that we love somebody; therefore it’s OK to believe in God, even though we can’t prove God” is ridiculous.
They are completely different situations .
If Russel was going to convince me, he loves his wife … of course he could convince me of that! First of all, he could easily demonstrate that he actually has a wife, by presenting her to me. Secondly, she could list all the way in which Russel indicates he loves her, and Russel himself could list many of the ways as well.
I would have no reason to doubt them and every reason to believe them . Because people love each other all the time. It’s hardly some extraordinary claim. And they would be giving me the type of evidence of how people act when they love one another. Can they “prove” this to me such that I can have absolute certainty? Of course not. But that’s a complete red herring. we don’t have that in any of our inferences. We simply look at the evidence we have suggests, and make conclusions on that unless some counter evidence or better explanation is presented.
So yes, of course Russ could demonstrate he loves his wife.
And it can be demonstrated that what is eliciting, or is the object of his love, actually exists: his wife.
On the other hand , he’s making a claim to “ know” God exists, without any demonstration of this or any good reason to think it is true. The analogy to loving his wife, certainly doesn’t give any strength to this claim as we’ve seen, and all he’s got is that “ I just know,” which is about the most naïve possible stance.
Has Russel suddenly forgotten human fallibility? Has he taken into account just how often people are wrong when they think they “ know” something?
There are people who fall in love with fictional characters in literature . They “ know” they feel love for this character… what does that mean? The character is therefore real? Of course not.
How exactly does Russel ‘s confidence in his “ knowledge of God” square with the gazillion people who have different and contrasting claims of “ knowledge.” Plenty of people feel they absolutely no their particular God exists, which would be in contradiction to Russel’s claimed God.
There have been countless people who have “ just known as a fact” that their cult leader was divine. It’s something they “ knew” whether they could convince you or not. Does that equate to their belief being justified?
Or take the atheist who feels or believes in his bones that there is “ no one there” in terms of a God.
How does Russel’s experiential “ knowledge” trump any of these?
Of course, it doesn’t at all.
Russel is just another example of how belief in God and religion basically exists in the mushiness of human thinking .
And to add to your point, Russell is equivocating between knowing feelings and knowing truths about the external world. The only way to know your own feelings or sensations is by introspecting. However, when it comes to truths about the external world, there are other ways to know them. The methodology is different. So, he is engaging in a category error here by applying a methodology of knowing feelings (i.e., introspection) to a context where we should use empiricism (i.e., where sensory perception and reason have to be employed).
@
Exactly . It’s just a mind-boggling obvious mistake in reasoning.
That’s why I say that God exists in the mushiness of peoples reasoning.
@@QuintEssential-sz2wnSuppose there is a group of people sleeping (maybe small or any large number), so now, one person woke up, so my question is, Can he explain what is wakefulness to those who are sleeping? Certainly not.
Next after sometime, another one woke up...now will he raise any question about wakefulness? Certainly not.
The same thing is about God.
You may counter argue, one may stir up sleeping guys & make them realise, hey buddy, the state you are in now is called wakefulness.
In physical realms, yes this is true but in divine realms, preceding logic holds, that God realisation is too personal thing.
@ you don’t seem to realize that the type of logic you are presenting could be used to justify literally any possible crazy belief. “ I just know it’s true, too bad for you if you haven’t woken up!”
And you’ve completely ignored the actual context of such God claims , which is the context of countless people believing “ I know something” and being wrong, and this includes countless propositions that are logically contradictory with what other people think they “ know” and that is especially true in the realm of religion.
If one of the features of being human is to be fallible in our beliefs , and you are a human, then you are fallible in your beliefs, And so you should approach your own beliefs with a level of skepticism, marathon simply accepting them, and therefore investigate how well your belief fits within the wider set of observations. Your logic may as well lead somebody on LSD to think it’s justified to believe “ the moon really is conscious and loves me”
The fact that people have completely contradictory beliefs formed on LSD …who cares?
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn
Look up appeal to incredulity fallacy and appeal to “MUSHINESS” fallacy - yes? By the way you just totally and utterly refuted yourself.
Even the prescriptive laws of logic, inductive reasoning, cause and effect, sensory data, empiricism, the myth of the given, freewill, that is rational decision making itself, the ultimate axiological is “MUSHY” using your ultimately meaningless, arbitrary, subjective standard.
Listening to triggered atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” and preaching about the dangers of “MUSHINESS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
0:46 RS: I think when you ask that sort of question you might be looking for some kind of evidence which is absolutely knockdown proof you know that's happens therefore you must believ in God it's certainly true that in science there are occasions when things are absolutely clearcut you know so and so exists therefore it follows but even in science there are situations particularly if you're dealing with the big questions like how did universe begin how did humans evolve um it's not like that you can't pin everything on a piece of knock down evidence and it's a bit like that with God whawt you have to do is to build up a case for example in sciecne if you all of the scientists now believe that the world began with a big bang now why where's the knockdown truth well all the galaxies are moving apart from each other and the further away the galaxies the faster they're receding into the distance so if you run the tape backwards everything was squashed to gether to a point therefore a big bang took place no because when that was the only pieces of evidence there were many people who subscribed to a different cosmology what was called the steady state 2:15 theory where all right things expanded but new matter formed and new galaxies where formed and so the general picture always remained the same there was there was no beginning point so then not everyone was convinced what then happened was that if there had been a big bang one could argue well it would be very violent there would be a blinding flash of light and that light must be around in the unviverse somewhere cooled down now and when you look sure enough you see it it's the cosmic micowave background radiation so 2:52 multiple pieces of evidence RS: so that's the second piece of evidence and then you say well okay um that then is the
god itself is beyond essence and existence, to argue it does exist is to deny him
Cop out
To be "beyond existence" is to not exist.
@@jarrichvdv i dont think that means what you think it means
＼(^-^)／ We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
:-) Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
Wow! Best one by far.
intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean there is a God in the Christian sense nor does that indicate any after life, without an after life why would God have any meaning to us?
It shouldn't have any meaning for us. We should live our lives in accordance with our nature, cooperate and strive for a better functioning society and harmony with nature. Belif in god and especially worshipping god are completely unnecessary. Afterlife is totally irrelevant. Afterlife is just an invention of humans created out of fear of life and death. We should live our lives here to the best of our abilities, there is nothing more important than this experience now.
It's a delight, a great joy, to seek God. Learning about science, theology, field theory, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophia, scripture(Greek, Indian, and Egyptian), is a lot of fun, figuring out enigmas, recollecting deeper meaning - the very fact of deeper meaning is an inner impetus. Everybody, as they were growing up and go through life, there's a change in perception and perspective, and why should this ever come to an end, rather why not continue on. Because we come in to being, i.e., life, therefore who wouldn't seek their Source.... you know, people there are who state that others believe in God and an afterlife, so to console their minds....if you were to ask me, really, truely seeking God is, to me, terrifying; even daunting, for any such beliefs I once had are now gone - up is no longer up, down is no longer down, what something seems is no longer what it seemed. This is what others are afraid of. Nobody likes change or lost and we all cleave to what's familiar to us, thus we find our identify in it such things but really they're delusion.
Could a baby's@new born developed "speaking@language" by itself without mimicking their ancestor/parents ? It's started from Adam&Eave, and we are mimicking both of them. Peace be upon ya'll and assalamualaiqum wmt
I wish you could have asked Alan Watts. Everthing would be clear. I give you one alternative: Even just sitting there without speaking any word would be another answer. It's way way more simple than you think.
The big bang happens forever. One happens and then it does its thing and it ends in its mission completed. And then what after that ? Does this way go on and on for eternity. Or does it. But all this proves a physical plane. Ever changing continually. On God's wish and will. But definitely there is something more to what we know and experienced.
G- Generator
O- Organiser
D- Destroyer
Generator is Lord Brambhya 4 headed
Organiser is Lord Vishnu
Destroyer is Lord Shiva
This is the basic Hindu cosmology.
Legendary Astrophysicist Carl Sagan explained it briefly in a TV Series.
Shiva was a tantric sex master. The phallic sex symbol is his representation. In what way you call him a destroyer.
wait till you find out english is not the only language in the world
Universe can’t exist from nothing according to thermodynamics laws. A creator not created must be existing. That represents a self referential paradox. Logic suggests a resolution to this paradox by stating that the uncreated creator must be outside on the whole universe boundaries.
An uncreated creator exists out of universe and created the universe is proven by logic/science.
Lol so uncreated god can exist, but uncreated universe can't. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
@@VeljaPopovIt's actually plausible. It's a fact that nothing inside this universe can exist without a cause. Outside this universe? Well, we don't know. Things could have completely different rules, if there is indeed more beyond the confines of this universe.
Two of things are certain. One, nothing can exist within this universe without a cause. Two, God, if God exists, cannot exist within this universe because in order for there to be God, there must be an uncaused cause, which can't exist in this universe.
Outside of this universe, nothing is certain. So my points don't answer anything (not that anyone ever has or could answer the question of existence), but they do set some boundaries. In conclusion, God CAN exist, and if so must be outside of this universe, and because of this, we can't ever prove it. Outside of the universe is like the singularity inside the black hole. We can theorize all we want about it, but can never reach it
@@100percentSNAFU exactly, if we don't know then we say we don't know. We don't make claims based on our personal beliefs and feelings. In the same way we can say cookie monster outside of everything is creating everything. Basically everything we think of is possible, but we still don't know and have no evidence, so to claim that we know is just ridiculous and childish. Especially if we understand how beliefs in gods were formed in the first place. It's in the same way possible that the universe itself is intelligent and infinite and that it always existed in some form. That everything is the universe and it works according to its own laws. In that case it would be something like the idea of pantheism. So everything is possible but we just don't know. So scientists say we don't know but we'll suspend our beliefs until we have proof for whatever. Believers on the other hand say we know for sure, it's god. And on top of that they say we even know what god is and what are his attributes. Now that's pure nonsense.
@@100percentSNAFU if I would rephrase the argument saying that it is impossible to have GOD/creator within the boundary of our universe, and impossible to exist without a cause, couldn’t be that leading to the conclusion stating the needed proof of GOD existence outside of our universe boundary.
Going from the existence of nature, to the nature of existence.
I can save all those reading a little bit of time, to the question does God exist? The answer is yes he does
Lol. I agree, but Kuhn wants more than just yes/no. He wants arguments and reasons to believe or not.
@@HainishMentat Maybe one day he will come out of the closet.
Yes you are absolutely right, I do exist.
Nah.
7:00 the most powerful argument.
Abiogenesis fantasy
I know that I won the lottery the fact that I cannot convince you does not mean that you should not give me the money.
Good article. Some people doesn't get it. It is ok.
Please feel your god alone. Don't advertise, don't try to make people believe your god. Your god is your love experience. Let it sit there.
Oh the irony!!
The irony is that according to one of the fathers of analytical psychology Carl Jung wether you are an atheist, agnostic, deist, panentheist, panpsychist or theist etc what we all share is an hierarchy of values and what ever is at the top of that hierarchy of values functions as “God” for you.
It may be a “god” that you don’t believe in or a “God” that you can’t name but it is irrelevant. Because the fact is that what ever you think about this concept, highest value, ground of all being/prime reality at the top of your hierarchy of values has very little impact on how your “god” is acting in you!!
The irony and the absurdity, of course is that there are plenty of creation myths that is plenty of “atheistic gods” to choose from. The most popular ones being the worship of nature and the worship of scientism and your own “superior atheistic intelligence” - yes? Especially if you worship a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism.
There was also the worship of the atheist god of the Big Bounce, The Bubble universe god, The atheistic god of the eternal Steady State universe used to be quite popular until the “Big Bang” came along and burst that little bubble - right?
Then there was the Black Hole universe god, Simulation universe god, Flat Earth universe, Plasma electric universe, The gods of Electric light Orchestra universe etc. Not to mention the atheists currently very popular God of the mystical, magical, invisible multiverse!!
The list of gods of relativism/ gods of atheism goes on but some of us just go one god of relativism/atheism further by believing that the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea just unwittingly created everything - yes?
Basically, militant atheists deny one less god of relativism/one less god of atheism than theists do. Militant atheists don't believe in the 4300 gods of relativism/atheism debunked by real science and theists don't believe in just one more god of atheism/god of relativism!!
Gotcha!! drum roll, kerching (Applause).
Probably not. Stop making assumptions about unprovable things and go and live your life. The answer that claims to explain everything doesn’t explain anything.
Oh the irony!! You just totally and utterly refuted your self!! That’s a universal truth claim buddy?
CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
Listening to militant atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!
Psychosis.Belief that the imaginary is real.
Would be wonderful if GOD would exist so he can be kept accountable for his actions or inactions
The thing about science its able to make predictions, that's WHY we are able to accept the evidence.
Just another smart man who wants to believe in god and therefore comes up with really poor evidence to justify his believe. I mean, if the evidence is how it makes him feel and that it just makes sense is a lot like how the Vikings felt about Thor.
Evidence for God:
• Design
• Morality
• Meaning
• Information
• Rationality
• Knowledge
• Intelligibility
• Laws of logic
• Consciousness
• Identity over time
• Uniformity of nature
• Existence of anything
• Beginning of the universe
• Impossibility of the contrary
• Near death experiences
Abiogenesis fantasy
@@BJtheMountaineerguy So anything you don't understand means it comes from god. Now that is really strong evidence.
@@beemersboomersandbrews8206 More like everything you do understand. You choose not to believe that it comes from God. You are so close minded that you turn your head to all the evidence. It’s a choice
It's not a scientific question, it isn't falsifiable.
You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe, just don't pretend it's a question that could ever be answered with evidence, because it can't.
I choose evidence first.
“I choose evidence first”
Oh the irony!! The irony and the absurdity, of course, is that the statement "We should only accept that which can be empirically evidenced using the “natural sciences" is itself a statement that cannot be empirically proven using the “natural sciences” - right? Hence, if it's true, it's false. A self-refuting statement!
Equally, you can’t empirically prove empiricism. You can’t prove sense data using sense data. The belief that the external world is providing accurate information about reality and existence is a philosophical presupposition, that is a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category right? You just totally and utterly refuted yourself!
According to the Nobel prize winner Sir William Bragg….
“Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - (Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics).
Furthermore, despite appearances, the “natural sciences” offers no certainty. Decades of progress in the philosophy of science have led us to accept that our prevailing scientific understanding is a limited time offer, valid only until a new observation or experiment proves that it’s not.
Equally, it is impossible even to formulate a scientific theory without philosophical presuppositions, that is without metaphysical presuppositions and transcendental categories such as Truth itself, that is value claims, ought claims, absolutes and universals, including abstract, immaterial, invariant conceptual realities such as the prescriptive laws of logic!!
The fact is that it turns out to be impossible even to formulate a scientific theory without metaphysics, without first assuming some things we can’t actually prove, such as the existence of an objective reality, conscious agents/FREEWILL, that is RATIONAL DECISION MAKING ITSELF, inductive reasoning, identity over time, empiricism the myth of the given, the ultimate axiological etc!! The list goes on. Classical materialism is DEAD!!
I rest my case!!
I've heard many bad argument for God. This is definitively among the worst
Thoughts about God are one of the earliest thoughts of humans, at least. Because thoughts about God are hardwired in our brains. Because God is our Creator and imprinted thoughts about Him in our minds.
There’s no evidence whatsoever to support your conclusion. The only evidence we have of gods show up 40,000 years ago, about 260,000 years after our species.
What part of our brains?
Nonsense
"...Does God Exist?..."
If it were conscious enough and could ponder such things, a human embryo - suspended in the amniotic water of its mother's womb - might ask: "...Does my 'mother' exist?..." Well, I suggest that we are all in that exact same situation right now relative to God.
@@jimliu2560 Do you mean the human "science" that doesn't know what 96% of the universe is made of? Besides, the "familial" connection between our souls and that of the greater SOUL of this universe will be made clear to us after we cross the threshold of death.
He's right about one thing. I don't have a clue what he's talking about.
He is a very respectful honorable scientist man .. but a feel his religious childhood .. He believes that BigBang as a fact is answer to this crazy universe .. theory of god is absolutely obsolete as we conceive the Universe right now .. we are far away from anthropomorphism biases.. religion at first years of conscience is a devastating recurring old focus ..
Contrary to the video, the universe isn't fine tuned for life. The universe is fine tuned for....universe as we know it. Without the existing fine tuning no formation of atoms, no formation of stars !
The Creator sits back sipping tasty fruit juice icecream, some cheese crackers & a red button under the table ". Says....
" Look at those little insects I made sitting there chatting ..is there a God?". Naaa...I won't press the red button, I'm in a good mood, they amuse me...until I'm bored with them !!!
What a splendid time to ask that question on Christmas Day
So what? You don't have to ask this question on Christmas?
Or a better question for today would have been... Do gods are born as humans..?
I thought the holidays were a time for resting (the brain in particular) not philosophizing; spending time with loved one? That's why it is a bit odd to bring up such a question today
@@joelharris4399 The answer is still no.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246I don't know if the gods ever are born into mortal men, but man is related to the gods, for in the upanishads declare: indra as the sun is linked to the eye of man, and atman the very seer or witness of the eye. Through the pranas, there is Vayu....many organs of man are related to a gods.
But I imagine your comment refers to Christ as God incarnate, so the Christians believe.
The knowledge depths of christ are deep, as he's an avatara like many in hinduism, but God couldn't ever become a mere mortal, but his spirit, sure, and it's through this spirit that we come to....
Ann Marie strunk made me a Millionaire, I used to be a Billionaire
For believers It becomes increasingly more difficult to prove, or even give a semi-coherent explanation of the invisible sky-god. After all the talk the professor came up with a good old "I don't feel alone" and "subjective does not mean its wrong". Weak tea.
Agreed. His claim to being in constant communion strikes me as a form of amenable schizophrenia.
Personally, I don't care so long as we keep church and state separate. And keep God out of science.
It's not does God exist - but do you believe that God exists?
Stannard demonstrates the difficulty of trying to prove something he already believes in, trying to fit the evidence into his beliefs. It should be about following the evidence where it takes you.
He's trying to prove that believe in god doesn't require proof.
Atheists suffer from the exact same problem. It's called confirmation bias.
And believe that the world is flat. I don't need proof. I just believe.@@SuperMrAndersen
@@sohu86x
Right. And this scientist knows very well there's no any proof or evidence. Otherwise he would provide it first
...Man's learning is so short of a in Time, I think everyone needs to relax and see how knowledge will increase. GOD & all sciences will co-exist in marvelous harmony resulting in Perfect Eternity living with & encapsulated with GOD'S Love, respectfully ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis... you tube... Blessings...
The preponderance of *ALL* the evidences gathered from within the factual reality of *ALL* the sciences, i.e. geology, biology, philosophy, mathematics, physics, genetics, chemistry and anthropology, etc., proves beyond *ALL* doubt that the universe was “Intelligently Designed” and Created in and by the mind of the Judeo-Christian GOD.
The Universe IS God,God is the Universe,the Holy Spirit of the Bible being the energy of the Universe,there......😮
_"...the Holy Spirit of the Bible..."_
Who's that?
@@olivierdelyon8196
Source?
@olivierdelyon8196
Oh, am I supposed to call you "dude" too?
@@EvilXtianity as ya wish dude.....🫡
Which bible?
A half dozen specious arguments equals a half dozen specious arguments.
It's simple. Consciousness exists. Is it more likely that reality is at bottom fundamentally conscious or just matter? Obviously the former.
@barry.anderberg Funny how every uninformed answer begins with "It's simple"...
@@sierrabianca Do they? Why is mine uninformed, pray tell?
@@barry.anderberg How do you know that consciousness exists outside the brain?
@@barry.anderberg It's self evidently uninformed because you neither know the nature of consciousness nor that of matter from which you can derive any meaningful inference about which precedes which.
On top of that you've got the 'simple' fact that the singular example of consciousness we're aware of appears to be the emergent product of, and wholly reliant on, pre-existing material systems and so inferring that consciousness is the precursor is even less well grounded.
@sierrabianca Nonsense. All of the evidence for emergence is equally evidence for idealism or the thesis that the brain is what localizes consciousness as a radio localizes radio waves
"The only reason to believe in God, is to justify our crimes against humanity" - k777@2025
Does God exist? That question might get a reply of, what is existence?
Does anything?
Just an idea: This celestial object that attracted me in quantum state is a data store, and I suspect they're many in the Universe. Our quantum replica could be transferred anywhere in the Universe where there are conditions - in our case, where there are phosphates, our earthly bio cannot do without phosphates. Nitrogen is everywhere but phosphates are only in the vicinity where a super nova had exploded.
Believe whatever you want. But if you want to use that belief to dictate how others should live, you ought to have evidence or reasoned support for that belief. It's really that simple.
Exactly!! Totally agree.
The fact is that militant atheism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is a CULT MOVEMENT hidden behind the cloak of “rationality” and scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacies, that constantly uses anti religious Soviet hate propaganda left over from the Cold War. That is history revisionism and dishonest memes and buzz words to mock, badger and demonise anyone who challenges its secular myths and metaphysical presuppositions. Militant atheism is no different to debating a recruiter from the church of Scientology who just won’t leave you alone!!
One hundred and ten percent correct.
The comparison with trying to prove real and deeply felt love is an apt one because a love profoundly felt cannot be seen to outsiders. What is subjective to others is often what is the most deeply felt reality to us
Russell is 💯% right 👏👌
This is excellent what you say.
So I love my wife and my wife exists. Therefore if I love god he must exist as well. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
@@VeljaPopov that is not what is being said. Logic doesn't help when talking about God. What is being said is that subjectivity should not be considered as lack of credibility or validity when dealing with the nature of love or that of God.
@@catherinemira75 it absolutely should, because your thoughts will give you the experience of what you believe in. So if you for some reason, that is because of your psychological conditioning, believe in god you can have that experience. But that is just because you believe in that, or it is implemented into your subconscious, again by programming in your life, thorough parents, education, culture, society etc.
@@VeljaPopov Your inaccurate reference to what Stannard said is apparent. His point was that he loves his wife and if prodded to explain why, he might list a number of reasons that to an observer may sound trite. Mr. Stannard accepts this as valid from the observers point of view and yet just as valid is his subjective certainty that he in fact does love his wife, and he is making a perfectly logical statement in saying as much. Stannard never said anything about making something a reality by "loving" that person or thing. You, and no one else is making this false analogy. Yes you're right no matter how much I love Santa Clause, I don't expect to see him coming down the chimney.
All Stannard is saying is there's a subjective element to this question that shouldn't be so easily dismissed and it's shared and experienced by hundreds and hundreds of millions of people daily.
“Feel like you’re talking to someone.” Lmao I thought this guy was a scientist. Bigfoot is real because it feels like I’m talking to him. I know Bigfoot is real because I can feel it just like I love my dog.
It depends can be deism or pantheism, but definitely not the dud one
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.
It's fair to say that the Abrahamic gods and others don't exist. A creator god is a lazy way of making sense of things that happened billions of years ago.