The Mystery of Existence: Part 2 - Richard Dawkins, Richard Swinburne, Jessica Frazier, Silvia Jonas
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ส.ค. 2023
- 🌟 Unbelievable Presents: The Mystery of Existence - Part 2 🌟
Prepare to embark on a riveting journey through the enigmatic realms of existence as Unbelievable brings together a stellar lineup of intellectual giants from the worlds of philosophy and biology.
🌌 Exploring the Origins of Life and the Universe 🌍
In the second installment of this captivating series, we delve deep into the profound questions that have perplexed humanity for ages: What is the origin of life? Why does something exist rather than nothing? Join us in unraveling the cosmic mysteries that have shaped our understanding of existence itself.
Meet the Distinguished Panel:
🔬 Richard Dawkins: The torchbearer of science and atheism, Dawkins brings his unparalleled insight into the dialogue, challenging conventional wisdom and offering a scientific perspective on the mysteries of life.
🕉️ Jessica Frazier: An expert in Hinduism, Frazier brings the rich tapestry of this ancient tradition to light, shedding unique perspectives on the origins of existence.
📜 Silvia Jonas: Delve into the intricate world of Jewish philosophy with Jonas as she uncovers the profound wisdom that this tradition offers in understanding the mysteries of our existence.
✝️ Richard Swinburne: With a staunch defence of Christianity, renowned Oxford philosopher Swinburne offers a theological perspective that has inspired countless seekers on their quest for meaning.
🤯 A Collaboration of Minds 🌐
This exceptional two-part series is a collaboration with The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast and has been made possible, in part, by the Global Philosophy of Religion Project at the University of Birmingham.
🎙️ Hosted by Ruth Jackson of Unbelievable and presented by Jack Symes of Panpsycast, this special edition of Unbelievable: The Mystery of Existence promises profound insights and thought-provoking perspectives on the origins and meaning of life itself.
🔔 Join the Conversation! 🔔
Don't miss this extraordinary exploration of existence's greatest mysteries. Hit that "Subscribe" button, ring the notification bell, and let your voice be heard in the comments below!
👉 If you missed the first part of this enthralling debate, titled "Why is there something rather than nothing?" catch up here:
• The Mystery of Existen...
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
The Global Philosophy of Religion Project: global-philosophy.org
Philosophers on God (book): amzn.to/3K4enjy
Talking about Philosophy: talkingaboutphilosophy.com
Richard Dawkins: richarddawkins.com
Jessica Frazier: bit.ly/jessicafrazier
Silvia Jonas: silviajonas.com
Jack Symes: jacksymes.co.uk
Richard Swinburne: bit.ly/richardswinburne
Support: / panpsycast
![อาจารย์ยอด : พระเตะผี [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zusDOIFasaE/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch Part One: th-cam.com/video/-IAFxIrcWoU/w-d-xo.html
Really enjoying Richard Dawkins' heavy nasal inhalations and exhalations in these videos. Kudos to the sound people for giving us this little detail.
Professor richard swimbure is here to teach children
The guy who asked the question at around 1:00:14 was trying to come off as smart. But, let's be honest, he probably didn't understand half of what Swinburne was saying. The fact that he thought we could construct a theory of "ultimate" meaning is itself naive if one just thinks about it for longer than 2 seconds.
It will be interesting if Sadghuru participates in the discussion.
two hours to go popcorn ready
Please search for SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS (Part 1 -Gods of Science!? Part 2 -The Issue of Existence). These are two articles in Researchgate related to this discussion.
Enter Swinburns integrated Tomistic position and Dawkins' scientific fundamentalism was on full display in both sessions
Next time, just interview Swinburne. It would be a lot simpler!
Well played 😂
I enjoyed the last comment on how there are many more perspectives to address these questions. I see many atheist arguing that if a question is not scientific then it is not even valid, so we should just forget about them and look for answers only in the valid ones. This is obviously very frustrating because it goes against our deepest questions, but the thing is, they might be right :/
Nope. Dawkins' philosophy (ironic isn't it?) turns humans into things in nature as a rock is a thing, only more complex. That's not what we call human.
Dawkins makes claims that he cannot substantiate. He reduces the mind to the brain but neuroscience has been incapable of explaining a single conscious experience in terms of brain function. The panel ought to have challenged him about that.
I Am that I Am ... It is what It is ... 1 is what 1 is ... 1 is 1 ... 1
😊
Dawkins' 'simplicity' argument just will not fly. The reductive materialist argument is in fact more complex in some level.
No, what he is saying is that complex things come from simpler things. This seems to be what the universe does.
If there was a beginning or if the universe is contingent upon something else, it's likely it was less complex.
If there was a first event, this event would not depend upon anything else, it would not have a materialistic or causal answer. It would be something like an equation that's divisible by only itself. Something like, "there is something because nothing does not exist" and the world is as it is because if it was different we would still ask the same question.
Since physics isn't complete yet, since we aren't able to reconcile gravity and relativity and subatomic physics, can we hope to predict the shape of the final description of existence? Also, we haven't even sorted out whether life-after-life experiences are hallucinations or non-physical perceptions of existence outside the self and after death - is there an afterlife or not? Does intelligence emerge from natural exigencies by way of natural selection, or is it a given, a level of spiritual life that exists apart form the mind of men? How about we perform a series of medico-philosophical experiments where people voluntarily undergo the "flatline" experience, i.e., inducing clinical death for a minute or so and then resuscitate them - what is the likelihood that every human would experience the same hallucination, might such an outcome be indicative of reality? Might they bring back information from "beyond the veil"? Like the Charles Williams novel "Shadows of Ecstasy", except with modern medical rescue methods - ?
"Saint" George CARLIN's #1 favorite question.
N.B. Just by being here makes us "living proof" of RE-in-CAR-nation.
How existance came into being...rather how beign became existance..from one came all..one source
Science is becoming more and more meta-physical and "wierd". The materialist paradigm is breaking down rapidly.
Science is the single most reliable and consistent method in the pursuit of truth about the universe. Thus far, every single explanation that has been widely accepted as fact is of natural origin. Science does not preclude any hypothesis but instead applies the scientific method and reviews the results. Currently, there simply is no scientific evidence for god and no-one has any idea how does a timeless and spaceless being interact with the materials world let alone create it from a state of absolute nothingness - or what god actually even is. And one of the biggest issue is that no believer is not even trying to investigate the nature of god. God is therefore not an answer to Why does anything exists. The correct current answer is that we do not know (yet).
Science is never meta physical. Science is the study of the natural world.
If you think there is something more than the natural world, you are free to create a framework that can investigate it.
46:30 Dawkins, doesn’t even realize that this answer that pain is actually a functional positive in the universe refutes the argument against God existing based on pain or suffering. It actually shows just the opposite, a loving God can allow us to experience suffering because it shows us the truth of the universe.
We have to have a theory that is balanced with both howness and whyness at the same time. Limiting knowledge to one of them is not enough for knowing reality.
Describing how biology is made through evolution and suggesting that it does not need a designer is like describing how a computer is made of components and suggesting that it does not need a designer. The final outcome of biology shows its designer as the final outcome of computer shows its designer.
Graham Oppy attributes this inferrence from computer to our background knowledge but the point is that, if we face a new computer as opposed to the one that we had attributed design previously, we will attribute design to this new computer too. Similarly we can attribute it to biology too. Because we seem to have found a basic similarity between computer and biology which is complexity. In other words we seem to have extracted the following formula:
Intelligent design= degree of initial simplicity × degree of final complexity
I think at that point reason breaks and pure emotions come into play.
The questions from people about why people are valuable are, to be honest, a bit scary.
The discussion has been from different studies or beliefs contrary to the statement about two ideas fighting. Also dismissing the idea of God is not exploring all the possibilities.
1:00:13 tell me you missed the WHOLE point of this particular discussion without telling me… basically, he just needed to attend a different event. That’s like being upset that you ate steak when you went to a steakhouse. If he wanted something different he should have gone somewhere else 🤦🏻♂️
Their all relying on their faith ,believe , I'll go with a creator ,God . HE'S MY FAITH.
Dawkins needs explanations to be simple, but the universe isn't simple, all the things coexist today and he is imposing simplicity on it in spite of its complexity.
Where did you get that from? He was saying that god can't be simple with all the complex material world around us meanwhile the theists were saying its simple
@@mogambo4565 That's the point, he's saying it has to be simple because he can't start with complexity. He needs a bottom-up approach to make his theory believable. Nothing to something.
@@mogambo4565the irony is that Dawkins called Darwinian evolution simple even though it creates complexity. But denies God is simple because he created complexity. It’s just a bad argument. He can’t have it both ways.
Dawkins asks for simple explanation to the existence of everything which I view as a humble question. If you cannot explain something in it's simplest form to anyone then you don't understand the subject well enough to claim authority
There was an explosion that gave birth to the universe. You are welcome
@@DartNooboha😂😂😂
50:49 God can easily exist outside of human cognition because humans are the not the endgame, God is. So His existence is not contingent on us rather our existence is contingent on Him. The question is a “cart before the horse” perspective.
50:30 this guy is asking a super complicated word salad question.
I know I put this on the Part 1 episode, but I'll put it here again: This was like Richard Swinburne with three school children (with Dawkins being the bratty dunce at the back of the room). No offense to the ladies, but let's be clear, there are better philosophers and less good ones. When you have Swinburne up there, if you want to challenge the Christian worldview, you better put up some bigger guns than these here. Jonas has potential, and she may be struggling with English as a native German speaker, but she has a long way to go still.
I'm afraid that there are Christian theologians, and probably laymen, who would leave Swinburne in their wake, but even he outclassed everyone else. A really pathetic choice of panelists.
@@martinploughboy988 As far as I know Swinburne is very well respected by most Christian theologians who take philosophy seriously, and who are not just abjectly liberal or postmodern in their theologizing. But, I would agree that when it comes to articulating Christian doctrine, that isn't quite his strongest suit.
53:54 Her perspective is backwards. It’s NOT all about human beings, God’s existence is not contingent on human’s existence. We simply focus on the human side of the equation because we are humans. God made animals before us, therefore, His love for animals is just a valid as His love for humans.
It’s not Richard who is deluded it’s everyone else🤣🤣Ignorance is bliss!
Not just Dawkins but all the new atheist who are far less informed and are far more hateful people like Hitchens, Dennet . And so on , the theists are more open to the evidence and treat their atheist colleagues with much more civility then they receive in return . I trust dr Craig and dr Schwinburn Lee Stroble , Plantinga etc , God bless and open the eyes of the atheist.
Well, it wasn't Jesus who was deluded, it was everyone else. Sometimes this happens
Pascal sympathizes with the passionate agnostic who struggles daily with the ultimate question of whether God exists. But the sad fact is that most “nones” and agnostics are not passionate truth-seekers. Intellectual uncertainty is understandable.
Indifference to the question of God is insanity.
@@joekey8464 I have a hard time believing that a true agnostic who is struggling with deciding whether or not God exists are people that actually exist. I realize that it is a claimed category of belief but to me it definitely seems to fit in the unbelief category. Gods existence is either true or false. If you say you don’t know that God exists than you don’t believe HE does. God asks for you to trust Him with your life. Wants you to repent from your sins. It’s not like just believing that God exists or believing a guy named Jesus claimed to b God and died for the forgiveness of sins is the same thing as trusting God. That seems to be a trust in your ability to play the odds. Fire insurance so to speak. I’m not necessarily against “fake it till u make it” but what I mean by that is to truly humble yourself and open yourself up to it being true. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. God said He will answer if u knock. He will answer if you call upon His name. You gotta have faith. The longer you ignore God, he will give you over to your own desires but be assured he is calling all men desiring that none should perish. He made it so simple asking that we just trust Him. Gave us 66 books of evidence and entire creation. The entire heavens are declaring the glory of God. It seems like nothing would be sufficient to convince some people. Atheism isn’t an intellectual problem. It’s a spiritual problem. How self refuting is arguing for the meaninglessness of life? It’s absurdly of the highest order.If someone is on the fence they probably haven’t asked the right questions. As if God goes away with science. It’s preposterous.
John Lennox is missing here. The big rival of Dawkins.
A little too folksy and quip-heavy, in my view. Better to have a philosopher who seems plucked from the 13th century like Swinburne.
He wishes.
I thought Jessica was the most interesting, but it turned into a "God did it." vs. "Atheism" debate. Christians really don't like atheism even though it's such a small percentage of the people they claim are going to hell. It's a weird obsession..
Grow up
Seems like it would have been better to have an actual Christian debating and holding the Christian position. Swinburne is maybe atheist but he is definitely not a Christian if he doesn't believe in heaven or hell and doesn't believe that people would be infinitely happier serving God as they were designed and created to do. His supposition that serving God would become tiresome and people would want to serve themselves instead is like saying that someone would rather stop doing what is good for them in order to do something that is harmful to them. And heaven it will be quite obvious that serving God is the purpose for which humanity was created
Here is a property that obvious applies to God; necessity. There you go, it isn't that hard really. If you understand the concept of necessity, then you understand at least one property of God.
I feel like a lot of the Christian apologists that come on for these debates or conversations are not the best Christianity has to offer. The Christian apologist today gave some pretty poor answers and rambled on in ways that didn't even address the point of the question. Dawkins is an atheist all-star. You can't put the junior varsity bench warmer up against him and expect the conversation to go favorably from a Christian perspective.
Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a different platform for further discussion?
The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.
'When the brain decays...' Dawkins' understanding about the NDE is pretty dated, as well as his other points. His fan base may consider him as an all-star, but even some atheists consider him as sophomoric when he extends his arguments into philosophy, like Michael Ruse (atheist philosopher).
@@zgobermn6895 Completely agree.
It not complex it's just not yet to be revealed Maybe the next life could tell ya who knows
I miss Justin
Why is Dawkins insisting on a simple explanation for the universe? Surely what we need is the best explanation. If I find a mars bar wrapper on the moon I can conclude an intelligent being must have put it there. I don't have to explain the explanation for it to be the best explanation.
Look at the World, does this look like the work of an infinitely "Good" and omnipotent being/God ? He could have made it any way he wished, and this was the best he could do? The trillions of deaths and on-going sufferings of Darwinian selection? Heat death of the Universe? 99.999999999999>% inhabitable voids of space? I grant the scale and complexity is impressive, but I give his Masterwork a 3/10 max
When you take masterpiece and smear feces, barf and blood all over it, it stops looking like one. But initial design is till right there, hidden from those who prefer to endlessly cry and criticise.
Yep. Could try harder. Pretty dismal for an eternal super being.
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can create the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something [One (1)] exists before Nothing [Zero (0)] can exist. In the beginning, there was Singularity (1).
Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a different platform for further discussion?
The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.
dear Pythagoras I knew not of your return, welcome back
Question, so then is the conclusion that if I was to acquire 1 apple and devour it
my perception of having 0 apples is only because there was first an apple (1) ?
but still it begs the question, what is the mathematical understanding of me wanting to return to the state of having one apple since i cannot just make one (1) appear out of nothing
so then what gives rise to one ? does one give rise to itself
every other number is a construct of one
what is one a construct of, itself?
one is a special something
Thank you for your comment, very enlightening.
You mathematics in your spare time ?
Given that I responded to your comment, which you have copy and pasted, in the previous video, I might as well do the same with at least one of my objections:
Yes, in some way, nothing is something; but only as a concept as it is the result of the perception that there is a lack of anything. The issue becomes that the argument you are presenting is that you are relating things applicable to nothing as a concept with nothing as an actual when there is no basis given that by your own admission, it is a human innovation. Why is this the case? By understanding that mathematics is a human innovation, you recognize that mathematics is not 'real' but rather a way by which we are trying to conceptualize things within reality. So by saying that within mathematics, the concept of 0 is something, does not actually bear any weight on what is real given that 0 ultimately is essentially a placeholder for the idea of 'nothing' in the actual (that is, a lack of something).
If you extrapolate 1s and 0s into reality your missing it
Christians want to be right about the 'reality' of their belief, and depending on how closely they align themselves to literalism, dogma, convention, the more they will be resistant to challenge and critique. Being 'spiritual but not religious' is an infinitely more honest position to take in my view.. This doesn't take away from the value and hope I get from religion and spirituality... the comment from the last questioner - absolutely on the money, SO TRUE - I am so bored by the reductionism of this 'is there/isn't there god' - it is so boring and so limiting. We have to look beyond theism and anti-theism when looking at the mystery of existence.
"Christian" is a very diverse group of people. We believe in completely different things depending on your denomination. You can't put us all in an umbrella.
@@gofish7388 sure, but that sounds contradictory, if you all believe completely different things, why is the umbrella there in the first place? Denomination in and of itself is a reductive device
@@benscraftymusings Christianity isn't a set of dogmatic beliefs unlike other religious institutions. It is more personal.
@@gofish7388 I guess you haven't studied much theology.
Christians have the advantage of God's revelation. They won't get everything right, but they won't be splashing around in the shallow end like this lot.
Biblically the question of evil is about its right to exist and whether it could be abolished. The question belongs to conscious beings. The lost are annihilated and are not consciously aware when dead. It's a question of what is contrary to God. A contradiction of God.
Religious believes though will provide some self comfort of a 2nd life.
The purpose of life is self propagation/maintenance. We are all the product of some thing called sex with a serm fertilizing an ovum.
Moral goodness has nothing to with God. What was good hunderds of years and applicable , are not necessarily acceptable now. Religious people should keep their believe for them self.
All of us are the product of sexual pleassure and who ever decided that God or Nature , no body will know until he or she dies but then there is no way so far to let the livings know
I hereby award Swinburne the bronze prize for Sheer Waffle.
Absolutely. I couldn't follow his train of thought. He was pathetic.
Just because you can’t follow it doesn’t mean what he said is wrong. It may just mean your knowledge on the topic is limited, I’m not saying that in a rude way, just that oftentimes we discredit the things we don’t understand.
If 93% of the entire World have some type of religious belief, then is that not evidence that humans are naturally inclined to believe in / or seek in the existence of God/gods. Religious worship/ the existence of art in its rudimentary sense can be traced back, to the cave paintings in Spain 30,000 years ago. And to Gobekli Tepe in Turkey with the first religious temple 11,000 years ago. As human consciousness was rising, the existence of or the possibility in the existence of God was a natural consequence. Not a made up construct because Man is afraid to die like Freud falsely claims.
humans invented Gods to explain the Mysteries of Existence. theism is an incidental byproduct of consciousness. a bug, not a feature.
The intention behind this debate is good. To give Dawkins his due, he engages politely with many Christians and Theists. It would be so much better if he engaged more profoundly than he does. His belief in science and particularly in Darwin is strong; a belief which seems to drive him to go to war with those who choose a different path. To many people religion and science are good. Why be so angry with them? There must be a deeper psychological reason behind the hatred. After all, Darwin is not a god. He is a man who enjoyed studying the different creatures of this amazing planet. His theory is not proven. As far as I know, there are no fossil records of the in-betweens - and some evidence against the slow, gradual change from one species to another. Yet Dawkins puts all his faith in this man and leaves no place for any alternative. To me, that is blind faith.
Dawkins showing how rude and intolerant he is of christian opinions by playing with his watch and looking away with disdain. He would do well to listen and be open minded.
This Debate is really unsatisfying.
if everyone here believes evolution purely by natural selection and random mutation without any challenge to it, then the entire argument is arleady in Richard Dawkins favour. A creator using a purely blind process is illogical. I really think john lennox would make for a better Christian representative. Sir Richard (Christian) only worsend the case for Christianity, there's nothing biblical in his entire speech (with all due respect).
And Everyone here is kind of flowing with Richard Dawkins with no challenge at all.
It's really painful to watch 😒
I'm sure it's pointless to even ask this, but what definitions of "complex" and "simple" is Dawkins using here? If you can explain the existence and properties of every thing and every category of thing in the world, by appeal to just a single thing that has no extension or parts or contingent particulars to explain... how is that not a HUGE advantage in simplicity??
It's amusing that theology considers God to be simple, while Dawkins considers that to produce the complex God must be complex too. Dawkins is simply out of his depth.
@@martinploughboy988God is neither simple nor complex, he is outside the creation, therefore we can not measure him in any meaningful way. He is indescribable other than by his own words and definitions.
@@DartNoobo God is simple in that He is not made up of parts.
@@martinploughboy988 How do you know what God is made of?
@@DartNoobo God isn't made of anything. He is the first cause who created all things that were created.
These people are in the least position to comment.
This should have been Dawkins vs Swinburne though. Honestly and respectfully, who cares about Hinduism? Even the women in there gravitate towards the Richards
Why does he even have a pen?
Oh my Universe! What is Richard Dawkins doing mixing around with bad company (loonies)?
An entity who can read 8 billion individual thoughts simultaneously and process them and take actions on these thoughts is simpler than an electron! Who let Swinburne out of the asylum?
Maybe it’s impossible for there to be nothing: even if there were no things, there’s still the *fact* that there are no things.
Who is out there to register the fact, though?
good one!@@DartNoobo
But “facts” are not things. To say “it’s a fact that nothing exists” is equivalent to saying “nothing exists”.
then the presence of nothing is a thing
@@legron121 facts are metaphysical things
The horrible mic, pen clicking, heavy breathing...come on.
The god of the gaps is strong with these guys🤭
So many delusional people in XXI c really worries me.
Anyone with an open Bible would have torn them to shreds. Another wasted hour.
I'm sure you have access to an Open Bible give it a shot. What you can't because you're full of s***lol surprise surprise
The answer to the question: God revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ. The Way.
Annoying pen clicking!
What if it's all a lie and we are making complex arguments just to justify the lie??
Atleast bring Hindu to debate😂
Not the best conversation of its type that I have watched.
One thing I'd like to mention though, is how incapable are theists to justify the matter of suffering, especially in nature. All their arguments sound totally insensitive, as if suffering is just a cruel necessity in the (supposedly all-mighty) god's plan for the world.
How is that different from a naturalist perspective? If there is no God then on naturalism there is no justification for suffering either. In fact on naturalism, suffering is just the weaker species not propagating.
@@RandallChase1 Exactly. If religion and what you call naturalism arrive at the same result, than religion is superfluous. You don't need any gods to explain reality. Moreover the notion of a benevolent one is incompatible with the existence of suffering in the world. In the end it's up to us to deal with it.
she is a jew and she isn't sure she gonna survive death? wuuut?
In the first split second of Dawkins death , will show him just how real heaven and hell are.
"Nothing" is a theistic/ignoramus invention. Let theists explain "HOW something comes from nothing", or stop rehashing that nonsensical question.
Humanity can not be more deceived because God exists and the intelligent creator of the universe is not the idea of perfection for religious people. The debate is bloody stagnated and after atheism has been exposed as a logical fallacy it doesn't make sense to keep pretending. To understand only to want to understand is required. Ateism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Is it necessary to explain the importance and urgency? Future generations would understand, so why don't you? Everyone can understand the truth and God being honest using common sense and emotional intelligence. I want to end the war in Ukraine, so what's wrong with that? Knowledge is useful. If you want to know who is a bad person ask "do you want to abolish all armies at the same time to end poverty and threat?". Eternal hell and heaven is justly for bad and good people as bad and good as we have been ourselves with God.
Richard Dawkins is much more intelligent than the other guests. Swindburne was the worst, babbling away, just incomprehensible.
What does Dawkins tell cancer sufferers? That's evolution in motion?
I don’t know why Richard Dawkins is there , he one sided and prejudice against God he’s diss respectful . And he’s not very bright, except for biology. On the other hand Mr Swindburn is well versed in biology as well as theology. If you want an atheist get Graham Oppy or Michael Shermer . There are more , but you get my drift . Dawkins still won’t debate William Lane Craig because he’s afraid of him because drCraig is very well read and knows what he’s talking about.
Granted :) Dawkins is not powerful orator, but don't give me Swinburne as a prominent theist...... His view words precisely same as he said 20 years ago, even before you asked the question you know what are you gonna get!!!!!!
why doesn't WLC debate matt Dillahunty? Because he knows he will get wrecked. Richard doesn't owe anyone "debates". He's gone toe to toe with some of the biggest apologists and he's shown they have nothing but the same old terrible & weak arguments that only impress those that have already been indoctrinated by religion.
@@suatustel746 saying the same thing for 30years , I see well considering their discussion is about what happened over 2.000 years ago, he’s been studying this subject for over 60 years, he knows more about science then Dawkins knows about theology. When you study the facts and history of Jesus it’s more probable then not that God does exist, then the world came into being out of nothing !!! I know I’m wasting my time telling you that your wrong or misguided, God bless you .
@@22julip pleas don't patronise me because your knowledge as good as mine means you aren't in the position how the universe came to be or existed from eternity or we may be living best of the possible worlds even we maybe pawn in a video game.... Your God if exist is Megolamaniac, malevolent narcisstic capricious vain-glorious self-absorbed entity whom plays perverse games with humanity pulling the wool over eyes with concept of Satan no more other than himself....... He's sadistic mass murdererer (genocides of Canannaites, Sodom&Gomorrah. And of course flooding the world killing every human except Noah's family.. Get to the brass tacks..... Rationalise yourself........
Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a different platform for further discussion?
The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.
If you are bringing someone to represent Hinduism, make sure that he or she is a practising Hindu, particularly from India, and not someone who just studies Hinduism for intellectual pleasure. Nothing wrong about Jessica, but she wouldn't do more justice in representing the Hindu position than an actual Hindu of Indian origin would do.
I REFUSE TO BARE DAWKINS ONE MORE MINUTE.
The host here was terrible. Should have been justin...