something pretty mysterious in the sense of something which is not easy to understand (if understandable at all) by a human being ,not in the sense of a highly impropable all knowing all poweful super-being
@@princehectoroftroy8340 His view of nothing keeps changing: nothing is literally nothing, nothing is not nothing, nothing is something, nothing is pretty mysterious . Simply hilarious!
Richard is just admitting that he doesn't know. He's just not jumping to the man made conclusion that there's an all loving God up in the sky that's all.
You are a complete fool. Your faith is norhing. A misunderstanding of the highest order. This video has been cherry picked and edited. Watched all of these. To fall for any of this, is a discredit to our species. Backwards thinking, from a Backwards man. I hope you have not procreated.
Rich Ross, good morning. Don’t hold back. I value your opinions as much as I hope others value mine. Since you are unable to respond intelligently without attacking me on a personal level, I will respond to you in a manor of which you can comprehend. Go fuck yourself.
@@captainspaulding4777 you are right. No diplomacy here. You deserve none. The video was edited heavily in your favour. It was conjecture. That is a lack of integrity. You want to talk about intelligence, show me anything related to a logical argument. There is no reasonable proof for religion, of any sort, our morality does not belong to religion. No god would ever care. To put your belief in an almighty overlord, is foolish. You have no knowledge of the arguments against religion. You also have no argument for the validity of creationism. Faith, it is all you have. It is the very weakness that this society, must rid ourselves of. I will ridicule religion. Debate does not work, no arguments back. It is all faith. I will say this, the bible is a fantastic fairytale. Unless you believe in the virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc. The bible is no moral book however, it is the cruelest book i have ever read. I have not read it all. I cherry picked, like this video did. You have no moral standpoint, if you adhere to the bible. That means you would support slavery, genocide and genital mutilation. If you take it literally. If you do not, you are cherry picking the good bits, that apply ro our society today. I say no holy book has significance today, and no authority. Certainly no ideals to pass on. Outdated, and clearly man made. You are a fool, yes.
Rich Ross, I respect your opinion of me being a fool. However, if my beliefs are true, I have nothing to lose. If your beliefs are true, you have an eternity to lose. Unfortunately we will not know which one of us is right until it is too late to argue about it on TH-cam. You are a worthy adversary. Keep preaching your beliefs and I shall continue mine. After all denouncing religion is a religion. Your religion is just less profitable.
Dawkins says, “Common sense doesn’t allow something out of nothing,” then later he says, “something Can come out of nothing”. All I can derive from those statements is that he has no common sense, by his own admission.
Once again your fail to analyse the garbage you write. I'm happy you don't have a scrap of self awareness otherwise you'd be curled up with embarrassment. You seem to think that "common sense" is the ultimate arbiter of all fact, but guess what? It's not. There are many things that defy common sense and yet are true, e.g. the many facets of quantum mechanics that appear ridiculous to the average layman, and yet have been proven true by many thousands of experiments.
@@ferrumignis There is nothing in quantum mechanics that goes against commonsense. Except if you're one of the pop science fanboys who buy into the "alive and dead at the same time" nonsense that they lie to the likes of you with despite the buried articles by actual physicists actually doing physics not youtube videos refuting this nonsense. The very fact of empiricism is commonsense. If I asked you to prove to me that the universe behaves consistently, that is, the fundamental premise of empiricism is true, how would you go about proving it? "we observe it to be consistent"? Aaand just another day where an atheist breathes fallacies ignorantly. These people have such a flawed epistemology and that makes you wonder how that much contradictions can gather in any person, let alone communities now.
Not exactly. Scientific method doesn't build on common sense, which can be false. For instance, common sense would be that the sun moves around the earth, which was what people thought for thousands of years. What we call common sense is an entirely limited perspective shared by the majority of people in a given historical era. Science collects all the empirical evidence possible to question common sense, confirms or falsifies it. It is not perfect, but the most reliable way we have come up with so far. And nothingness itself is beyond common sense, not just the question whether or not something can come out of it. We can't conceive nothingness, our language doesn't allow it to be discussed in the realm of, or with respect to existence, we can't even say "there is" such thing as nothingness. It is so much like God in many philosophical respects, but rhetoric can mask the ontological problems inherent in many abstract concepts including God, but with "nothingness" we can't even do that. That's why Dawkins sounded like a fool here, he's not a philospher. But as for "common sense," he already refers to it from an empiricist's point of view, simply as an uneducated common consensus which requires more evidence.
If you watch the whole discussion instead of only the selected parts that do give a wrong impression of it, you might notice the cringworthy moment when the Kardinal said 'i was preparing young boys' and everybody loughed at him. Well, since he really is a rapist, the joke is probably on the poor boys...
The cardinal has no idea what Dawkins is talking about but Dunning Kruger makes him feel that he knows it better than the best physicists in the world.
Let me guess, science cannot yet explain it so God must have done it. The argument from the sheep and the weak minded. When the Bible was written they had not even asked if the Earth was flat. Now look at all that science has disproven thus far from the Bible and imagine 50 years from now. Religion, in my estimation is finite and has but a short time left on this planet. Those that prey on the weak minded and destitute in our species better get it while they can, a new level of enlightenment is but a short time away.
Something mysterious doesn't have to mean a god...I don't understand why you're getting upvotes besides religious circle jerking on this comment thread.
Bill Engvall The comment is funny because he referred to "something" mysterious having only just said that the universe can come from "nothing". He can't have it both ways: either the universe came from nothing, or something, but Dawkins is so unreflective and illogical in his thinking he fails to catch himself making this contradiction.
Bill Engvall Sure, but it's funny this form of 'nothing' he created. The 'nothing' is 'something mysterious' LOL. To deny God atheists come to this point of irrationality.
Time was created. God is outside of time. He sees the past, present, and future, all at the same time. He is outside of time. There was no beginning to God. The beginning was created, it "began"... and in that "beginning" was God, and nothing that was made was made without Him. This is all in the bible . . .
+Phil Monk As Robert Jastrow said, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
If he can see the future than why did he allow the very bishop your watching to molester young innocent children. Your a fucking idiot. Your God is also a fuckin nonce obviously. This is the Religion of today people, this is your God.
@@lasinloser3979 Hey, I’ve never SEEN you, like with regard to the existence of God I can SEE that you have left a comment here (just like God has surrounded us with Creation and nature), but I don’t believe YOU exist😌 That’s essentially the absurdity of the atheist argument in a nutshell, it literally makes no sense.
I think you mean "science" is hilarious. Faith has no affect on the experiments and research - Dawkins just happens to be an atheist attempting to recall and explain what he heard from his atheist scientist friend Krauss.
I'm not overly fussy, I just want something that doesn't rely on faith or belief. E.g. a popular argument is that the existence of the universe is "overwhelming" evidence of the existence of God, which is just ridiculous as it's yet another argument that relies on belief. If I witnessed a genuine miracle that could not be explained in any way known to man, that could certainly change my views.
Well, you can ask me anything you want. I do think that the world surrounding me is quite beautiful, but still unnecessarily dangerous und full of inconvenience. And I am a first world middle class Kid; I'm not even starving or suffering from unsave water supply
@@ferrumignis The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason replicating bits which then turned into everything; If you believe this, You are dumber than a box of rocks, Instead of being created by them.
Great video. It is fascinating to see Dawkins & many other atheists pay lip service to logic, reason & science whilst at the same time demonstrating dogmatic, irrational, emotional, unscientific backflips in order to defend an increasingly ridiculous & tired set of beliefs. Yes, that's right, beliefs. But at the same time, to then show no insight or self awareness of the bigotry they display is simply breath taking... The audience laughs at him as he waxes eloquently about the properties of nothing, & he asks, "Why is that funny"? It's utterly incredible to me that this establishment propagandist seems to command the respect of so many when he is no more than a hateful attack dog for scientism. Hopefully his cowardice in refusing to debate WLC & his subsequent rants, lies & ad hominem have caused many to question & reject the dogma this misanthrope is selling...
What's really fascinating is the incredible number of sheep who think Richard Dawkins knows what he's talking about! Richard Dawkins admits that something from nothing is counter-intuitive, but he continues to preach the nonsense. He's a wolf who preys on the gullibility and scientific illiteracy of the masses, and the sheep are led to the slaughter. Atheism: Indoctrination at its finest.
Jared Stein In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Where there is supposedly empty space there are constant quantum fluctuations with virtual particles continually popping into and out of existence.
Jared Stein "counter-intuitive" does not equal "wrong", which was pretty much the whole point he was making. There are a huge number of things which are counter-intuitive, yet we know them to be true. Like, for example, the idea that theists have a functional brain; completely counter-intuitive, but post-mortem analysis and FMRIs prove it to be true. Seems crazy, I know, but you can't argue with the science!
Jared Stein Is everything that is counter-intuitive wrong? For example for a very long time common sense dictated that the world was flat, does that mean it is? Hell if everything that made commom sense was correct then reality would be a place of blatant contradictions.
Yep, it took a whole bunch of courage for that priest to get in front of a friendly audience and spew his non sensical Christian garbage. What a smart guy. Dawkins is talking way over everyone’s head here. Not surprising being they’re a bunch of adults that believe in fairy tales to explain things their simple minds can’t comprehend.
In the beginning, men were stupid, ignorant and fearful so they invented the idea of a god to explain things they couldn't comprehend. Then many years later, science came along and explained everything to them. Some were enlightened, others remained stupid, fearful and ignorant.
@@tanjavankessel2548 Religion claims that something that started to exist (universe) couldn't come from nothing, while an eternal being (God) didn't started to exist-He simply IS!
What a silly statement. We DO know what "nothing is"... because "nothing" simply means "NOT ANYTHING"! If you could observe it, then it would be something! Hilarious how desperate some people are to avoid theism.
Yes...this video sums it up. Something from Nothing = None Reason ! Funny since Dawkins dismisses God based on Reason, yet he concludes that the origins of the universe are not explainable by Reason. He actually proved a mysterious cause of the universe to himself and denies it. This is what I call reasoning of the unreasonable. It is like looking God in the face (allegorically) and saying he doesn't exist.
People take things for their surface value and look no further, just like when Lawrence Krause did a lecture on 'A Universe from Nothing.' People got bent out of shape and were angry that empty space isn't really empty. They mistakenly thought that meant the title of the lecture was wrong. Had they listened to the whole lecture carefully, I think they may have gotten a lot out of it.
The Big Bang has many flaws in it that any man with common sense will accept the Big Bang is irrational. atheism has failed to explain the origins of the universe
atheism isn't trying to explain the origins of the universe - it is merely a claim that there is no evidence for god. physics, on the other hand, is. and need I remind you half the scientific community are theists. by the way, Krauss' book explains how matter and energy can come from a void of nothing, which this oversimplified video fails to address
Not Your Business yes cuz you and atheism is Unstoppable died before right. And u was here billions and billions of years ago to witness the big bang and how by luck a single cell started all life on Earth hahahahhaha FOH you don't know shit. Evolution is not a fact it's just assumptions. one big lie and Fairytale
"Hurr durr atheists believe nothing somehow banged into something an' then a Universe happened" .....Aaaand Creationists think a fucking wizard did it. POINT: Atheists.
I think this video should define "selective editing" and "taking something out of context" I watched the whole discussion and understood it fine. It seems most people here either didn't understand it, or didn't watch it.
Even with the full context, Dawkins still contradicted himself. The universe did not arise from nothing, it came from SOMETHING which Krauss and Dawkins are calling "nothing" just because we don't understand anything about it. It is intellectual dishonesty.
I can kinda understand where Dawkings is coming from, really everything that exists in creation had to come from something mysterious, creation would have to have come from something that is not equal to creation, it would have to be from something more powerful.
yes I know Im trying to understand the athiests understanding of nothing, but I just cant, Ive tried to imagine a sinario where, nothing is transperent, no black or white, but you would need some kind of colour to know if anything was transperent or not. its a tricky thing to get my head around.
David Nolan Atheists such as Dawkins and Krauss are making a fundamental mistake: they're treating "nothing" as if it were an actual thing. But "nothing" isn't a thing, it's a quantifier. It's just a way of saying "there isn't anything". If I say "I had nothing for lunch", you don't ask me "how did it taste?". It means "I did not have any lunch"! That's the point. What Dawkins and Krauss are talking about is most definitely a something: it's a quantum vacuum. It's a physical thing with energy, properties, laws etc. It's not "nothing". That's just a misleading label they've placed on it in order to make it sound as if they've solved the question "why is there something rather than nothing". But they haven't, because all they've done is answer "why is there something rather than something"? And that's why Dawkins sounds so ridiculous here. One moment he's saying "the universe came from LITERALLY nothing", and then the next moment, without even realising it, he's admitting that the universe had to come from "something"! He's very confused, and his status as a famous scientist does nothing to rescue him from these nonsensical statements.
yes i see what your saying, it makes sense to me, my issue with this mainly is, if the athiest not all, just those who go with the something from nothing idea, well what is so preposterous about a man rising from the dead, my thinking the something form nothing is more, well extraordinary.
@@Birdieupon ok so in an argument he would later develop on this point that physicists say that the Big Bang wasn’t from ‘nothing’ but from matter and anti matter exploding into the universe. This video just repeats the same point and doesn’t really show what he was saying. Try reading a science book
@@Birdieupon That something _happened_ and _from nothing_ has different meanings depending on the speaker. One _nothing_ relates to the cardinal's creationist take. The _something mysterious_ part relates to physics, namely quantum flunctuations -- which also relates the other _nothing_ when talking to Krauss. As _something_ can feasably come from _nothing,_ (e.g. the Sauter-Schwinger effect) while no _nothing_ truly exists. But how can an evolutionary biologist put across to a cardinal and the avg. public fleeting electromagnetic waves or QED vaccum? He tried to make it as simple as he could but theists are so eager to scrutinize him, they end up creating a false narrative instead of just taking in the full context. Curiously enough, they never scrutinize themselves, their scripture nor their speakers.
@@Birdieupon It's not a word salad, read it attentively: you've mixed together different nothings. One is the nothingness that normies imagine when speaking about "something out of nothing" -- ie when talking to the Cardinal. The other one, when he's talking to Lawrence Krauss, is the nothing in physics (ie there isn't such a thing as an actual nothing; no real vaccum). Hence him saying that nothing is something; Dawkins thus @2:43 says that "it's possible to dispute whether _nothing_ is the right word." Laymen will be confused by this especially when you edited it like that.
2. "Meaningless" here means "meaningless in describing reality". My statements were "meaningless in describing reality" because I was not talking about reality, but how the process of logical deductions is not necessarily applicable to reality. 3. While claiming "nothing" as "meaningless" could be argued to be verificationist, 2 is definitely not. My statement in 2 is a statement about a process, not reality.
Microwaves and radio waves can be described as "nothing" Before John Dalton's theory of atoms and atomic differences no one knew about carbon monoxide vs carbon dioxide. Nicola Tesla - 'If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.' Perhaps there is something in between the spaces of spaces...Something unseen and un-tapped, yet ever present and universally bound...
I agree that perhaps there is something between the spaces of spaces etc... just so long as you recognise that, in your own words, it is SOMETHING. ;) Also, on your first point: "Microwaves and radio waves can be described as "nothing"" You don't think it would be more accurate to describe them as, well... microwaves and radio waves? ;)
Birdieupon Nothing = I DONT KNOW YET. What's before the Big Bang??? Eventually someone will find out...and this video is trying to push the agenda that GOD is going to be that answer. More than likely in our lifetime we will find out. The question asked to Mr. Dawkins was," how do you get something from nothing?"(referring to the BigBang) Mr. Dawkins is choosing to use Nothing instead of: Whatever that something is which we do not know of NOW: So really IT is already Something, but we don't know what IT is. The un-intelligent question is to blame for the confusion. This video is out of context and biased. Microwaves and Radio-waves do not have an Element on the Periodic Table- if we're going to compare apples to apples and stay on topic with physics. That's why my "nothing" had quotes...
+Johnny E No they cannot. Nothingness is the absence of everything, if there's anything even if it's just one atom then it's something. This why we really need to educate people on the proper definition of "nothing".
Remember the last matrix film where Neo meets the creator of the matrix? The creator said to Neo "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering."
I'll give an example instead. There is a vehicle, a blind philosopher and a blind scientist. A passerby exclaims, "what a strange car!" The scientist approaches the car, feels it and says, "I feel 5 wheels!" The philosopher replies, "cars don't have 5 wheels, it must be painted pink!" That's the difference between science and philosophy.
@@thesterndragoon9159 Well Possibility answered you a year ago before you wrote that, man. The answer is Allah. God can be anything, when you're talking about God what you refer to could range from idols to the trinity. When you're talking about Allah everyone knows that you're talking about that one true God, not three, not 7, just that one God. And Allah in the Arabic language has no plural. :)
He could had used his head for an example and said there is nothing in it yet I can speak because of it...... Never mind back to square one HAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!
"nothing" isn't a "thing" to encounter in the first place! It means the ABSENCE of anything! Hence, no encounters.... and, surprise surprise.... no-thing! Astonished that people can be so obtuse. Only a desperation to cling to a worldview can result in this sophistry.
You cannot prove God doesn’t exist or that it’s impossible for God to exist but you can definitely prove the impossibility of nothing becoming everything.
"he hangs out with people who spend their whole lives learning about physics." you sure it's not people who spend their whole lives learning about nothing? X-D
But chapeau to the editer of this video. It once more shows, that editing really is everything. I have seen most of the source videos of this compilation and have to say, that this vid does not at all depicts what dawkins was acutally saying in the whole statements.
+Zeal In Christ But that's what you religious people are arguing though.... I mean you LITERALLY argue that the universe came from a God that doesn't exist, in other words: nothing. Because he isn't there, never was, never existed. So... If Dawkins is insane for claiming it came from nothing, and YOU are ALSO claiming that it came from nothing then.... that makes you insane also! OH MY! :O
1. Subjective, yes. Substantiated by the lack of meaningful arguments involving "nothing". 2. I disagree. "Nothing" has multiple uses, therefore it has multiple meanings. 3. The meaning was never the point. It all comes back to whether the axioms of logic applies to reality.
Atheist logic: 'Nothing can cause something.' Atheist uncertainty: 'I don't know if a sequence of causes can be either finite or infinite. I don't know if there's an in between infinite and finite number.' Atheist feeling: 'It's exciting to not know.' To say the present is the result of an infinite past is a paradox.
You have never seen god yet everyone seems to understand him though he works in mysterious ways. You can't comprehend the infinite. Yet you make claims on what it is and that it is paradoxical. Somehow god exist within it without paradox. If god is timeless and infinite where does he derive his nature and what is the infinite chain of thoughts in his head before his decision to bring existence into existence?
Rundori True, we can't comprehend the infinite. We can however conceptualize the infinite. In maths we work with infinity often. Anyway, to talk about God one needs a concept of God otherwise we don't know what is being denied or affirmed. So I might agree with people that God doesn't exist or that there's a lack of evidence for God, depending on their concept of God. I will describe where my first notion of God comes from. Note that this is about the CONCEPT of God and not about ATTRIBUTES (such as forgiving, punishing, etc) of God. Today is dependent on yesterday. Yesterday is dependent on the day before, etc. If the past were infinite, TODAY would never be. We would still be 'in past'. But today does exist. Therefore the dependency line must be finite. 'Nothing' is defined as having no properties whatsoever and therefore cannot CAUSE the origin of that line. So the origin of that line MUST have independent properties. So God is conceptualized as: one independent from everything else. So the argument is not "I can't explain it therefore God did it" but the argument is 'I know there is an independent point and I call that point G.o.d'. And I've heard people saying 'you can't know that'. And my answer to that is: if we can't use our reason to know, what else do we use? There is no in between an infinite and finite number. Imagine rewinding a film to infinity. If you don't press the play button (and thus making the rewinding finite), you will never reach the scene of today. Another one I've heard is 'so who caused God?' My answer to that is: I just explained the concept of God: one independent from everything else. An independent existence has no cause. You can ask me what caused the car to move because a car is dependent. How come one asks who/what caused God? To me that's a sign of not having understood the concept of God and how we came to that concept.
***** Here is some food for thought. Draw a line of 10 cm. This will take you say 1 sec. Mathematically there are infinite points on this line. In other words, you just connected infinite points, not in infinite time, but in just one sec. Does the line have a starting and end point even though there are infinite points on this line?
***** The exercise I gave you, would give us some insight in your reasoning. But you didn't answer it. Well then, what is your concept of reality/existence? Do you think the past existed? And how would you prove the past existed?
+srada123 I see math used to conceptualize the infinite. But that is not the reality of the infinite. I can conceptually place you anywhere on an infinite timeline. If you are conceptualizing a series of events that stack like blocks you don't know time. Humans don't perceive time. We perceive change. Time could be laid down at once. Can you imagine looking at a point in space. Now change perspective and realize that point is actually a ray extending past you and away from you (infinitely). Moving the line left or right is how you move forward or back in time. You are trying to make sense of the infinite traveling across the ray itself (mathematical concept). But true time can not be perceived (reality of the infinite) from our perspective. Asserting that the infinite can not exist because of a math concept doesn't really mean anything. Then you say GOD is timeless witch means nothing actually. Why do people think timeless means infinite anyway? Every thought, choice, and action god made would stack on top of itself in one instant. There would be a state where he: 1 didn't think about making the universe, 2 thought about making it, 3 started to make it, 4 finished making it, 5 stops to look at what he just did.... All of those things exist as one instance in a timeless void. There has to be attributes to GOD TIME and GOD SPACE. I'm not even sure true nothingness is possible are? You cant even conceive of a nothing without a god. Is it possible that true nothingness is impossible? And how can you have cause and effect without time?
Not many atheists could speculate on it, a worldwide renounced physicist could because their understanding on quantum physics is much more profound then pea-nut brains that believe the earth is flat and some guy named Jesus was the son of God & noahs ark and all that other bullshit.
+Dan Smith He said something CREATED it, so just use your brain and do the math, 1+1 equals 2, and, if he said CREATED, which he did...he's speaking of a Creator, DUHHH?
Revelation no you just don't understand, he is not speaking of a creator in the god sense. We take a bit of empty space and say there is nothing there but to a physicist there are quantum particles popping in and out of existence all the time, stuff they couldn't see before, so that's what Krause means when he says nothing isn't nothing anymore! Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not a physicist and trying to explain this stuff which is not his specialty to a bunch of close minded ignorant Bronze Age humans must frustrate the shit out of him. I can't believe you attempt to insult me regarding something you clearly don't understand. So less of the patronising and duhhhh comments until you know what your talking about. Smh
A painting has a painter......A building has a builder......creation has a Creator.Atheists believe in "nothing" because they want to live in sin without any consequence.Without any accountability.
(cont) Here's what I feel like is the best and most clear way to state the argument. D1: "God" is defined as a being of maximal greatness D2: "Maximal greatness" means having maximal excellence in all possible worlds. D3: "maximal excellence" means having the best of all values. P1: It is possible that God exists. P2: Therefore, it is possible that God exists in all possible worlds (implied by P1, see D1) P3: Therefore, God must exist in all possible worlds (Axiom S5) P4: God exists.
It's always risky to ridicule ideas which are supported by numerous people who are infinitely smarter and better educated than you are. In "Birdie"s case it is suicidal.
MrSpazoid7777 Sorry, but folks who spend their lives studying a specific subject and who have IQ's in the stratosphere, tend to have an advantage over those who have no clue about what is being discussed. That doesn't mean there is no room for debate, but it's silly to make a TH-cam presentation, without the knowledge to present a meaningful argument. Statements like "Can I put that on my Twitter bio", make it pretty clear, how bright this guy is.
Robert Harris "Sorry, but folks who spend their lives studying a specific subject and who have IQ's in the stratosphere, tend to have an advantage..." Lol. Do you mean like Dorkins who knows nothing about 'nothing'? So much for advantage. It's not how much you 'know,' it's what you 'know.' I would suggest their so-called "high IQ" is their stumbling block to common sense. Garbage in, garbage out. “The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” -Ronald Reagan
"this is a disgraceful piece of selective editing" Please explain in detail how? It doesn't take any brains to make an accusation without backing it up with evidence (did you know the Nazis said exactly the same thing of concentration camp footage when they were on trial)?
Birdieupon I have just reviewed the video and if you can't see any evidence of selective editing I can't help you. To me (and several responders) its perfectly obvious. In addition any connection between it and Nazis and Nuremberg is completely beyond me. I have no idea of what you mean. Maybe I don't get out enough.
Roy, I'm sorry but if you make an accusation, you need to give evidence. There are people out there who will accuse others of "selective editing" when no such thing has taken place, purely because they can't handle the points being made and are intellectually incapable of engaging with them. Are you one of those people? My Nuremberg point was to demonstrate that *anybody* can accuse others of selective editing, no matter how desperate. If you're going to accuse me then you need to explain what's been dishonestly edited. Saying "I can't help you" just makes you look desperate and as though you have no argument.
You have cut this interview sooo many times to crop out few sentences from a context so it can fit your narrative. Why not just post the whole debate?i will tell you why lol... Because you can not win this argument by raising a point which you don't believe yourself
I already told you, a personal relationship with God is based on personal experience. It originates with knowledge about him, and then reinforces itself with experiencing him. I was born again before I even knew how to read or write, before I even knew what God was or understood a thing about him.A small child has all of the things he needs in order to learn of God's presence.It's not indoctrination or brainwashing.My parents and family were not very religious people. It is the experience.
So what you're describing here is creating a model in your mind for a god you want to believe in, and then "experiencing" that model which reinforces your desired belief. Unless your god is unique to you, it was experienced because of the culture you're immersed in. That's the "knowledge" you claim to possess. And once you have a model for god like that, you can apply it to everything from reflections in rain puddles to why you got that raise this year. Believe what you will, but be cautious with trusting this pattern of thinking.
"reasonable" is the key word here. We use our reason and intuition in the end, NOT science. Experimentation is validated through philosophy and rational thought. Science borrows from philosophy in every step it takes, yet philosophy does not require science. This is why we can use philosophy to find truths that science alone cannot. Without rational thought, science is merely a dogma.
At this point, creationists think he's hiding his belief, however, what Richard Dawkins is merely trying to give proof and say that we still don't know, and that is why he loves science. The burden of proof argument was made because of the huge amount of people saying that a magic man from the sky made it all. Dawkins is trying to say that just because we don't know, it doesn't mean a god did it.
Pokélord if he doesn't know or we don't know what is 1st think to exist in this universe, then I would suggest believe in God. The reason I said because nothing is not going to do anything to you after our death but if God is the answer then we can not even stand a chance to even ask if he can forgive us.. And God I'd not that fool to accept us.. God may bless you!!
Ordinarily, when we say "stationary", we mean "stationary relative to some object". But here, "stationary" refers to "stationary relative to space". The classic balloon explanation illustrate what happens.
Religious man gets sick > Prays to god > Gets cured by science Atheist man gets sick > Complains about it > Gets cured by science Man of science gets sick > Creates cure > Cures everyone You can't take science for granted. Getting really tired of repeating myself here.
(cont)Does it make sense to say "There was no bomb in the building, and then it exploded?" No? Then, how does it make sense to say "There was nothing at first, and then it exploded?"
1. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's relevant. "Water is a liquid" is true, but it's not relevant, so it still depends on the usage of a concept, which will deem it "meaningful" or "meaningless". 2. The two examples demonstrate there are multiple ways to interpret "nothing" even used in the same form of sentences. Hence, not all "nothing" are equal. 3. It is a statement about a property in our model of the world, therefore it is either true or false.
I don't think you understood the argument. It would serve you better to read the full conversation. Also, keep in mind that I said "experiment" not "evidence." No experiment has produced a big bang with the exact conditions we have now. My argument with 821... was that science requires philosophy in order to operate and tie things together. Things like the CMB and redshift only prove that there is a universal source of all radiation at the microwave level and that the Universe is expanding.
The fact that you are comparing something as simple as bomb in a building; to something as mindblowing, incomprehensible and incredible as the big bang.... ....tells me you aren't ready for this debate.
I wouldn't call math a type of philosophy, since philosophy tries to deal with reality, while math fully accepts that it deals with consequences of accepting some axioms.
"I tried to describe it by not taking any granted from others, unlike you who takes science and thanks atheism for it." No, I take atheism; and thank science for it. Science is demonstrable. Scripture is not. Science is substance. Scripture is ink and air.
Just because he says that a mysterious nothing created something doesn't necessarily is any way imply that it has to be a being a creator or an intellegence
There's some accuracy in there when the writing as you would expect from any document, fact or fiction, but it's when the writers are writing about events far before their time where it gets truly absurd and evidence free. For example, there is no evidence of a global flood of any kind at any point in history, such an event would produce easily identifiable evidence in any bit of rock the world over and in the same way. This is merely one example.
(cont) So, to answer your question, I am referring to the God. I claim that no religion is fully right or fully wrong. I do believe Christianity is the most accurate depiction, far and wide, but I certainly don't assume that it holds all of the truth cards, and I don't think that other religions are fully wrong. I also cannot say that someone believes something different than what I believe isn't saved. In terms of specific religious descriptions, there is a limit to what you can (cont)
Says the person who is not capable of dismissing my arguments...I will not call you "ignorant" because I don't need ad hominem attacks to prove you wrong...
1. This would be dependent on 2. 2. "Nothing defeated them" means they were not defeated. "Nothing brought forth the big bang" does not mean the big bang did not happen. That's the difference. 3. I'll use a simpler one then: "your local gravity is 9.8m/s^2".
"Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists." -Lennox
high quality nonsense, my computer kept on lagging but it wouldn't let me lower the nonsense resolution
Let's debate this Rebekah :-)
lmfao, I love dawkins but this is hilarious.
Truer words have never been spoken
of course nothing is a something! it can have traits so its an object so its a thing, that logic 101 idiots
"Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe"
But just not God.
Og course not, he does everthing he can to dumb down God.
That's because there is simply no evidence of his/her/it's existence.
something pretty mysterious in the sense of something which is not easy to understand (if understandable at all) by a human being ,not in the sense of a highly impropable all knowing all poweful super-being
mikerjuk: Except of course, the UNIVERSE, which includes absolutely everything.
mikerjuk but there is of nothingness, right? As so clearly proven?
Isaac Newton the father of science said “Atheism is so senseless”.
Richard Dawkins tries so hard to impress people.. He tries so hard to sound sophisticated. He hates god so much he pretends he doesn’t exist.
If isaac newton were alive today he would be surely an athiest.
@@maddog9180 yep !!..because of the genius discovery that nothing is something...0=0
@@princehectoroftroy8340
His view of nothing keeps changing: nothing is literally nothing, nothing is not nothing, nothing is something, nothing is pretty mysterious .
Simply hilarious!
@@maddog9180 Being an atheist has no benefit.
Nothing is in Dawkins's brain.
ruffo coyote wow you people are so angry your supernatural beliefs are being challenged lol
James Lau nope I don’t have any supernatural beliefs so what am I losing?
Richard is just admitting that he doesn't know. He's just not jumping to the man made conclusion that there's an all loving God up in the sky that's all.
But the nothing in his brain is very simple.
Judging by your icon, the one with nothing in his head is you.
i think Dawkins is onto something..... Maybe someone created the universe?
Hahahahahahaha I love it. In another twenty years he might figure the rest out.
Max Falto Well maybe if he runs out of money because he's currently just following the money thats why he refuses to debate Craig.
I recently heard he had a stroke. Shame he may not be around long enough to learn of his folly :/
No Silly you mean He's onto Nothing! XD
Max Falto HA
Nothing means literally nothing.
And nothing exploded and created everything...
Sounds like magic.....?
so atheists believe in magic..
@@Skarletjonancy is it not magic to get something from nothing
Atheist said they don't believe in miracles, does that mean they believe in magic not "miracle"
@@drmnhn3264 yeah cuz there was nothing...then nothing magically exploded into everything...never been observed and never been repeated...smh
@@GCEXTREMEMN yeah and who the fuck was there to watch god make the earth? nobody
you know nothing richard dawkins
Oh, my sweet summer child.
Dawkins is spending his whole life trying to refute ideals that even he doesn’t have the mental capacity to comprehend.
Bingo!
You are a complete fool.
Your faith is norhing. A misunderstanding of the highest order. This video has been cherry picked and edited. Watched all of these.
To fall for any of this, is a discredit to our species. Backwards thinking, from a Backwards man. I hope you have not procreated.
Rich Ross, good morning. Don’t hold back. I value your opinions as much as I hope others value mine. Since you are unable to respond intelligently without attacking me on a personal level, I will respond to you in a manor of which you can comprehend. Go fuck yourself.
@@captainspaulding4777 you are right. No diplomacy here. You deserve none. The video was edited heavily in your favour. It was conjecture. That is a lack of integrity. You want to talk about intelligence, show me anything related to a logical argument. There is no reasonable proof for religion, of any sort, our morality does not belong to religion. No god would ever care. To put your belief in an almighty overlord, is foolish.
You have no knowledge of the arguments against religion. You also have no argument for the validity of creationism. Faith, it is all you have. It is the very weakness that this society, must rid ourselves of.
I will ridicule religion. Debate does not work, no arguments back. It is all faith.
I will say this, the bible is a fantastic fairytale. Unless you believe in the virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc.
The bible is no moral book however, it is the cruelest book i have ever read. I have not read it all. I cherry picked, like this video did.
You have no moral standpoint, if you adhere to the bible. That means you would support slavery, genocide and genital mutilation. If you take it literally. If you do not, you are cherry picking the good bits, that apply ro our society today. I say no holy book has significance today, and no authority. Certainly no ideals to pass on. Outdated, and clearly man made.
You are a fool, yes.
Rich Ross, I respect your opinion of me being a fool. However, if my beliefs are true, I have nothing to lose. If your beliefs are true, you have an eternity to lose. Unfortunately we will not know which one of us is right until it is too late to argue about it on TH-cam. You are a worthy adversary. Keep preaching your beliefs and I shall continue mine. After all denouncing religion is a religion. Your religion is just less profitable.
Dawkins says, “Common sense doesn’t allow something out of nothing,” then later he says, “something Can come out of nothing”.
All I can derive from those statements is that he has no common sense, by his own admission.
Once again your fail to analyse the garbage you write. I'm happy you don't have a scrap of self awareness otherwise you'd be curled up with embarrassment.
You seem to think that "common sense" is the ultimate arbiter of all fact, but guess what? It's not. There are many things that defy common sense and yet are true, e.g. the many facets of quantum mechanics that appear ridiculous to the average layman, and yet have been proven true by many thousands of experiments.
@@ferrumignis There is nothing in quantum mechanics that goes against commonsense. Except if you're one of the pop science fanboys who buy into the "alive and dead at the same time" nonsense that they lie to the likes of you with despite the buried articles by actual physicists actually doing physics not youtube videos refuting this nonsense.
The very fact of empiricism is commonsense. If I asked you to prove to me that the universe behaves consistently, that is, the fundamental premise of empiricism is true, how would you go about proving it? "we observe it to be consistent"? Aaand just another day where an atheist breathes fallacies ignorantly. These people have such a flawed epistemology and that makes you wonder how that much contradictions can gather in any person, let alone communities now.
@@MegaMoh Where have I said that quantum mechanics doesn't make sense? Have you replied to the wrong post?
Nice 👍
Not exactly. Scientific method doesn't build on common sense, which can be false. For instance, common sense would be that the sun moves around the earth, which was what people thought for thousands of years. What we call common sense is an entirely limited perspective shared by the majority of people in a given historical era. Science collects all the empirical evidence possible to question common sense, confirms or falsifies it. It is not perfect, but the most reliable way we have come up with so far. And nothingness itself is beyond common sense, not just the question whether or not something can come out of it. We can't conceive nothingness, our language doesn't allow it to be discussed in the realm of, or with respect to existence, we can't even say "there is" such thing as nothingness. It is so much like God in many philosophical respects, but rhetoric can mask the ontological problems inherent in many abstract concepts including God, but with "nothingness" we can't even do that. That's why Dawkins sounded like a fool here, he's not a philospher. But as for "common sense," he already refers to it from an empiricist's point of view, simply as an uneducated common consensus which requires more evidence.
2:01 -The cardinal drinks the glass of water like a boss.
HAHAHA, I was thinking the exact same thing LOL !!!
@@jasonhughes571
Oof looks like someone can't handle the truth
That cardinal has been convicted. Like a rapist.
If you watch the whole discussion instead of only the selected parts that do give a wrong impression of it, you might notice the cringworthy moment when the Kardinal said 'i was preparing young boys' and everybody loughed at him. Well, since he really is a rapist, the joke is probably on the poor boys...
The cardinal has no idea what Dawkins is talking about but Dunning Kruger makes him feel that he knows it better than the best physicists in the world.
Master of all fools Richard dawkin
Let me guess, science cannot yet explain it so God must have done it. The argument from the sheep and the weak minded. When the Bible was written they had not even asked if the Earth was flat. Now look at all that science has disproven thus far from the Bible and imagine 50 years from now. Religion, in my estimation is finite and has but a short time left on this planet. Those that prey on the weak minded and destitute in our species better get it while they can, a new level of enlightenment is but a short time away.
Agree
@@bucksfan-rp7gk the bible says the earh was round what are you on about
@@aking6218 He's another one of those blinded by satan
Agree
"Something pretty misterious" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dawkins tries but fails to hide God
Something mysterious doesn't have to mean a god...I don't understand why you're getting upvotes besides religious circle jerking on this comment thread.
Bill Engvall Something mysterious could mean a God. I don't understand why you got two upvotes.
Bill Engvall The comment is funny because he referred to "something" mysterious having only just said that the universe can come from "nothing". He can't have it both ways: either the universe came from nothing, or something, but Dawkins is so unreflective and illogical in his thinking he fails to catch himself making this contradiction.
Bill Engvall Sure, but it's funny this form of 'nothing' he created. The 'nothing' is 'something mysterious' LOL.
To deny God atheists come to this point of irrationality.
MrErickbass So we can't explain it, therefore God?
Time was created. God is outside of time. He sees the past, present, and future, all at the same time. He is outside of time. There was no beginning to God. The beginning was created, it "began"... and in that "beginning" was God, and nothing that was made was made without Him. This is all in the bible . . .
+Phil Monk As Robert Jastrow said, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
If he can see the future than why did he allow the very bishop your watching to molester young innocent children. Your a fucking idiot. Your God is also a fuckin nonce obviously.
This is the Religion of today people, this is your God.
Perfect logic that cannot be disputed, it is we the { created } who are formed in the capsule called time .
Yep God exists
I have a feeling that someday Richard Dawkins will realize he is actually a believer in a Creator of Universe.
Exactly, the way he thinks is still based on ex-nihilo, He subconsciously believes in God and he doesn't know it. 😅
th-cam.com/video/auoqbOE9Rvw/w-d-xo.html I’d love to know your thoughts on this
I have a feeling that hasn't happened
Erm. No. He won’t. Because he’s not delusional. Simple as that.
The fool says there is no GOD!!!
The person who is more foolish says that there is
@@lasinloser3979 Hey, I’ve never SEEN you, like with regard to the existence of God I can SEE that you have left a comment here (just like God has surrounded us with Creation and nature), but I don’t believe YOU exist😌 That’s essentially the absurdity of the atheist argument in a nutshell, it literally makes no sense.
@@lasinloser3979 better to be fool than lost
and they laugh at people of faith.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Atheism is hilarious XD
I think you mean "science" is hilarious. Faith has no affect on the experiments and research - Dawkins just happens to be an atheist attempting to recall and explain what he heard from his atheist scientist friend Krauss.
+TomWithtime there go them atheists, hiding behind the word "science"
There go those believers, clinging onto an absurd concept despite literally not a single shred of evidence to support their "faith".
mikerjuk What would you accept?
I'm not overly fussy, I just want something that doesn't rely on faith or belief. E.g. a popular argument is that the existence of the universe is "overwhelming" evidence of the existence of God, which is just ridiculous as it's yet another argument that relies on belief. If I witnessed a genuine miracle that could not be explained in any way known to man, that could certainly change my views.
Richard the Duck: ''Something, nothing, nothing, something, nothing, something, something, nothing, nothing, something, nothing, something, something, nothing, nothing, something, nothing, something, something...''
Atheism is now less plausible than magic at this point
th-cam.com/video/xe8Dzu5egHk/w-d-xo.html - I’d love to know your thoughts on this
th-cam.com/video/xe8Dzu5egHk/w-d-xo.html - I’d love to know your thoughts on this
The only people who think there is a problem with claiming "God did it" are those who refuse to actually think.
Asking an atheist what they think about creation is like asking a vampire what he thinks about sunshine.
Well, you can ask me anything you want. I do think that the world surrounding me is quite beautiful, but still unnecessarily dangerous und full of inconvenience. And I am a first world middle class Kid; I'm not even starving or suffering from unsave water supply
"Bleeeeh! Hisssssssssss!"
Asking a theist about creation is like reading a Harry Potter book. Entertaining, but ultimately a work of fiction.
@@ferrumignis The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason replicating bits which then turned into everything; If you believe this, You are dumber than a box of rocks, Instead of being created by them.
@@princehectoroftroy8340 You prove your ignorance with every single word. Please explain what your imaginary deity constructed the universe from?
Great video. It is fascinating to see Dawkins & many other atheists pay lip service to logic, reason & science whilst at the same time demonstrating dogmatic, irrational, emotional, unscientific backflips in order to defend an increasingly ridiculous & tired set of beliefs. Yes, that's right, beliefs. But at the same time, to then show no insight or self awareness of the bigotry they display is simply breath taking...
The audience laughs at him as he waxes eloquently about the properties of nothing, & he asks, "Why is that funny"?
It's utterly incredible to me that this establishment propagandist seems to command the respect of so many when he is no more than a hateful attack dog for scientism.
Hopefully his cowardice in refusing to debate WLC & his subsequent rants, lies & ad hominem have caused many to question & reject the dogma this misanthrope is selling...
What's really fascinating is the incredible number of sheep who think Richard Dawkins knows what he's talking about! Richard Dawkins admits that something from nothing is counter-intuitive, but he continues to preach the nonsense. He's a wolf who preys on the gullibility and scientific illiteracy of the masses, and the sheep are led to the slaughter. Atheism: Indoctrination at its finest.
Jared Stein In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Where there is supposedly empty space there are constant quantum fluctuations with virtual particles continually popping into and out of existence.
Jared Stein "counter-intuitive" does not equal "wrong", which was pretty much the whole point he was making. There are a huge number of things which are counter-intuitive, yet we know them to be true. Like, for example, the idea that theists have a functional brain; completely counter-intuitive, but post-mortem analysis and FMRIs prove it to be true. Seems crazy, I know, but you can't argue with the science!
Jared Stein Is everything that is counter-intuitive wrong? For example for a very long time common sense dictated that the world was flat, does that mean it is? Hell if everything that made commom sense was correct then reality would be a place of blatant contradictions.
Yep, it took a whole bunch of courage for that priest to get in front of a friendly audience and spew his non sensical Christian garbage. What a smart guy. Dawkins is talking way over everyone’s head here. Not surprising being they’re a bunch of adults that believe in fairy tales to explain things their simple minds can’t comprehend.
In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD...!!
In the beginning, men were stupid, ignorant and fearful so they invented the idea of a god to explain things they couldn't comprehend. Then many years later, science came along and explained everything to them. Some were enlightened, others remained stupid, fearful and ignorant.
The Stern Dragoon
So science explained that something came from nothing.
Boom Slang So religion claims that something can not come from nothing, then can’t explain where God came from
@@tanjavankessel2548 Religion claims that something that started to exist (universe) couldn't come from nothing, while an eternal being (God) didn't started to exist-He simply IS!
Хришћанин и Толкиновац So, if God is simply there, why can’t the universe?
Dawkins get owned
Pigeon chess.
The crowd was stupid.
What a silly statement. We DO know what "nothing is"... because "nothing" simply means "NOT ANYTHING"! If you could observe it, then it would be something!
Hilarious how desperate some people are to avoid theism.
LOL
Yes...this video sums it up. Something from Nothing = None Reason !
Funny since Dawkins dismisses God based on Reason, yet he concludes that the origins of the universe are not explainable by Reason. He actually proved a mysterious cause of the universe to himself and denies it. This is what I call reasoning of the unreasonable.
It is like looking God in the face (allegorically) and saying he doesn't exist.
Dawkins is more religious than a Christian
Hahaha! I love videos like this. The materialist idiots do the work for us.
@多余 无 No.
People take things for their surface value and look no further, just like when Lawrence Krause did a lecture on 'A Universe from Nothing.' People got bent out of shape and were angry that empty space isn't really empty. They mistakenly thought that meant the title of the lecture was wrong.
Had they listened to the whole lecture carefully, I think they may have gotten a lot out of it.
LOL I can't get enough of this vid. Too funny :)
+Lance Cryor I know the guy Dawkins was full of BS.
The Big Bang has many flaws in it that any man with common sense will accept the Big Bang is irrational. atheism has failed to explain the origins of the universe
atheism isn't trying to explain the origins of the universe - it is merely a claim that there is no evidence for god.
physics, on the other hand, is. and need I remind you half the scientific community are theists.
by the way, Krauss' book explains how matter and energy can come from a void of nothing, which this oversimplified video fails to address
Not Your Business yes cuz you and atheism is Unstoppable died before right. And u was here billions and billions of years ago to witness the big bang and how by luck a single cell started all life on Earth hahahahhaha FOH you don't know shit. Evolution is not a fact it's just assumptions. one big lie and Fairytale
Not Your Business
Atheist always won !?? Another lie ..
"Hurr durr atheists believe nothing somehow banged into something an' then a Universe happened"
.....Aaaand Creationists think a fucking wizard did it.
POINT: Atheists.
I think this video should define "selective editing" and "taking something out of context" I watched the whole discussion and understood it fine. It seems most people here either didn't understand it, or didn't watch it.
Even with the full context, Dawkins still contradicted himself. The universe did not arise from nothing, it came from SOMETHING which Krauss and Dawkins are calling "nothing" just because we don't understand anything about it. It is intellectual dishonesty.
We need a catchy Dawkins "It's literally nothing" remix!
The next time you become ill, don't go to hospital, just expect a doctor to pop into existence out of nowhere and out of nothing.
Yes, just stay home and pray ... do not use the benefits of medical science
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Atheism is hilarious
+Not Your Business you just like something come from nothing?? hahahahahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Creationists are retards.
@@thesterndragoon9159 Easy atheist.... don't be triggered . We all just listen to Dawkins giving us a piece of him mind....
@@thesterndragoon9159 atheist just don't want to acknowledge God, that's just it.. nothing more, nothing less
So, I see the onslaught of dislikes from the Dawkins' Witnesses have begun...
And he ridicules God which is Truth which is Reality.
The problem is that Richard is wery carismatic and a lot of not inteligent people will actuly folow his nonsence.
Isn't that like being a pimp or something ?
Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origins of the universe - Richard Dawkins
How Americans could vote for Trump is quite mysterious to me - Richard Dawkins
This is funny! What is the nothing? Something pretty mysterious; would that be God?
I am still not impressionated by the pope so sir Dawkins you know...!!
Xobohor Mehegdon it is what he doesn't know that counts.
No knowing what something is doesn't automatically mean it;s a god.
Andrew Wilson all creation shouts of a designer who is God so there is no excuse for not knowing God.
Elaine C Babies with bone cancer. Some god.
I'm just here for Ron Grainer.
Trash remains trash even when it is mentioned by the top scientists!
Dr.Nothing failed miserably in funny way.
I can kinda understand where Dawkings is coming from, really everything that exists in creation had to come from something mysterious, creation would have to have come from something that is not equal to creation, it would have to be from something more powerful.
... right, but that doesn't mean that it's nothing! You even called it "something" yourself! ;)
yes I know Im trying to understand the athiests understanding of nothing, but I just cant, Ive tried to imagine a sinario where, nothing is transperent, no black or white, but you would need some kind of colour to know if anything was transperent or not. its a tricky thing to get my head around.
David Nolan Atheists such as Dawkins and Krauss are making a fundamental mistake: they're treating "nothing" as if it were an actual thing. But "nothing" isn't a thing, it's a quantifier. It's just a way of saying "there isn't anything". If I say "I had nothing for lunch", you don't ask me "how did it taste?". It means "I did not have any lunch"! That's the point.
What Dawkins and Krauss are talking about is most definitely a something: it's a quantum vacuum. It's a physical thing with energy, properties, laws etc. It's not "nothing". That's just a misleading label they've placed on it in order to make it sound as if they've solved the question "why is there something rather than nothing". But they haven't, because all they've done is answer "why is there something rather than something"?
And that's why Dawkins sounds so ridiculous here. One moment he's saying "the universe came from LITERALLY nothing", and then the next moment, without even realising it, he's admitting that the universe had to come from "something"! He's very confused, and his status as a famous scientist does nothing to rescue him from these nonsensical statements.
yes i see what your saying, it makes sense to me, my issue with this mainly is, if the athiest not all, just those who go with the something from nothing idea, well what is so preposterous about a man rising from the dead, my thinking the something form nothing is more, well extraordinary.
David Nolan This is literally what Jesus called straining at a gnat!!! Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Jesus is Lord...
Nope, Jesus (peace be upon him) is just a prophet :)
ahmed ben amor nope he is GOD!! peace be upon you!
He is a prophet, but not just that.
Jesus is a rophet. Nothing more, nothing less
in the quran it says that the gospel is true
People clearly didn’t understand his argument. Bit sad really
So what was his argument? Can you help explain it for those of us who just thought it was a case of the Emperor wearing no clothes?
@@Birdieupon ok so in an argument he would later develop on this point that physicists say that the Big Bang wasn’t from ‘nothing’ but from matter and anti matter exploding into the universe. This video just repeats the same point and doesn’t really show what he was saying. Try reading a science book
@@Birdieupon That something _happened_ and _from nothing_ has different meanings depending on the speaker. One _nothing_ relates to the cardinal's creationist take. The _something mysterious_ part relates to physics, namely quantum flunctuations -- which also relates the other _nothing_ when talking to Krauss. As _something_ can feasably come from _nothing,_ (e.g. the Sauter-Schwinger effect) while no _nothing_ truly exists.
But how can an evolutionary biologist put across to a cardinal and the avg. public fleeting electromagnetic waves or QED vaccum? He tried to make it as simple as he could but theists are so eager to scrutinize him, they end up creating a false narrative instead of just taking in the full context.
Curiously enough, they never scrutinize themselves, their scripture nor their speakers.
@@Tretas. well, this proves that theists don't have a monopoly on word salads XD
@@Birdieupon It's not a word salad, read it attentively: you've mixed together different nothings. One is the nothingness that normies imagine when speaking about "something out of nothing" -- ie when talking to the Cardinal. The other one, when he's talking to Lawrence Krauss, is the nothing in physics (ie there isn't such a thing as an actual nothing; no real vaccum). Hence him saying that nothing is something; Dawkins thus @2:43 says that "it's possible to dispute whether _nothing_ is the right word."
Laymen will be confused by this especially when you edited it like that.
2. "Meaningless" here means "meaningless in describing reality". My statements were "meaningless in describing reality" because I was not talking about reality, but how the process of logical deductions is not necessarily applicable to reality.
3. While claiming "nothing" as "meaningless" could be argued to be verificationist, 2 is definitely not.
My statement in 2 is a statement about a process, not reality.
Dawkins. hahaha! What a piece of work.
Why a piece of work?
Based on like/dislike bar I see atheism is now a religion. But wait.. Dawkins said religion is bad.
+Luacs What is atheism worshiping?
Microwaves and radio waves can be described as "nothing"
Before John Dalton's theory of atoms and atomic differences no one knew about carbon monoxide vs carbon dioxide.
Nicola Tesla - 'If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.'
Perhaps there is something in between the spaces of spaces...Something unseen and un-tapped, yet ever present and universally bound...
I agree that perhaps there is something between the spaces of spaces etc... just so long as you recognise that, in your own words, it is SOMETHING. ;)
Also, on your first point:
"Microwaves and radio waves can be described as "nothing""
You don't think it would be more accurate to describe them as, well... microwaves and radio waves? ;)
Birdieupon
Nothing = I DONT KNOW YET. What's before the Big Bang??? Eventually someone will find out...and this video is trying to push the agenda that GOD is going to be that answer. More than likely in our lifetime we will find out.
The question asked to Mr. Dawkins was," how do you get something from nothing?"(referring to the BigBang)
Mr. Dawkins is choosing to use Nothing instead of: Whatever that something is which we do not know of NOW:
So really IT is already Something, but we don't know what IT is. The un-intelligent question is to blame for the confusion. This video is out of context and biased.
Microwaves and Radio-waves do not have an Element on the Periodic Table- if we're going to compare apples to apples and stay on topic with physics. That's why my "nothing" had quotes...
Johnny E
CAN BE described as nothing. BUT IT SHOULDNT BE described as nothing.
GET IT?
Johnny E YEAH BUT THAT SOMETHING CAN BE ANYTHING BUT GOD huh?
come on man... cut the nonsense and give God a chance for fucks sake
+Johnny E No they cannot. Nothingness is the absence of everything, if there's anything even if it's just one atom then it's something. This why we really need to educate people on the proper definition of "nothing".
Remember the last matrix film where Neo meets the creator of the matrix? The creator said to Neo "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering."
I'll give an example instead.
There is a vehicle, a blind philosopher and a blind scientist. A passerby exclaims, "what a strange car!" The scientist approaches the car, feels it and says, "I feel 5 wheels!" The philosopher replies, "cars don't have 5 wheels, it must be painted pink!"
That's the difference between science and philosophy.
Awesome vid. I can't believe so many people DISliked it? I guess it's only acceptable to point out when a THEIST says something wrong (shrugs).
'There's nothing up my sleeves'
Now watch me create the Universe.
GOD.
Allah
Which god, where and how? You don't automatically get a pass on having to define and explain your supernatural friend.
@@thesterndragoon9159 Well Possibility answered you a year ago before you wrote that, man.
The answer is Allah.
God can be anything, when you're talking about God what you refer to could range from idols to the trinity.
When you're talking about Allah everyone knows that you're talking about that one true God, not three, not 7, just that one God.
And Allah in the Arabic language has no plural. :)
So you can have something from nothing ... hmmm
Dawkins trying to define "nothing" as "something" is like mathematically saying 0 = 2.
Or better yet, 0= 2-2
+Endo Alley No, that would have logic behind it. Nothing Dawkins said here makes sense or logic.
He could had used his head for an example and said there is nothing in it yet I can speak because of it......
Never mind back to square one HAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!
"nothing" isn't a "thing" to encounter in the first place! It means the ABSENCE of anything! Hence, no encounters.... and, surprise surprise.... no-thing!
Astonished that people can be so obtuse. Only a desperation to cling to a worldview can result in this sophistry.
You cannot prove God doesn’t exist or that it’s impossible for God to exist but you can definitely prove the impossibility of nothing becoming everything.
amen
Something = Nothing.... LOOL!
My 9 year old loves watching this video with me and we laugh at Dawkins ‘nonsense. He knows that nothing =0 and even 0.0000001=something.
Haahahahah...Richard wants nothing to be something pretty bad...lol.
"he hangs out with people who spend their whole lives learning about physics."
you sure it's not people who spend their whole lives learning about nothing? X-D
But chapeau to the editer of this video. It once more shows, that editing really is everything. I have seen most of the source videos of this compilation and have to say, that this vid does not at all depicts what dawkins was acutally saying in the whole statements.
Why are there so many dislikes?
Buttmad plebbit atheists
People know the video was chopped up.
Rundori butt = hurt
Haha excellent video. Dawkins got nothing!!
Mate you should watch the full length video of this debate. Dawkins destroys them. This video is over simplified and edited bullshit.
I have watched the whole debate, mate, and I don't think Dawkins destroys anyone in it :-)
I can't take him seriously ever again after hearing him argue that something can from nothing. The man is an insane mouthpiece.
+Zeal In Christ But that's what you religious people are arguing though.... I mean you LITERALLY argue that the universe came from a God that doesn't exist, in other words: nothing. Because he isn't there, never was, never existed.
So... If Dawkins is insane for claiming it came from nothing, and YOU are ALSO claiming that it came from nothing then.... that makes you insane also!
OH MY! :O
Praetorian Dorn well he is just trying to quote L. Krauss ideas. You should read Krauss's book the universe from nothing, to really understand it.
Professing themselves to be wise they become fools..... Richard is a perfect example
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool
Where is ‘god’ at the exact moment when a priest is abusing a child in the back room of a church?
(Clue: the answer is a location).
1. Subjective, yes. Substantiated by the lack of meaningful arguments involving "nothing".
2. I disagree. "Nothing" has multiple uses, therefore it has multiple meanings.
3. The meaning was never the point. It all comes back to whether the axioms of logic applies to reality.
The nothing in Dawkins' head is something very simple.
Atheist logic: 'Nothing can cause something.'
Atheist uncertainty: 'I don't know if a sequence of causes can be either finite or infinite. I don't know if there's an in between infinite and finite number.'
Atheist feeling: 'It's exciting to not know.'
To say the present is the result of an infinite past is a paradox.
You have never seen god yet everyone seems to understand him though he works in mysterious ways. You can't comprehend the infinite. Yet you make claims on what it is and that it is paradoxical. Somehow god exist within it without paradox. If god is timeless and infinite where does he derive his nature and what is the infinite chain of thoughts in his head before his decision to bring existence into existence?
Rundori
True, we can't comprehend the infinite. We can however conceptualize the infinite. In maths we work with infinity often. Anyway, to talk about God one needs a concept of God otherwise we don't know what is being denied or affirmed. So I might agree with people that God doesn't exist or that there's a lack of evidence for God, depending on their concept of God. I will describe where my first notion of God comes from. Note that this is about the CONCEPT of God and not about ATTRIBUTES (such as forgiving, punishing, etc) of God.
Today is dependent on yesterday. Yesterday is dependent on the day before, etc. If the past were infinite, TODAY would never be. We would still be 'in past'. But today does exist. Therefore the dependency line must be finite. 'Nothing' is defined as having no properties whatsoever and therefore cannot CAUSE the origin of that line. So the origin of that line MUST have independent properties. So God is conceptualized as: one independent from everything else.
So the argument is not "I can't explain it therefore God did it" but the argument is 'I know there is an independent point and I call that point G.o.d'. And I've heard people saying 'you can't know that'. And my answer to that is: if we can't use our reason to know, what else do we use? There is no in between an infinite and finite number. Imagine rewinding a film to infinity. If you don't press the play button (and thus making the rewinding finite), you will never reach the scene of today.
Another one I've heard is 'so who caused God?' My answer to that is: I just explained the concept of God: one independent from everything else. An independent existence has no cause. You can ask me what caused the car to move because a car is dependent. How come one asks who/what caused God? To me that's a sign of not having understood the concept of God and how we came to that concept.
*****
Here is some food for thought. Draw a line of 10 cm. This will take you say 1 sec. Mathematically there are infinite points on this line. In other words, you just connected infinite points, not in infinite time, but in just one sec. Does the line have a starting and end point even though there are infinite points on this line?
*****
The exercise I gave you, would give us some insight in your reasoning. But you didn't answer it. Well then, what is your concept of reality/existence? Do you think the past existed? And how would you prove the past existed?
+srada123 I see math used to conceptualize the infinite. But that is not the reality of the infinite. I can conceptually place you anywhere on an infinite timeline. If you are conceptualizing a series of events that stack like blocks you don't know time. Humans don't perceive time. We perceive change. Time could be laid down at once.
Can you imagine looking at a point in space. Now change perspective and realize that point is actually a ray extending past you and away from you (infinitely). Moving the line left or right is how you move forward or back in time. You are trying to make sense of the infinite traveling across the ray itself (mathematical concept). But true time can not be perceived (reality of the infinite) from our perspective. Asserting that the infinite can not exist because of a math concept doesn't really mean anything. Then you say GOD is timeless witch means nothing actually.
Why do people think timeless means infinite anyway? Every thought, choice, and action god made would stack on top of itself in one instant.
There would be a state where he: 1 didn't think about making the universe, 2 thought about making it, 3 started to make it, 4 finished making it, 5 stops to look at what he just did.... All of those things exist as one instance in a timeless void. There has to be attributes to GOD TIME and GOD SPACE.
I'm not even sure true nothingness is possible are? You cant even conceive of a nothing without a god. Is it possible that true nothingness is impossible? And how can you have cause and effect without time?
so this is where the superstitious spend there youtube time?
I was looking for one atheist who dared to comment and this is all you could think of in defense?
Not many atheists could speculate on it, a worldwide renounced physicist could because their understanding on quantum physics is much more profound then pea-nut brains that believe the earth is flat and some guy named Jesus was the son of God & noahs ark and all that other bullshit.
Well, many worldwide renowned physicists believe that the guy Jesus was the son of God, how about that? I don't think they have peanut brains, do you?
Lol this is what I was thinking.
He admits to a God.
louisanna30 when? Missed it
Dan Smith sorry luv, if you missed it then I can't help you.
louisanna30 funny! :-) I missed it because it didn't happen
+Dan Smith He said something CREATED it, so just use your brain and do the math, 1+1 equals 2, and, if he said CREATED, which he did...he's speaking of a Creator, DUHHH?
Revelation no you just don't understand, he is not speaking of a creator in the god sense. We take a bit of empty space and say there is nothing there but to a physicist there are quantum particles popping in and out of existence all the time, stuff they couldn't see before, so that's what Krause means when he says nothing isn't nothing anymore! Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not a physicist and trying to explain this stuff which is not his specialty to a bunch of close minded ignorant Bronze Age humans must frustrate the shit out of him. I can't believe you attempt to insult me regarding something you clearly don't understand. So less of the patronising and duhhhh comments until you know what your talking about. Smh
A painting has a painter......A building has a builder......creation has a Creator.Atheists believe in "nothing" because they want to live in sin without any consequence.Without any accountability.
(cont) Here's what I feel like is the best and most clear way to state the argument.
D1: "God" is defined as a being of maximal greatness
D2: "Maximal greatness" means having maximal excellence in all possible worlds.
D3: "maximal excellence" means having the best of all values.
P1: It is possible that God exists.
P2: Therefore, it is possible that God exists in all possible worlds (implied by P1, see D1)
P3: Therefore, God must exist in all possible worlds (Axiom S5)
P4: God exists.
This video is as close as humanity has come to perfection.
It's always risky to ridicule ideas which are supported by numerous people who are infinitely smarter and better educated than you are. In "Birdie"s case it is suicidal.
Or, it may simply be a case of calling out the Emperor for having no clothes. ;)
Birdieupon Lol! Well said. Shut him down ...permanently, I hope.
MrSpazoid7777 Sorry, but folks who spend their lives studying a specific subject and who have IQ's in the stratosphere, tend to have an advantage over those who have no clue about what is being discussed.
That doesn't mean there is no room for debate, but it's silly to make a TH-cam presentation, without the knowledge to present a meaningful argument. Statements like "Can I put that on my Twitter bio", make it pretty clear, how bright this guy is.
Robert Harris
"Sorry, but folks who spend their lives studying a specific subject and who have IQ's in the stratosphere, tend to have an advantage..."
Lol. Do you mean like Dorkins who knows nothing about 'nothing'? So much for advantage. It's not how much you 'know,' it's what you 'know.' I would suggest their so-called "high IQ" is their stumbling block to common sense. Garbage in, garbage out.
“The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” -Ronald Reagan
Robert Harris Now is a good time to stop, Robert.
Regardless of personal conviction this is a disgraceful piece of selective editing designed solely to humiliate Dawkins.
Appalling!
Whatever nothing is it is its very very simple
(implying it was taken out of context)
"this is a disgraceful piece of selective editing"
Please explain in detail how? It doesn't take any brains to make an accusation without backing it up with evidence (did you know the Nazis said exactly the same thing of concentration camp footage when they were on trial)?
Birdieupon I have just reviewed the video and if you can't see any evidence of selective editing I can't help you. To me (and several responders) its perfectly obvious.
In addition any connection between it and Nazis and Nuremberg is completely beyond me. I have no idea of what you mean. Maybe I don't get out enough.
Roy, I'm sorry but if you make an accusation, you need to give evidence. There are people out there who will accuse others of "selective editing" when no such thing has taken place, purely because they can't handle the points being made and are intellectually incapable of engaging with them. Are you one of those people?
My Nuremberg point was to demonstrate that *anybody* can accuse others of selective editing, no matter how desperate. If you're going to accuse me then you need to explain what's been dishonestly edited. Saying "I can't help you" just makes you look desperate and as though you have no argument.
You have cut this interview sooo many times to crop out few sentences from a context so it can fit your narrative. Why not just post the whole debate?i will tell you why lol... Because you can not win this argument by raising a point which you don't believe yourself
I already told you, a personal relationship with God is based on personal experience. It originates with knowledge about him, and then reinforces itself with experiencing him.
I was born again before I even knew how to read or write, before I even knew what God was or understood a thing about him.A small child has all of the things he needs in order to learn of God's presence.It's not indoctrination or brainwashing.My parents and family were not very religious people. It is the experience.
So what you're describing here is creating a model in your mind for a god you want to believe in, and then "experiencing" that model which reinforces your desired belief. Unless your god is unique to you, it was experienced because of the culture you're immersed in. That's the "knowledge" you claim to possess. And once you have a model for god like that, you can apply it to everything from reflections in rain puddles to why you got that raise this year.
Believe what you will, but be cautious with trusting this pattern of thinking.
Dorkins😂😂😂
lol
"reasonable" is the key word here. We use our reason and intuition in the end, NOT science. Experimentation is validated through philosophy and rational thought. Science borrows from philosophy in every step it takes, yet philosophy does not require science. This is why we can use philosophy to find truths that science alone cannot. Without rational thought, science is merely a dogma.
At this point, creationists think he's hiding his belief, however, what Richard Dawkins is merely trying to give proof and say that we still don't know, and that is why he loves science. The burden of proof argument was made because of the huge amount of people saying that a magic man from the sky made it all. Dawkins is trying to say that just because we don't know, it doesn't mean a god did it.
Pokélord if he doesn't know or we don't know what is 1st think to exist in this universe, then I would suggest believe in God. The reason I said because nothing is not going to do anything to you after our death but if God is the answer then we can not even stand a chance to even ask if he can forgive us.. And God I'd not that fool to accept us..
God may bless you!!
He does know. It's Nothing 😊
Ordinarily, when we say "stationary", we mean "stationary relative to some object". But here, "stationary" refers to "stationary relative to space". The classic balloon explanation illustrate what happens.
Religious man gets sick > Prays to god > Gets cured by science
Atheist man gets sick > Complains about it > Gets cured by science
Man of science gets sick > Creates cure > Cures everyone
You can't take science for granted. Getting really tired of repeating myself here.
In that situation we only know "Bill exists" in the minds of the people who believe in him. NOT that he exists. Big difference.
I think Dorkins skull contains LITERALLY NOTHING! LOL!😂
Dawkins while a very eloquent speaker is totally and completely blinded by his own limited bias , a major weakness if ever I saw it
"well i think it a bit funny to be defining the word nothing"
Speechless
*takes sip of water* like I just actually beat Dawkins
th-cam.com/video/auoqbOE9Rvw/w-d-xo.html I’d love to know your thoughts on this
(cont)Does it make sense to say "There was no bomb in the building, and then it exploded?"
No?
Then, how does it make sense to say "There was nothing at first, and then it exploded?"
1. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's relevant. "Water is a liquid" is true, but it's not relevant, so it still depends on the usage of a concept, which will deem it "meaningful" or "meaningless".
2. The two examples demonstrate there are multiple ways to interpret "nothing" even used in the same form of sentences. Hence, not all "nothing" are equal.
3. It is a statement about a property in our model of the world, therefore it is either true or false.
I don't think you understood the argument. It would serve you better to read the full conversation. Also, keep in mind that I said "experiment" not "evidence." No experiment has produced a big bang with the exact conditions we have now.
My argument with 821... was that science requires philosophy in order to operate and tie things together. Things like the CMB and redshift only prove that there is a universal source of all radiation at the microwave level and that the Universe is expanding.
The fact that you are comparing something as simple as bomb in a building; to something as mindblowing, incomprehensible and incredible as the big bang....
....tells me you aren't ready for this debate.
The idea of something coming from nothing has to be the least scientific concept that I've ever imagined it possible to come up with
It is not. You should study some physics.
I wouldn't call math a type of philosophy, since philosophy tries to deal with reality, while math fully accepts that it deals with consequences of accepting some axioms.
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Psalm 2:4
Selah
"I tried to describe it by not taking any granted from others, unlike you who takes science and thanks atheism for it."
No, I take atheism; and thank science for it.
Science is demonstrable. Scripture is not. Science is substance. Scripture is ink and air.
Just because he says that a mysterious nothing created something doesn't necessarily is any way imply that it has to be a being a creator or an intellegence
There's some accuracy in there when the writing as you would expect from any document, fact or fiction, but it's when the writers are writing about events far before their time where it gets truly absurd and evidence free. For example, there is no evidence of a global flood of any kind at any point in history, such an event would produce easily identifiable evidence in any bit of rock the world over and in the same way. This is merely one example.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.: Romans 1:22
(cont) So, to answer your question, I am referring to the God. I claim that no religion is fully right or fully wrong. I do believe Christianity is the most accurate depiction, far and wide, but I certainly don't assume that it holds all of the truth cards, and I don't think that other religions are fully wrong. I also cannot say that someone believes something different than what I believe isn't saved.
In terms of specific religious descriptions, there is a limit to what you can (cont)
goes to an awful lot of word-play, just to avoid the word *GOD*
And who created god?
@@whiteknight9221
This question shows that you know nothing about basic principles of philosophy.
@@arulsammymankondar30 are you fucking serious? I read more than 150 books about philosophy. Be carefull what you're saying. You know nothing.
Says the person who is not capable of dismissing my arguments...I will not call you "ignorant" because I don't need ad hominem attacks to prove you wrong...
1. This would be dependent on 2.
2. "Nothing defeated them" means they were not defeated. "Nothing brought forth the big bang" does not mean the big bang did not happen. That's the difference.
3. I'll use a simpler one then: "your local gravity is 9.8m/s^2".