THE GOD DEBATE: AC Grayling vs Rabbi Daniel Rowe | J-TV
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2016
- J-TV: The Global Jewish Channel hosted its very first live event with a debate on the existence of God between Professor AC Grayling and Rabbi Daniel Rowe. AC Grayling is known as the "fifth horseman of atheism", having written many books and articles on the atheism. Rabbi Daniel Rowe completed a postgraduate in the philosophy of mathematics. The two went head-to-head amidst a packed hall.
I'm not religious is any sense, but I just want to take a moment to commend the organization that put this debate on. They showed enough good will and respect towards Grayling despite having significant difference in thought, which is refreshing from all the religious dogmatism we see today.
It would have been nice if they had given him a proper mic.
@@rockmyballsplease I thought the same
I've watched many God Debates and find this one to be one of the best. What makes it special to me is that unlike Wm Craig, who goes from creation to Resurrection with no thought for any steps in between, Rabbi Rowe attempted to discuss the "how.". Both speakers relied on some common arguments, but they seemed to talk to one another and elevated the debate considerably.
I am glad a religious channel presents an unbiased debate between two opposite parts and without demeaning any of them.
The rabbi and several members of the audience made the assumption that the universe came from nothing, like really, truly nothing. I strongly disagree that true nothing is even possible. The universe was caused by something (caused, not created which implies a creator), but that something we don't know right now (and maybe never will). But to make the claim that there was ever true nothing (which again, I don't even think is possible) is just a statement without any possible way of demonstrating it. And if their god is real, then the universe didn't come from nothing, but from that god, which would be something. So no matter how you slice it, nothing is not even possible. Describe nothing. You can't, because then it would be something.
DUDE Nothing means "no things". You might claim that "nothing" might not exist. But you can't claim that it's physically impossible. Even in a quantum vacuum it is possible to suck out quantum particles but to what extent I don't know. But just because "nothing" hasn't ever been observed, it doesn't mean it's impossible for nothing to exist. You'd need to do more to demonstrate that! And so far what most atheists usually do is follow their popular well known big mouthed leader on the subject who is unfortunately Krauss who pretends that nothing is something. There are more honest atheistic scientists that don't play krauss's games. There are some youtube clips of one such atheist physicist scientist roasting Krauss on it.
@@boliusabol822-- I could care less about Krauss. What I wrote makes sense. And I don't worship anybody except for perhaps a couple of historical figures that I'm sure you never heard of, and they have nothing to do with science.
What a great debate. I've never heard both points of view expressed better
A great debate, which I would like to see more of, between two men who are very able to argue their own thesis with great aplomb.
The "fine-tuning" argument is old and has been addressed many times. Rabbi Rowe even admitted that there are many responses to his argument and is interested in what professor Grayling "would have to say about it".
The fine-tuning argument is just another form of teleological argument.
Imagine asking children "how are rocks formed?" You might come across some reasoning that would sound like: "Well, rocks are created to be rough so that the animals can scratch their backs on it!" -aside from being cute and laughable, we know it's the wrong reason and we know there is no purpose why most rocks are rough because that's just how the sediments and the molecular structure formed it.
This is the same way the "fine-tuning" argument proponents think. They see how amazingly "fine-tuned" that the earth is just in the Goldilocks zone in our solar system, and how our DNA works up to define the variations of all species on our planet. It almost seems like "somebody did it" and for a purpose-but just like a child reasoning that rocks are for animals to scratch their backs on this is inherently wrong, because they don't know how the structure of the universe works, and just because *we are here* arguing and alive this supports their confirmation bias about a creator.
The argument goes like this:
1. There are a vast number of physically possible universes.
2. A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions: Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve.
3. The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2).
4. Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes.
5. Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 & 4).
6. There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5).
7. Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine-Tuner.
8. God exists.
Philosophers and physicists often speak of "The Anthropic Principle," which comes in several versions, labelled "weak", "strong", and "very strong." All three versions argue that any explanation of the universe must account for the fact that we humans ( or any complex organism that could observe its condition) exist in it. The Argument from Fine-Tuning corresponds to the Very Strong Anthropic Principle. Its upshot is that the upshot of the universe is... us. The universe must have been designed with us in mind.
FLAW 1: Some might argue that it is reasonable to think of a fine tuner if we look at it this way: "if you throw a can of paint on the wall, it doesn’t write and form the words "Hello, how are you?” - it’s just going to be a splash of paint - therefore, for this universe to be so “fine-tuned” - there has to be someone tuning it.“ This is a logically wrong. The can-of-paint reasoning actually works against the fine tuning argument if we compare it to the universe; because IF there is a creator, then it wouldn’t be just Earth and its solar system that would have a life. A creator wouldn’t stop at one creation - why not create many? Why is the rest of the universe so chaotic and unsupportive of life? A living creator means that there would be evidence for more "fine-tuned” creation but there aren’t, there would be evidence of other fine-tuned living things in our cosmos that would be easier to find, but there are none. The fact that only 0.000001% of the universe that we know of supports life does not support an evidence of a fine tuner. It supports a reasoning of a mere coincidence, a chance out of astronomical probabilities.
FLAW 2: The first premise may be false. Many physicists and cosmologists, following Einstein, hope for a unified “theory of everything,” which would deduce from as-yet-unknown physical laws that the physical constants of our universe had to be what they are. In that case, ours would be the only possible universe. (See also The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, coming soon).
FLAW 3: Even if we were to accept the first premise, the transition from 4 to 5 is invalid. Perhaps we are living in a multiverse (a term coined by William James), a vast plurality (perhaps infinite) of parallel universes with different physical constants, all of them composing one reality. We find ourselves, unsurprisingly (since we are here doing the observing), in one of the rare universes that do support the appearance of stable matter and complex life, but nothing had to have been fine-tuned. Or perhaps we are living in an “oscillatory universe,” a succession of universes with differing physical constants, each one collapsing into a point and then exploding with a new big bang into a new universe with different physical constants, one succeeding the other over an infinite time span. Again, we find ourselves, not surprisingly, in one of those time-slices in which the universe does have physical constants that support stable matter and complex life. These hypotheses, which are receiving much attention from contemporary cosmologists, are sufficient to invalidate the leap from 4 to 5.
FLAW 4: Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly “fine-tuned” parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed. Victor Stenger has simulated different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied. He found that long-lived stars could exist over a wide parameter range, and concluded that “… a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes”.
FLAW 5: A fine-tuned universe does not solve the problem of Religion. Just because you can’t explain why our personal region in space looks fine-tuned doesn’t mean you have to wear a Kipah, doesn’t mean that the fine tuner impregnated a 14-year old Palestinian girl to bear the fine tuner itself, or doesn’t mean that one has at least made a pilgrimage to Mecca once in their lifetime.
"IF there is a creator, then it wouldn’t be just Earth and its solar system that would have a life. A creator wouldn’t stop at one creation"
Says who? This is the typical fallacious "If I was God I wouldn't do it this way" argument.
No, this is not an argument against fine tuning on multiple levels. It's not a matter of what percent of the universe has life - it's the unlikelihood of ALL the variables necessary for life to happen at all. This is dodging, and sad dodging at that. I (unlike atheists) would not presume to know the way a universe would be if God created the universe, but this universe and it's size and lifelessness simultaneously provides man with humility based on our size in comparison to the universe, it shows God's unimaginable ability and it also shows how important we are to God that he created this entire universe for this small world of life. But stating that you wouldn't do it that way isn't an argument.. and also stating that there's only life in this one small area while the rest of the universe is dead misses the understanding of the impossible odds involved in producing life anywhere - or for that matter a functional universe that doesn't dissipate in a fraction of a second.
Your Flaw 2: "The physical constants of our universe had to be what they are. In that case, ours would be the only possible universe. " That's just obvious nonsense. "Physical constants" could be any value possible - it's just they wouldn't be a functional universe. There is simply no argument that can be logically made that constants had to be a given value -- other than where you are arguing the "fine tuned" argument in reverse.. that it wouldn't be a universe if they weren't this value. To that I say "no shit, that's the point". But no, there is no logic in any form that can prove that all the variables of the universe had to be what they are.
Your Flaw 3: "Perhaps we are living in a multiverse (a term coined by William James), a
vast plurality (perhaps infinite) of parallel universes with different physical constants.
This is overall a juvenile escape hatch from the fine tuned argument. We are not aware of nor do we have evidence that there is anything more than this universe. Atheists love to cite Occam's razor except when faced with a theistic argument then they start deciding there must be infinite universes to avoid the subject.
Your Flaw 4: "a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes"
We don't have the ability to create life, life comes from life, so before I go believing Mr. Stenger and his assurance that this universe isn't exactly needed to be like it is for life to form (of some kind), I would think he needs to put his money where his mouth is and create some life. So no, this isn't an argument either - it's an escape hatch based on claims that he cannot reasonably make. Beyond that, there are really no good computer simulations that simulate the full complexity of the universe or even the forming of galaxies. Cosmology has a whole host of assumptions that are proven incorrect on a daily basis. Mr. Stenger might want to drop the hubris and sprinkle his claims with some humility as is the case with most scientists.
Your Flaw 5: Also isn't a flaw or an argument. You also KNOW it isn't an argument, which makes me wonder why atheists stoop so low as to make it? We're speaking of what would be a possible cause for a universe from nothing and the physical laws of it, their fine tuning and the production of intelligent life.
When discussing the reasoning for why a certain religion, that's a different topic. If your argument is "what God, which one?" -- they're all the same God. As far as the major religions - you have Judaism, Christianity and Islam which are all based off of the same religion - Muslims follow the Torah as well. Between these three religions you now have the vast majority of believers -- minus two other major religions - Buddhism (which is a religion about a guy who sat under a tree and became enlightened and who never claimed to be a deity.. or to have beliefs about a creator, so in effect is not a religion) and you have Hinduism. Hinduism is distinctly different, and that I'll give you, but at the root of it all there are variations of Christianity and there is Hinduism - that's it.
If you want to discuss reasons for believing one of those two - that's a much longer discussion, but it sure as heck has nothing to do with the fine tuning argument.
So no, you did not have any better arguments than Grayling.
David Kennedy // Says who? This is the typical fallacious "If I was God I wouldn't do it this way" argument. //
- A fallacy? Identify what fallacy is this. Or have you created your own academia in Philosophy that you consider this "fallacious"? Regardless, that's not even the point I was making.
// No, this is not an argument against fine tuning on multiple levels //
- Arrogant for a poor rebuttal, but expected.
// It's not a matter of what percent of the universe has life - it's the unlikelihood of ALL the variables necessary for life to happen at all. //
- See? I told you, you're not getting the point I'm making. Notice your (deriding) statements from top to bottom? I notice you did not address the teleological fallacy where I provided an analogy of, "what a child would think of why (instead of 'how') rocks are created". Because this is the problem with the fine-tuning argument.
Here's another analogy. There are 1 million gamblers in a casino playing slot machines and everybody prays to some form of divine, slot-machine-fixer for a win. One person wins, affirming his belief that there 'really is' a slot-machine-fixer out there that provided him with the win - disregarding the fact that 999,999 other people did not win, disregarding the fact that a win in slot machine happens and can only happen by... chance. This is how "fine-tuning" proponents think. They don't know how the universe, the physics of it, and how elements, compounds, energy behaves and with argument from ignorance they think it's "divine".
// but this universe and it's size and lifelessness simultaneously provides man with humility based on our size in comparison to the universe, it shows God's unimaginable ability and it also shows how important we are to God that he created this entire universe for this small world of life. But stating that you wouldn't do it that way isn't an argument.. and also stating that there's only life in this one small area while the rest of the universe is dead misses the understanding of the impossible odds involved in producing life anywhere - or for that matter a functional universe that doesn't dissipate in a fraction of a second. //
- Where is the valid argument for fine-tuning in that statement? All I read was, "Oh my, this is so overwhelming to realise! So Big! I don't know how this happened so God!!"
// That's just obvious nonsense. "Physical constants" could be any value possible - it's just they wouldn't be a functional univ //
- I don't want to use words like this but this is no longer an intellectual or scientific. From this point to the last word you provided nothing convincing or scientific. It boiled down to "I don't know, therefore, God", which is the general fallacy for using the ignorance of the Universe as a "proof" - a poor proof - of an evidence for God.
// We don't have the ability to create life, //
-Wrong, we do. If you're thinking I will respond with natural reproduction - well it is - but I am also talking about laboratory experimentation. We already simulated how basic organic molecules created lifeform (bacteria) with just small jolts of electricity over time. We are already on the way of simulating how matter is formed (in other words, the creation of the Universe) through particle colliders. Please improve your scope of "Science".
// Your Flaw 5: Also isn't a flaw or an argument. //
- Really?
// When discussing the reasoning for why a certain religion, that's a different topic. If your argument is "what God, which one?" //
- You accuse me of "dodging", well, your whole explanation for that is the actual dodging happening here.
// If you want to discuss reasons for believing one of those two - that's a much longer discussion //
- You will boil down to more bad arguments. Try it. But it's a free internet.
// So no, you did not have any better arguments than Grayling.
Show less //
- Well, your statements did not demonstrate any intellectual superiority. All I observe is that you are trying to use demeaning statements, "...That's just obvious nonsense.... ", blah blah blah, probably in an attempt to intimidate me? Oh, I'm so sad that I am no better than Mr. Grayling.
COMPUTERS
"it's the unlikelihood of ALL the variables necessary for life to happen at all."
*It's not unlikely at all, it was inevitable. Unless an invisible magician existed to stop the inevitable outcome.*
"I (unlike atheists) would not presume to know the way a universe would be if God created the universe,"
*I (unlike theists) would not presume to know the way a universe would be if no invisible magician created the universe. You're presuming to know a life permitting universe would not exist unless your invisible magician made it exist!!!*
"it shows God's unimaginable ability"
*It shows nature's unimaginable ability. I know nature exists, but there's no evidence any invisible magicians exist.*
"stating that there's only life in this one small area while the rest of the universe is dead misses the understanding of the impossible odds involved in producing life anywhere"
*I see no evidence that it's impossible. Please support your claim.*
"or for that matter a functional universe that doesn't dissipate in a fraction of a second."
*Your insistence that magic is required, is not evidence. Please evidence that it is impossible.*
""Physical constants" could be any value possible"
*Could they? Please evidence that they could have been different. Not theoretically possible, actually possible.*
"it's just they wouldn't be a functional universe."
*That's not even theoretically correct! Had the cosmological constant been slightly different, our local universe would be more life permitting.*
"There is simply no argument that can be logically made that constants had to be a given value"
*Yes, there is. Without something to 'tune' the constants, the constants would be what they are. Got any evidence a 'tuner' exists?*
"We are not aware of nor do we have evidence that there is anything more than this universe."
*We are not aware of nor do we have evidence that there ISN'T anything more than this universe.*
"Atheists love to cite Occam's razor except when faced with a theistic argument then they start deciding there must be infinite universes to avoid the subject."
*HELLO?!?! Claiming an unevidenced, invisible magician exists and created a universe is vastly more complicated than positing nature as the explanation!! Any explanation including an invisible magician is automatically more complicated than a natural explanation. Do you understand that 'godidit' is not any more an explanation than 'Fred did it' or 'nature did it'? "My invisible magician did it" IS NOT AN EXPLANATION!!*
"We don't have the ability to create life, life comes from life,"
*A human's ability to create biological life is not what is in question. We're talking about the physical constants ability to create biological life from inanimate matter(natural abiogenesis). Do you understand that you believe in supernatural abiogenesis? The dust sculpture your invisible magician supposedly turned into biological life, was inanimate matter prior to 'life' being 'breathed' into it. So, it's not IF abiogenesis occurred, but HOW it occurred. One way or another, whether it was magic, as you believe or a natural process, as I believe, inanimate matter became biological life.*
"We're speaking of what would be a possible cause for a universe from nothing"
*No, we have no evidence that absolute 'nothing' has or even could exist.*
"If your argument is "what God, which one?" -- they're all the same God."
*So, Vishnu created the universe? Thor created the universe? The FSM created the universe? Your comment is ridiculous. I call nature a 'god' so, that means nature created the universe, according to you.*
"but at the root of it all there are variations of Christianity and there is Hinduism - that's it."
*WOW!!!!! That's as absurd as the belief that invisible magicians exist!! You ignorance of the thousands upon thousands of different 'gods' is astounding!!*
Rambam rejects the Fine Tune argument ! See altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-fine-tuning_16.html
How we actually see design is by comparison... so the theist would need to find another universe so we can compare if it's designed or not.
51 minutes in , how can even say ' before there was nothing' know one knows if it's been here forever or not(the universe), Roger Penrose postulates cosmic eons of a continuous succession of infinite big bangs. The Rabbi needs so much for a beginning for his creator he can not get the notion of that, which is odd for a mathematician who deals in infinites
The Jewish guy doesn’t deal with any of the key issues
No matter what your stance is, it is great to see people debate these questions. Let's hope the west will be able to continue such debates in the future.
Daniel Rowe is more sincere than your average theist debater. He doesn't appeal to the obvious word games and fallacies one hears from debaters like William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Sousa.
William “As you’ll recall from my opening remarks” Lane Craig is such a chore to listen to. “On atheism” makes me want to chew my hair.
Great debate - doesn't matter which side you on - both did justice on this topic. So I think we need to do more of exploration in both fields.
Please, put the text of both speech, I'd understand more of this important debat!
It astonishes me how very intelligent people like the rabbi can truly believe absolute nonsense
I am even more astonished how you can believe that nothing created something ;-) That shows a low IQ level at best.
From around 28:00 - The talk centres around the old chestnut: 'something from nothing'. If you actually look closely at Lawrence Krauss' conjecture, it does actually include _gravity_ - since the current theory does posit there being a 'singularity' (I think that Lemaitre called it a 'cosmic egg' or the 'first primeval atom'. Thus *some* form of physical law _must_ have been in place; even if that law underwent radical changes later.
... It appears again in 1:02:15 - but, of course Professor Grayling is _NOT_ a physicist or cosmologist. Neither he, nor his protagonist (in 2016 anyway) seem to be up with the current best scientific model. It's a great pity that so much valuable time was wasted on this topic.
Why do these religious dudes try to sound all ultra-scientific, but when it comes to the (glaring) question of: "ok, if you can't have something from nothing without a creator / designer, then who / what created the designer?", then they just wave their hands, call foul and say that question is off limits, irrelevent, unanswerable or whatever. Theirs is a non-argument, a non-explantion.
If you're gonna say "you can't have something from nothing", then that applies to your GOD as well, please explain how he came, intellect and all, into existence.
Also, where is the evidence that GOD lies beyond this universe / reality? Why could he not be a creator within the Universe? And if that's the case, he could have a scientic explanation after all (simulation argument for example) and we regress back to your "can't get something from nothing" argument. Infinite regression.
But ok, let's say for the sake of argument that god lies without the universe. Then please explain the nature of the interface that allows him to influence the universe. Where does that boundary lie? What is it's nature? Is it hard or fuzzy? At what point does it become within or without the universe? Is it like a big hand coming out of a mirror? When you think about it it becomes all the more preposterous and incoherent.
Why bother with all the scientific / philosophical claptrap? Why not just be honest and say this is what i believe because I was brought up to believe it, and to stop believing it would cause me great problems in my life with regard to my family and standing in society, and it would mean a fundamental rejection of people in my life who i love, respect and / or fear.
And that I deeply fear death and the possibility that life has no "ultimate" purpose, so am willing to believe, despite any evidence, that the contrary is true.
Well said
Agreed, great comment.
Dazzer1234567 it’s called casuistry
👍🙌
At the beginning of his remarks the Rabbi explained why your reasoning is wrong and misapprehends the very core of the First Cause argument. I think you simply don't understand it. Listen to him again because he explains it very well.
Sumerian flood myths + canaanite gods Asherah, El and Yahveh fuse to become an ancient Israelite religion centered on a steakhouse-like animal sacrifice cult. Significant retconning happens with King Josiah. When the temple is destroyed, Judaism evolves from this ancient Israelite religion but really bears little resemblance to it. A mysterious ‘oral torah’ gets handed down like a bad game of ‘telephone’ and is believed to be “volume 2” of “the law”. Bada bing Bada boom: Judaism. ✡️
"Mr Grayling is destroyed in this debate"
You know, having a louder mic, livelier, and younger male voice doesn't equal you had better arguments.
Rabbi Rowe may have delivered the speech well, but it's still flawed logic based on the fine tuning argument. The argument from Ignorance has never been right. And Grayling saw that and addressed that. Just because the Rabbi was smugly smiling to Grayling's rebuttals doesn't make the fact that Grayling did address the flaw of the fine-tuning argument.
And just because you'd like to dismiss Grayling's rebuttal because.... what was the reason... oh, because... 'you can'... doesn't invalidate the flaws on the fine tuning argument.
Really Vince? And in your opinion, people are swayed by youth and loudness? The content and context doesn't matter? I think you underestimate that most people are capable of sound judgement. Like most atheists, you think people live in a causally closed universe where people are just things pushed here and there by material forces, incapable of thinking and judging. You are wrong.
"You are wrong" LOL sore loser. Dry your tears. Dean Young.... so your opinion is better than mine. I don't know if that's a response to my original comment.
As far as I'm concerned, no one here on the comments (that is to be expected) have yet made an actual response to the refutations against the fine tuning argument, not you, not the people in the video, and it still stands: It's a teleological argument based on not knowing how things work, trying to put purpose on things that have no purpose.
Stop the special pleading. Not all people are intelligent, you are seeking equality where equality has no place. You have a false middle ground.
I have to ask you Vince, did you write this post on purpose or not? What I'm trying to ascertain, Vince, is whether you were driven by unconscious material forces to write a post telling me that I have a false middle ground - whatever that means in this context - or whether you wrote that on purpose to elicit a feeling of guilt, remorse or whatever from me?
religion or god can't win any debate
Actually when I first heard Grayingling's voice I thought to myself - what a wonderful speaking voice calm and clear and logical.
When the rabbi began to speak I thought to myself oh no. Old tired bullshit to to come.
My opinion was - of each - absolutely turned on its head.
im getting bald and ive sadly just realized that when ill never have the opportunity to have a hair style like grayling when ill get older which ive always wanted...
Go carnivore. 🌝
You sure he´s not wearing a wig?
Q&A around 55:00
I am not Jewish , I have had a desire for many years to convert to Judaism but its not easy and I would be more on the Liberal Jewish side . I enjoy listening to Rabi Tobier and I was a Christian . However today , I see myself as a Humanist . Very interesting discussion . Thank you .
Liberal Jewish is not authentic Judaism. Ask yourself why is it so much easier to convert with them and you will know why it would be the wrong choice
Daniel’s arguments simply boil to "but isn't it just incredible how everything exists as it does?", which is the textbook argument from ignorance.
Then he talks about how if throwing paint on a wall spelled out "Hello..." then we would think that's designed - but the only reason we would say that is because we recognize the words spelled out as things that we know are usually produced intentionally by people (i.e. designed), but that's not comparable with the natural world at all, because we don't know that a tree, a platypus, a planet or a solar system are things that are intentionally produced or designed - that the whole point that needs to be demonstrated. In short, we recognize sthat something is designed not by its complexity but by comparing it with other things that we know to be designed, and contrasting it with the natural world. But if everything was designed then we wouldn't be able to make that distinction.
This was the best and most civilised debate that ive heard on this matter.
The Dawkins , Hsrris and the latecHitchens coukd learn good manners from the professor.
Theists love to throw in endless quotes from other intellectuals as if that has any bearing on the debate which it does not. It is flowery nonsense made to distract from the topic.
They need to check the audio before the lecture the noise was annoying
It is a giant leap from something out there in space ,to something that is interested what you do and gives a hoot grow up
The universe exists as it does. For it to exist otherwise would present us with a different reality.
It is not just randomness, but a necessity for us to identify things and time as they are and understand that the universe must be not chaotic, but rather "rational" for it to exist as it does.
The order of the universe is its natural state. It cannot exist as we know it out of order, as said, if it did, it would present itself as something else.
And that does not require God.
Oh brother, listening to people prove that there is some kind of creator that THEY understand (and i don't) is depressing.
Interesting, and well done. Argued without reference to any religious beliefs.
The bottom line difference between the two points of view seems to be whether or not the realm in which universe creation occurred possessed the laws of quantum mechanics. Rabbi Lowe's point was to describe "Nothing" differently than Prof. Grayling, that is, before anything, "Nothing" to Lowe means that there are no laws of physics and no realm in which laws of any kind existed (not even the realm itself). On the other hand, Grayling's view requires that a laws-of-physics containing realm in which the universe began exists.
It seems to me there is a hole in both points of view, in that both want to go back in time to when there was no time. Humans have a problem imagining an era when time did not exist. Stephen Hawking proposed a clever solution to this dilemma, wherein time has no "beginning." in his eponymous "A Brief History of Time."
Women's perspective is important and there was at least one there to raise a question. Socrates and Dotima.
I would be rethinking my position if I was forced to reference Mr Lennox in argument with someone like Mr Grayling.
3:26 begin
23:40 “in fact all sizes are finite” The rabbi claims to have studied mathematical infinity but seems not to have heard of completed infinity. Yes, if you start with an integer and keep adding 1 you never reach infinity. But what about the set numbers between 0 and 1? It’s an infinite set immediately.
Joe Fagan but only within pre set finite limits
I just want to argue that even though 10^10^124 is a big number it is not like the odds of throwing a bucket of paint and would say 'Hello, how are you' are far worse, but if you have 10^10^124 pattern possibilities and you would through it 10^10^124 than it would make perfect sense that you would get a specific outcome, and yes if you would through it so many times as how many times you would need to for all possibilities of all patterns there is it is very sensible that one of them would be 'Hello, how are you', it just depends on how many times you will throw it. back to the universe, after so many times of nothing getting (more than 10^10^124) out possible, it is very sensible that something came out even very fine-tuned, I don't see any problem with that.
Religion=delusion, god=magic, faith=mystery, or not knowing.
If you look around, the universe does not operate like some super powerful intelligence is behind it.
Well, if somebody is a complete dunce they could look at einstein's equations and think they are just pointless scribbling! That may be the case with you or a human looking at the universe ;-)
Are u assuming that u would be able to comprehend why a super powerful intelligent creator chose to operate it in this way? It would be very conceited of you to say that you are of equal intelligence as “some super powerful intelligence” and therefore would be able to understand their exact motives and logic. Essentially if we were able to understand a supernatural powerful incomprehensibly intelligent something or another, they wouldn’t really be all that intelligent, would they?
The rabbi anhialated this atheist. Very thought provoking.
notice how AC Gayling was not given good audio mic quality, in order to make him less authoritative, SABOTAGE!
What? I heard every word.
Yes. And I could hear the Rab's constant sniffing and fiddling about.
@@moobengy Well, next time you want to hide under somebody's bed, pick your target more carefully!
@@boliusabol822 ?
?He used the verb 'was' to locate something outside time?
Confusing prescriptive and descriptive laws won't get you to God.
To hold in intellectual honesty we have to assert that there things that are still not known of the world in which we live, including the beginning of all matter.
Same old refuted, tiresome and overused arguments from the Theist.
Your opinion - no proof offered. Why bother commenting then?
1
Twisted Headlines God is gender free. People use the pronoun he because it's easier to relate to than it
Twisted Headlines Judaism says so tbh. There's no neuter gender in Hebrew which is why God is a gendered word
same old refusal to see by the atheist
The good rabbi seems to think that because we have to start from "something", that "something" must be a sentient being. It doesn't.
Jewish William Lane Craig.
Arguments and style are so similar especially when he says "See he agrees with me therefore god" when his opponent has done nothing of the sort.
Jae Waitwhat WLC doesn't make that argument in any debate, and if you want to claim that he does, then give the timeframe where he says it.
jesus christ, I'm not going to sit through debates I've already watched just to argue with you. they're there. they exist. go watch a debate with him and you will hear it. of course I can only assume that since you are arguing against me something so common and plain that you either haven't watched his debates or that even if I pointed out one such example you would interpret it differently anyway.
Jae Waitwhat I have watched many of his debates and the idea that he would even attempt to use such an argument is ridiculous.
he doesn't use it as an argument, he uses it as a way to shut down argument. it's blatantly there for anyone with a rational thinking mind to hear.
Jae Waitwhat He doesn't use the argument at all, that means he doesn't use it to shutdown argument either, since he doesn't say anything ridiculous like that ever.
All the arguments of the rabbi are arguments from incredulity and ignorance, basically a god of the gaps
somebody like you would listen to William Lane Craig with a PhD in philosophy, whose books are used as teaching material at Cambridge University, in Philosophy, and say oh all wrong 'cos "god of the gaps".. It doesn't occur to you that maybe some of these arguments are over your head!
@@boliusabol822 none of Craigs' arguments are his own. They are all centuries old and not at all over most peoples head, apologiest might try to present them in the most pompous and convoluted way possible, but they really are quite simple and obviously flawed
@@ignaciocastrocampbell9632 Well if you think it's so easy let's see you publish some papers in peer reviewed philosophy journals, and produce books that people study at the top university in the UK or top universities around the world. It's not going to happen. The rest of what you said is wrong too.
@@boliusabol822 you really think someone needs to do those things to understand apologiests arguments?? Fallowing your reasoning, i guess you have than all that if you think you understand the arguments.
@@ignaciocastrocampbell9632 put it this way.. an atheist like "theoretical bullshit", is a lot more intelligent than you philosophically. He wasn't arrogant enough to think he could demonstatw WLC's arguments were flawed, but he put his objections to WLC. You can look at that discussion on youtube. czcams.com/video/TmYCwjU_5Wc/video.html
The rabbi is talking about the dragon in his garage.
please keep the sexual talk to yourself, thanks
Well there's a difference between a physical dragon in the garage and let's say a an invisible semi transcendent dragon in the garage. But if I can provide evidence that there's an invisible dragon in my garage, then it can be rational to believe that it exists.
I don't know if you're just plain joking but whatever
Grayling destroyed that rabbi. Man that was brutal. Was the rabbi okay after this ass whooping?
Shows what little you know.. Honest atheists know that's not true e.g. an honest atheist like the guy that runs commonsenseatheism, recognised that the rabbi won this debate. Just as he recognised that WLC defeated C-Hitchens
@@boliusabol822
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I do understand that this was 6 years ago and maybe some of you are like me. I am not a Jew but searching for the truth God, I happened to try everything including travel to Israel. I went to Rome and visited all places the Jews went to spreading the Gospel.
All I say, is to look carefully at Isaiah 53.5 and let us wonder, who was that coming to suffer for sin?
GOOD JOB, GENTLEMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great debate, shame AC’s audio put him at a disadvantage 😮
True but someone in the audience commented on how beautiful his English was. Maybe it was also that he swallowed a bit his words.
I don't feel that the professor has adequately answered the argument from fine-tuning.
Izzy Rozen,why don`t talk about it with a physicist or biologist,rather than philosopher,they might address your concern more directly,because this fucking fine tuning argument is an idiot`s argument...the life is fine tuned to this planet because it grew out of the conditions on this planet...
Come back home!
@@misscameroon8062 look "miss cameroon", the thing that the scientists that speak of fine tuning say, is that with different conditions, we wouldn't have life at all. e.g. maybe there'd be crystals everywhere instead. It may well be that scientists are wrong on that, but that's what they say.
@@boliusabol822 ey you boli-boli,you must be stupid or something; the only people who can say anything sensible about life an dhow t came about here on Earth are the scientists,nobody else can come close to discovering the real nature of this earthly existance.So,I don`t know what are you trying to say, besides the evident gibberish.
@@misscameroon8062 I'm not saying to look to religion for answers. What I said is simply over your head. You need to have some reasoning ability to be able to understand science's current answers to these things, and you don't have that.
what do u mean exponentially growing ball will take not so little time to reach the size of the universe......... it's exponential
Daniel Rowe's entire argument is the Argument of Ignorance.
"Argument FROM ignorance".
If you take epistemological razors to theistic assumptions, there's usually nothing left.
Even if there was a prime mover - and the evidence is a long way off that - he completely failed to show why it would be a Jewish god. Why not the Christian god? Or Islamic, or Norse, or Hindu, or Saxon, or roman or Greek gods???
what about if there are much more that 10 to the power of 120 universes, much and much more than that, the logic of the existence of this universe is possible without the existence of a god. Our familiar definition and concept of god comes from the traditional religions, therefore, when we talk about god we are not talking only about an entity who created the universe, we talk about about a god that punishes human beings, demand worshipping, a male god, something that sometimes talks to some individuals. If there is a cause of the origin of the universe doesn't have to be a god. What should be a cause of the creation of the universe which is the universe itself.
The Rabi's probability argument is flawed - he said that the probability of Mr Greyling existing is not a comparable analogy as his existence is pedestrian and unsurprising where as the existence of this perfectly tuned universe is extremely unlikely. The problem is that this is a singularly human perspective and assumes knowledge you don't have. There is very possibly a range of universes in existence which all have slightly differing physical constants, which none the less work in harmony to produce planets and life, a theory that has been proposed by many before me. So from the perspective of a universe-hopping alien then, our universe with its mostly unique but not terribly interesting fundamental laws is as pedestrian as Mr Greyling is. There was a minuscule chance of both these events taking place, but they did, and they were both on the pallet of possibilities. The only reason the Rabi's argument sounds plausible is because it is appealing directly to our human experience, which is somewhat ironic considering he opened with a dry discussion about infinities and he is a mathematician
yes Damien,the rabies cannot brig up a sensible argument against the professor ,so he reverts to the blabber in hope to pull wool over the eyes of the credulous,uneducated listeners,that`s the tactics of all religious babblers.
The major flaw in the rabbi’s reasoning is that he says there could have been nothing at some point - there can’t “be” nothing
well you really argued that point well, well done dude
@@boliusabol822 how can there BE a state of nothing? How can “not being” actually be? For if there is a state of nothing then it isn’t nothing is it?
@@boliusabol822 how can there “be” nothing? How can there be a state of “not being”? What does it look like? What characteristics does it have? Can it exist? If nothing can’t exist, how can there ever have been such a state? You tell me.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 there's different possibilities for how you are misunderstanding this. First I have to see what your position is, so i'll ask you. Do you have an issue with the word "nothing", since would you say that if you can call something nothing, then it's a thing, and therefore would you say that the word "nothing" is self contradictory? And if you answer yes to that question, then most questions about "nothing" don't make sense. There's an issue with your definition of "thing". If anything you can name, is a thing, then yeah nothing cannot exist. But if you look at things as a set of actual things like material things, quantum particles, space-time fabric, .consciousness(which is not really understood yet), .anything discovered. or not yet discovered. then nothing could be not that..
@@boliusabol822 You’re answering my questions with a question, which isn’t the best start. It’s a simple point. If by nothing we mean the absolute absence of anything at all, then how can this possibly have any characteristics and therefore be in a state of being?
So, what do you think were the strongest and weakest arguments? Who did the best?
The rabbi presented 3 arguments that the profesor attempted to refute then the rabbi showed why his counter arguements didnt show anything so essentially the rabbi won
the professor didnt present any argument and the rabbi using what the professor said still showed why one shoud be convinced of God's existence
Go back to a part of Rabbi Rowe's opening statement at 0:25:59
That is where camp religion has lost. It's like Rabbi Rowe didn't even pay attention to Mr Grayling's explanation of Carl Sagan's "Dragon in a garage".
1st Problem: If you say that everything "must" have a beginning; then how did your God began?
2nd problem: The Rabbi does not know modern Physics theory; Energy CAN EXIST without anything creating it, and it is a plausible theory that it has existed before every matter in our universe even began. Ergo, ENERGY IS ETERNAL So, while it is essentially true that it is impossible that something came out of nothing, what Rabbi lacked in knowledge is The first law of Thermodynamics that supports an eternally existent energy.
3rd Problem: Even if we were wrong or we didn't know how Energy (E) works and supposed that it was actually a cosmic divine being out there, how do you know what religion it supports? Does it even care about what we do or what we think?
To me, the Rabbi lost just at the entry.
+VinceMercer In your first problem. It is everything that begins to exist has a cause. God has always been so He needs no cause. If you say God created God and God created that God etc. you are stuck in the homunculus fallacy
+Gene Williams So you can attribute the "has always been existent" to your God - an unproven, untested entity.... But you have problems accepting the fact the law of thermodynamics supports the idea that energy is never created and never destroyed - and this is proven, experimented on NASAs vacuum labs, and a much plausible theory than a being thought-up by ancient people?
I actually addressed this on the 2nd point I made. It looks like you read my first problem, and got a little trigger happy on the comment box. Next time, please read everything that people write, and then respond.
"1st Problem: If you say that everything "must" have a beginning; then how did your God began?"
That isn't the argument. Everything we are familiar with has a cause, it would take something outside of our universe to create it - and this cause would, by necessity, need to be outside of time and space, thus causeless.
The laws of this universe would have to have a beginning. What created those laws would be outside of them and outside of that necessity...
Actually, it's rather simple - it's the argument of the causeless cause, it's the only way out of an infinite regress.
"2nd problem: The Rabbi does not know modern Physics theory; Energy CAN EXIST without anything creating it, and it is a plausible theory that it has existed before every matter in our universe even began"
Energy cannot be CREATED or destroyed. But the fact is we know energy WAS created, it was created in the big bang. What we do NOT have is a mechanism for all this energy (the product of the big bang) coming to be in the first place. You are only further proving the argument for theism by making that point.
"3rd Problem: Even if we were wrong or we didn't know how Energy (E) works and supposed that it was actually a cosmic divine being out there, how do you know what religion it supports?"
Irrelevant to the argument at hand - but I will go back to what I said earlier:
When discussing the reasoning for why a certain religion, that's a different topic. If your argument is "what God, which one?" -- they're all the same God. As far as the major religions - you have Judaism,
Christianity and Islam which are all based off of the same religion - Muslims follow the Torah as well. Between these three religions you now have the vast majority of believers -- minus two other major religions -
Buddhism (which is a religion about a guy who sat under a tree and became enlightened and who never claimed to be a deity.. or to have beliefs about a creator, so in effect is not a religion) and you have
Hinduism. Hinduism is distinctly different, and that I'll give you, but at the root of it all there are variations of Christianity and there is Hinduism - that's it.
If you want to discuss reasons for believing one of those two - that's a much longer discussion, but it sure as heck has nothing to do with what we're currently discussing -- The causeless cause argument (the prime mover) and the fine tuning argument.
39:58 Grayling has managed to turn himself into a one eared cat with a monocle. the universe comes in all forms of being.
Pity the Jewish guy said Einstein wasn't an Atheist.
Another wonderfully protracted preamble in maths and physics by yet another believer who just can't wait to shoehorn in his magic,imaginary friend by means of one large helping of personal incredulity with a side order of special pleading......."It therefore must have been immaterial and outside of space and time".
Yeah,yeah yeah, c'mon now,just say the words "Magic" and "Pixie dust" you know you want to..........
Such a coincidence that they didn't manage to pull up the atheists microphone, I'm sure.
Interestingly, the only awfully sounding mic is on the side of Atheist. Even the public mic was plugged correctly in the right channel.
Coincidence? Yeah. Dirty business ;)
Ok, I get it now ... go God go ...
If from nothing nothing comes, well then, didn’t god come from nothing?
I have to admit, as a humanist myself, that trying to defend against arguments for a god is a losing strategy, since they can go on forever. Atheists always seem to be on their back foot. Grayling should say least not get bored and say, "that's an old argument and doesn't hold water." Show the illogic.
I don't understand Grayling's argument that the we can conclude that the world could have been created by chance.
If you have 2 rooms in a hospital and room A has a trillion times the chance of the patient dying on the table than in room B.
The doctors cannot comprehend What, How, or Why this is happening. They would still not conclude that it must be by chance just because they can't comprehend it. They would still conclude that something must be causing it, they just don't know what/how/why.
Thank you Mr Grayling for statement of falsifiable evidence and not claims...So thankful that a chance of any god being factual is 99.9% unlikely.
AC is always great but i would have started thus
1.“ put your hand up if you believe in the jewish god.”
2. “Put your hand down if that’s what your parents believe”
3. I rest my case.
Exactly.
It is staggering the number of people who say "I done research and my religion [insert any here] is actually the true one".
Curiously, it transpires that it is the same one they were born into.
Never fails...
I can't explain that things exist therefore the creator of the universe needs me to wear a kipah... Feh!
^^^ That's normally because the religious shy away from more specific debates. They like to keep it vague.
***** Who are you talking to?
***** Then I refer you to an answer I gave earlier.
***** I can only assume you didn't understand my comment. Read again and try harder.
+Nhurm But he DID explain that things exist by using an INTELLIGENT AGENT instead of chance happenings. You're forced to say, "I can't explain, therefore I don't know" when you refuse to acknowledge the positive arguments for the existence of the INTELLIGENT AGENT.
Today's "I don't know" statements made by atheists and evolutionists is a false humility given so time can work magic (as they presume it did for evolution) and give a more "reasonable" explanation based on chance happenings.
Stop setting up strawmen and address the real arguments that haunt your mind to even consider. You can't hide from logic but you can deny it til you die.
Grayling easily won. The fact there is a world with natural laws doesn't mean there must be some puppet master behind the curtain at all. It's a childish idea and no explanation. [Because who made the deity? If it could made itself - then the universe itself could also.]
The point that the notion of god bears absolutely no explanation power is crucial. It's consistent with everything that happens. So there is no real need or use for such notion. But it's really a useful tool for manipulation of people - that's the real reason why it's still around. There is always somebody who claims he knows what some god wants from you.
Vast majority of the universe is dead and empty - that is also designed by some deity? Give me a break! We just have a luck & that is the real meaning of marvel. So don't waste it!
Thus the Rabbi just describes the science observed and calls it “God”.
But how far does it get him, us?
It still has nothing to do with the squillions of religious texts on earth, Jewish, Christian, Mayan, whatever.
What on earth has RDR’s “God” got to do with them?
And why should that “God” be his Hebrew God?
I did not catch what the hell is a god? Also I here all the thiests latching onto the big bang which comes from science and observations, yet fail to accept the answers given by the same scientists that refute any claim that a god (what ever it is) is shown to exist or can exist.
If you're going to quote Krauss on something irrelevant then why not use something relevant such as his rebuttal of the silly claim of the Fine Tuning argument: "Of course the universe appears to be fine tuned. You'd be very surprised to find yourself living in a universe in which you couldn't live."
And that is a terribly stupid reply. Krauss is dishonest.. The opposite he is missing, is if the universe were to be one in which life could exist, but where the universe didn't need to be fine tuned for that to be the case. And one would not be surprised in that instance. It's like if somebody wins the lottery, of course, they got a winning ticket. They could say they are surprised that they won the lottery So a dishonest idiot like Krauss would say, hah, don't be surprised you won the lottery, you'd be surprised if you won the lottery without getting a winning ticket wouldn't you. But you won the lottery by getting the winning ticket, no surprise there, move along.. That's Krauss's argument. Krauss is a moron, like pretty much any of the atheists that atheists worship as champions.
no, the point is that of course we think we are special because we exist. the universe could be "tuned" slightly differently and another life form could exist. to use your example more accurately, you'd be surprised to win the lottery with a ticket that didn't have the winning numbers. before you go calling people morons make sure you understand what you're speaking moronically against.
Jae Waitwhat The probability of ME winning the lottery, is very low. The probability of SOMEBODY winning the lottery, is pretty much guaranteed. If I won it then only an idiot(eg an idiot with krauss's reasoning or yours since you agree with him) would say "well why be surprised you won, it'd be surprising if you won with the wrong numbers". And The point of the fine tuning argument.. is to say that the universe is finely tuned for ANY life. i.e. the physcists would claim that no life could exist if those factors were slightly different. If you want to say that some other life forms could exist, then you don't accept the finely tuned claim that physicists have made. Personally, I might also suspect that the claim (made by atheist physicists), that the universe is finely tuned, is BS, because under different conditions, I suspect that perhaps different life may have formed.. But then you should say that the universe is NOT finely tuned for life. And that physicists that made that claim are wrong.
and that's definitive of the misunderstanding of the term "fine tuning" the way physicists use it versus the way theists use it.
Jae Waitwhat no tt is not, you're a moron. Unless you can define A)Fine tuning the way physicists use it and B)Fine tuning the way theists use it. And show that I thought physicists use B, which you clearly cannot do.
Even if one believes there was some creative force doesn’t naturally lead to the Abrahamic deity of the Rabbi. Agnostic Theists believe there was a creator but they are agnostic about this “what”. Many agnostic theists will argue as well the man made nature of religion.
when did a singularity become a nothing?
Why can't people separate the types of Laws from one another?
A law of physics is not a law that is obeyed such as a law of the legal system.
there are laws that are definitions of patterns and there are laws that are prescriptive. Once this dichotomy is better understood these kinds of debates can go along more honestly and with less silly clutter arguments.
DUDE nobody claimed that universe laws are like those of a legal system. You are just not following and grasping what anybody is talking about
@@boliusabol822 what? Are you dumb? I didn't say they claimed it, they treat them in a similar fashion. I don't think you are following nor grasping what i was talking about.
@@jaewaitwhat4412 So your comment has nothing to do with the video, you're not addressing what anybody said. You could have posted your recycled trash anywhere and it'd have made no difference as it's not directly relevant to the video you commented on.
@@boliusabol822your comprehension skills are lacking.
If it isn't a part of space and time, how the fuck can it be responsible for events 'within' space and time? You're straight back to dealing with 'Fred'.
Is it my imagination or is Graylings microphone polluted with noise (glasses clanging, feedback, echo). Dirty trick there.
Yes, in the question and answers it is very irritating. To call it deliberate sabotage or sabbath-tage lol (sp) is amazingly silly.
Why do certain persons put themselves in such delicate situations? ☻
I think Mr. Rabbi Daniel Rowe learn something and he will keep on discussing with theists ONLY...
blablabla something infinite created the universe......... Bob did it.......... genius
For those of you who watch lots of these debates the rabbi puts focus on the Origin, design, fine tuning, cosmology/something from nothing argument(s). He even utters the phrase "when the ancients came up with monotheism" at 24:10... because god just showed up one day or something.
The Rabbi is misrepresenting the position actually held by Lawrence Krause. He is a mathematician - not a cosmologist. He would do well to remember this, to prevent himself looking stupid by making ill-founded claims about cosmology..... And is his **best** argument the old (and debunked) cosmological argument? Really?? Why is it that he knows the position of cosmologists - but not the cosmological refutations against his own arguments....?? He's either ignorant or lying - there is no other possibility....
The Rabbi is quoting a professor of philosophy to refute a professor of cosmology - on a cosmological matter?? Really?? Why not get the opinion of a dentist, or a chef...??
If you throw an infinite number of tins of paint at a wall, it is **inevitable** that sooner or later you will see "Hello how are you?". This pattern is no more (or less) unlikely than any other pattern. It is meaningful to us only because **we** imbue it with meaning; an illiterate savage would see nothing meaningful. Thus his argument is proven false.
Ummm, atheism has **nothing** to do with cosmology (or anything else). It is simply disbelieving the claim of the existence of deities. Yes - it's really that simple.....
Ummmm, no - science is not in the business of proving things; it is in the business of **disproving** things. And whatever is not disproven is labelled 'plausible'. Science doesn't deal with absolutes; it makes no absolute claims.
I know even that atheist was persuaded by some of his arguments especially that paint on the wall, and probability number he gave ,no way its all chance🤭
Let's consider Dark Matter for the moment, something that doesn't interact with light beside it's gravity and without it all the stars and planets in galaxies would spread out through the space. what is it? nobody knows yet. we don't know what exactly is the universe therefore the question of something can't come from nothing is not a valid question.
3 years later.... I agree. Isn't it a colossal assumption that, in relation to expansion or contraction, dark matter will and has behaved in the same way as observable matter.
Perhaps the Space Which Exists Between Atoms and Atomic Structure,..?And Charge Which Holds a Polarity Of it's Own,..You Tell Me..Inquiring Minds Maintain Curiosity..And I Trust You Maintain Yours
Given there are around a hundred billion galaxies in the universe, even if the odds of life were one in one billion of having the conditions of life, there would be one hundred galaxies with life in them.
But the odds are 10^10^120, so if there were quintillions of galaxies, the odds would still be about zero hm
@@sasuri901 actually no
Wow steady on Daniel, you are making some huge claims, you have provided absolutely no falsifiable evidence, so disappointing...now I am an atheist 😊
Why cant the guests give 15 seconds on themselves before they start. How do we get the moderator to shut up?
“...Talking about WHEN there’s no time”?? Well, there you go, you’re talking nonsense.
Two thoughts:
1: Its 'odd' that the ONLY mic in the house (including all the ones handed out around to audience members) that had significant problems, was the one reserved for the atheist guest. What a coincidence!
2: I'm disappointed it wasn't brought up in so many words, but I've yet to find a good answer from a theist to explain what is more likely:
That a vast, ultra complex, ancient universe sprung into existence by itself? Or that a being that would be necessarily infinitely more complex (which was capable of creating that universe), did so instead?
It seems extremely silly, as this had in fact had long been a favorite argument of intelligent designers, that one could NOT get something incredibly complex to appear BEFORE the more rudimentary pieces needed for such a thing existed to begin with.
Simple logic seems to say to me that the universe, being less complex, is far more likely to have created itself, than an all powerful creator, creating itself. No matter how many zeroes you tack on!
I was impressed that the Rabbi politely applauded his opponent at the start. I wonder what would have happened if the debabte had been hosted by the Islamic State?
You can watch hitchens debate Muslims. Its not crazy.
Ahhhh, the Islamic state itself. I misread. Never mind. Lol
what are the odds of humans inventing deities? 100%?
Oh nos! The Rabbi Rowe's arguments are horribly illogical.References to "before time", "fine tuning", arguments from design", 'first cause woo like the Universe couldn't have come into existence on it's own, but God could! Unbelievable and laughable.
Professor Grayling found nothing new to refute here but Rabbi Daniel Rowe was still disappointing. He had a presuppositional argument from the start. He followed with a gap of the gods argument before drowning in an argument from ignorance, briefly sprinkled with fine tuning and irreducible complexity. His paint on the wall point is weak and suggests that we live in a world where we are being clearly communicated with, we don't. The earth alone has had several long periods of life and then extinction, before the period that we live in. Its clear what Daniel wants the case to be, and that is a reality that supports his religious upbringing and not much else.
The rabbi presented 3 arguments that the profesor attempted to refute
then the rabbi showed why his counter arguements didnt show anything so
essentially the rabbi won and hi views seemed the most rational
the professor didnt present any argument and the rabbi using what the
professor said still showed why one shoud be convinced of God's
existence
ironically it seems like the professor was using rationalization to not recognise the existence of God
Go back to a part of Rabbi Rowe's opening statement at 0:25:59
That is where camp religion has lost. It's like Rabbi Rowe didn't even pay attention to Mr Grayling's explanation of Carl Sagan's "Dragon in a garage".
1st Problem: If you say that everything "must" have a beginning; then how did your God began?
2nd problem: The Rabbi does not know modern Physics theory; Energy CAN EXIST without anything creating it, and it is a plausible theory that it has existed before every matter in our universe even began. Ergo, ENERGY IS ETERNAL So, while it is essentially true that it is impossible that something came out of nothing, what Rabbi lacked in knowledge is The first law of Thermodynamics that supports an eternally existent energy.
3rd Problem: Even if we were wrong or we didn't know how Energy (E) works and supposed that it was actually a cosmic divine being out there, how do you know what religion it supports? Does it even care about what we do or what we think?
To me, the Rabbi lost just at the entry.
I replied to this above.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Yet we know that previous to the big bang this energy did not exist -- so it was created - even though by physical laws that is impossible. That's the point, and you are missing it.
David Kennedy , I also responded to this. You don't know energy, you don't know that the Big bang is only 1 of the many other (more plausible than "it's God" explanation) theories in cosmology out there.
Ignorance does make you feel closer to God, eih?
"previous to the big bang" is a meaningless clause. time streches back to the beginning of inflation, it's meaningless to make claims about cause and effect before then.
The bitter truth, or beautiful depending on your pov, is that we don't know why the universe began. we aren't sure we CAN know. but postulating a supernatural being doesn't explain anything, least of all this problem.
Cause and effect doesn't stop simply because you don't know.
this is the first time i have seen a rabbi best an atheist in a debate
my biggest issue with R' Rowe is how he claims in his closing statement "that only a deliberate refusal to look is responsible for atheism of any variety".
It is a libelous mean spirited condescending and patently false statement.
There is almost no complicated concept that does not have people with different inclinations in how they think and reason arriving at conflicting conclusions on the matter in good faith.
The fact that they argue about these ideas has nothing to do with some "deliberate refusal" (which implies that subconsciously they know they are wrong but want to insist on belief in the wrong idea for some subversive purpose) it is a very natural phenomenon it would behoove rational and intelligent people to take a step back from their rhetoric and remind themselves of that fact before they hurt themselves or others.
Yh Schwartz how did he beat Grayling? The Rabbi repeated old arguments which have been refuted repeatedly in the past.
There is no god
Grayling was not prepared for this debate. Arif Ahmed would have been a better choice.
That is true but not many have heard of that guy! He is one guy that I think debated WLC well.
Arif lost twice to Craig - was reduced to hurling insults in the first debate.
Rowes arguments are extremely easy to demonstrate as useless. The unlikelihood of something occurring has no impact on what we observe. The odds of our universe existing in the state we observe are exactly 100%. Attempting to assign values on the probability of something that has already occurred is mental masturbation and an appeal to emotion, and there is no practical use for it.
The only way you could rationally believe the universe necessitated a designer is to compare our universe that you claim is designed with one which was not designed and demonstrate the differences. Until you have the capability to do that, any assertions you make that it did or didn't require an outside influence are made fallaciously and irrationally.
The fine tuning argument is equally poor and unconvincing, as you are no more than water in a pot hole saying "wow, look how well I fit into this hole, if this hole were any different, I wouldn't fit so perfectly within it." Life exists in the only form it could possibly exist because it has adapted to the conditions in which it began. And as of yet, we still don't know exactly how it began, and until we know precisely how those first cells formed, asserting that it did or didn't require a creator is once again a premature assertion made without the prerequisite knowledge to do so.
I also take issue with Graylings assertion that we are a "pleasant accident." I feel accident is a poor choice of word, because it plays into Rowe's useless ramblings about odds and hints at the possibility that things could've turned out any differently than they are. There is no need for this, and the more appropriate statement is that the outcome is a "pleasant incident."
Now, if you want to turn around and argue that "a designer must have guided nature," then feel free to believe that. But I see no reason to believe that until we have a universe which wasn't designed to compare with our own which you claim is designed. Until then, you are believing something before you have the prerequisite information to do so and hence are believing irrationally.
There is even a stronger argument against fine tuning, which I rarely hear - maybe good to test it here.
Yes, it is extraordinary that we humans are here, and maybe the probabilities are great against this. However - why are we looking at THIS time period only as fine tuned ? Humans have existed for some 100,000 years and only thought about these questions for a few thousand at the most - lets say 3000 to 5000 years.
However fine tuned for what AND when ?
From a chemical, biological, geological and of course cosmological time scale our appearance is just a blip, a minuscule occurrence in the grand scheme of things.
In 1 million years we will probably be extinct - or at least think again about our fine tuned planet (in that time frame at least some of the Super Volcanoes will erupt be it Yellow stone, Toba or others - our lives will definitely be dreadful if we survive these - no matter what technology of the future.)
Even in the wildest imaginations - we will definitely be gone 1 billion years from now - either by supernova Gamma bursts or changes in solar radiation from the Sun WELL BEFORE the Sun destroys the Earth.
So lets say 1 billion years as the ultimate max survival in our solar system - and even if we can by then travel and colonize another planetary system (which might never be possible) - then what ? 1 billion years sounds huge - but its a tiny number of cosmological time scales and even geological and biological time scales not an incredible amount considering we have already has some 4.5 billion years.
So where is the fine tuning ? Doesn't matter how fine the tuning is NOW - there clearly is no fine tuning for life once you use the proper time frames. (not a teeny weeny slice of a few thousand years)
Simpler still - fine tuning leads to cracks in Earth crust which cause a Tsunami killing 300,000 people - the problem is the degree of how indiscriminate this is - not the style of the gods of the polytheists or Monotheism which usually made a big thing about guilt and sin causing such events (Think Noah story - shame it has no historical evidence) Naturalism just makes more sense. You live near the beach and life's a bitch.
philosophical inquirer Great points. A theist will attempt to respond to you with "well our existence on Earth is a test to see if we're worthy to spend eternity in Heaven. If there were no natural disasters, or life was too easy on Earth, then it wouldn't be a proper test." I think that's where your argument could be productive, because obviously humans who existed during an ice age would have a much harder test than we do now, so would an omnibenevolent god really be changing the standard of his "test?" If I had lived a long life of 30 years before being mauled by a saber toothed tiger and left to freeze to death, would I really be impressed with someone who lived in the midwest U.S. for 108 years who never struggled with the environment and died peacefully in their sleep? Why does the severity of the test seem to be solely dependent on which part of the Earth you inhabit?
It's all nonsense.
True, the theists response to natural "evil" is always lame. Something along the lines "go read the book of Job/Iyov and he had faith to pass the tests"
Of course, Job was tortured and had all his kids killed, but guess its OK because he was later blessed with another 7 kids - like an insurance company replacing your car if it gets damaged, you just have to wait a while for them to pay up and hope your in their good accounting books.
(just thought of that analogy and its quite disturbing)
Just recall that the worst thing to say to a parent who has lost a kid "oh well, you have 6 more and can make another one to replace the lost one"
Your point however is good, seems that "natural evils" are more dependent on were people live than on their behavior/morality.
Just consider Japan Tsunami in 2013 - if you live on the West coast, your doomed (some 15,000 dead), if on the East - very little happened. Hardly the Biblical version of Sins and Justice. (I chose the example due to homogeneous population)
Then, of course God hates kids in the tropics, one dies every 30 seconds from Malaria.
The key factor is we have an excellent explanation for these natural evils, which we didn't 300+ years ago.
We know that there is a symbiotic evolutionary relationship between the three two hosts - the Anopheles mosquito, human and Plasmodium Apicomplexa parasite. This is of course a miracle of evolution ! One of the most genocidal mass murdering miracles that the creator has produced to torture us.