Does the universe have a purpose or meaning | Michio Kaku vs Richard Dawkins Debate
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- Anyone who expresses a more definitive response to the question is claiming access to knowledge not based on empirical foundations. This remarkably persistent way of thinking, common to most religions and some branches of philosophy, has failed badly in past efforts to understand, and thereby predict the operations of the universe and our place within it.
To assert that the universe has a purpose implies the universe has intent. And intent implies a desired outcome. But who would do the desiring? And what would a desired outcome be? That carbon-based life is inevitable? Or that sentient primates are life's neurological pinnacle? Are answers to these questions even possible without expressing a profound bias of human sentiment? Of course humans were not around to ask these questions for 99.9999% of cosmic history. So if the purpose of the universe was to create humans then the cosmos was embarrassingly inefficient about it.
www.templeton.o...
More videos
• Video
www.huffingtonp...
"Purpose" is a human concept, it doesn't relate to the universe as a whole. We are concerned with purpose because we are animals, we have desires, based on the desire to survive. The universe doesn't.
Not only that, Even animals do not give a shit about purpose, or a human babies for that matter.
Babies are born without any god, so at what point in life do we become so scared of our end and preoccupied with our "purpose"
+Alejandro Morales Animals are very focused on purpose, When you see a cat stalk its prey, it concentrates on its goal, and likewise the behavior of prey animals is totally oriented toward escape and survival. All of these instincts have been honed by natural selection and we have inherited them, giving us humans our concern with goal oriented action. We go wrong if we try to apply that to the universe as a whole, which does not share our animal background.
***** True, all you've said. What i meant by "purpose" was as of the meaning of life
And I do not believe animal care about "the meaning of life" as well as babies
Alejandro Morales As we mature and our frame of reference expands we see ever larger meaning in life. Most animals see life strictly in terms of finding food and reproducing, and human consciousness has grown from that basic desire. Some scientists takes a view of the universe which is far larger than those of say, a religious fanatic who is obsessed only with a single game he is playing in his head.
michio was the only level headed person in this debate out of all of them debating. he was the only one that explained about the possibilities of a god existing or not existing, while the others were just too closed minded and were set in their ways.
Exactly
As much as I respect Richard Dawkins; I disagree with a statement he said. He proposes that we know how life has come about... This could not be further from the truth. Yes, we understand how the complexity of biological existence has come to be. Yes, we understand mutation and how it works. However, we do not understand the philosophical questions such as what is consciousness? What is being? What is will? What is drive? And what is that which makes everything about consciousness and existence as it is to experience so extraordinarily uncanny?
Finally! Dr. Kaku posts an answer that resolves a question that has puzzled and worried me for decades!
In 100 years from now we will still be debating this --- Michio Kaku still blows me away -- I agree with him... the debate will continue.
We come from the Universe/Big Bang... we've developed awareness/consciousness... we are in essence the Universe that is now awakened/aware and exploring itself and ourselves.
“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence” “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.” - Michio Kaku
WHO WON WHO'S NEXT YOU DECIDE!!!
epic rap battles of historyyyy!
hahaha Richard Dawkins vs michio kaku
best comment :D
apapbab bab Baalataaall offhistory
Best comment ever
To me, Stephen Hawking, is the most philosophical: When he talks, in the regards to the Universe, it is so romantic. Yet, his other side is all numerical.Dr. Kaku's voice, shows passion in this field. Maybe stating, the more we know about God (everything), brings us closer to it.But, lets face it, Nothing is forever. And even an ant 🐜 has a purpose. There have been people, in the past, making unicorns out of goats. LOL. Unicorns, are a symbol, like so many other symbols. Just romance. Nothing wrong with that!God is like a skeleton, what it is based on, what is is! Then it adds tissues, giving life: individuality, adoration, hate, love .... We have to have both!😃
+Chonrie Lemieux Well said, he who is not loving did not know God, because God is love.
Very interesting
+Chonrie Lemieux God is what ever you want it to be since it is your invention. You can mold it to be whatever you want. Doesn't make it true!
The truth is all that matters for the future! and its all we need! So really we should all drop our prospective and wait!
Stop the brain wash of our children!
*****
LOL true...
+Chonrie Lemieux I concur.. Dr. kaku clear and soft voice reflects the sound of reason. He projects the tone of reason but not too arrogant as the other scientists. It certainly make him a well deserved author of so many best selling book. He has charisma.
The "time outs" didn't give any of these highly intelligent men to finish their points. Geeeez
You wanna make a point? TIME OUT!
haha
+Preda Kingz they really should give more than five minutes for such a profound and deep debate, haha
right?
There's a better debate some of these gentlemen had over their different theories of "nothing" that Neil Degrasse Tyson hosted. I only say it's better because Neil allowed them to make their points and one of the most amazing things about the debate of nothing is... TIME OUT!
Preda Kingz
Could you link to those debates please. Id like to see what they have to say. You know, its always interesting to hear what these intelligent- TIME OUT!
What's the point of a time limit for such a profound argument?
+White Noise without it, it would cause a paradox
+White Noise I wonder the same thing. The speakers were not given enough time in all cases.
+Lvx Ferre Quite!
+White Noise
it's not really profound. it's a waste of time to discuss this as Kaku said. it just makes headlines.
+paul morris
the burden of proof is on those who allege there is a "Creator" not on those that say there isn't.
it's a pretty simple concept that very few theists get which is not surprising as they do not operate rationally.
Michio Kaku's reaction is so cute!!! Does anyone agree?
Timestamp?
I personally agree with Michio.
+Marcus Godiali very much same.
Michio Kaku is amazing. He explained his position concisely. With the other speakers I heard more defensive statements and opinions perpetuating the stale mate of this subject. While this will be topic for the next 100 years or at least until one group makes progress based on real data all sides are subjective. Personally investing time on this subject without having all components and variables to be tested leads to fruitless results. There are other quandaries, scientific research and medical developments that are within grasp that can change humanity.
I think both Kaku and Dawkins have good points. Dawkins says that using God as an explanation for things in order to leave them unanswered is lazy... it certainly is. However, Kaku is saying that it doesn't *need* to be the explanation, just that it's impossible to know for sure.
*It does, the absolute purpose and meaning of life is to be more aware of life*. You might think that is a stupid answer, but take a closer look. *Almost everybody is living in their mental prison of the mind and sees life through the mind. We see a distorted view of life, a view of mental images, fantasy, mindchatter, stream of thought (negative) worries, stress*. It is your mind that is letting you suffer this was never the purpose of life. Find out how life really is meant to be. Google *TruthContest read the Present*, it explains the big picture of life in every facet, it explains the ultimate purpose in life. It will set you free.
piece of cake
+nathan simons Life is shit, anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. Life is very simply "explained" in one sentence : a remarkable emergent phenomenon of sustained order and complexity. Anything else is a sales pitch...;-)
Solipsism is bad for your health.
No doubt life is shit most of the time. But maybe there's a point to our suffering and struggles. Some would argue that we wouldn't evolve spiritually or grow in knowledge and understanding if we weren't confronted by the constant challenges in life (challenges to overcome that will make us stronger). The struggles we face may actually be beneficial in the long run. Or not. Just a thought.
Its all cognitive bias! For example: survival. We may not do what is right, but what serves survival. By our nature then, we are constantly seeking threats and danger. Once we have "fixed" one, we move on to the next on the endless list. Of course, it is folly. I'd presume to call this endeavor the search for knowledge in the context of utility (i.e. how to make life "better" - more survivable, more comfortable, less risky if you like). So, the struggle, as you call it, is the endless search for the next thing that could kill us. Not exactly happiness - and on that note, its probably worth mentioning that the constitution of the US for example, promises liberty in the PURSUIT of happiness, not actual attainment of it. In this context then, i think that means commerce... like you say, it may, or may not be beneficial in the long run, but it certainly is "be"-ing.... human. btw, im not convinced about spiritually evolving; im not even sure what "spirit" actually is. I keep asking "spiritualists" and this discussion goes through frustration and anger quite quickly, which, ironically, seems "un-spiritual" - whatever that is!
I am glad that there is a place on earth where you are free to express yourself.... Love it
Hello, my name is... TIME OUT !
XD
Nice to meet you Mr. Time Out!
Nice to time out mr time out
ive seen this video under a few different titles. honestly, I think michio is the most reasonable here. I'm a firm believer in god, but I also won't ever turn my nose up at science. I think the reason people can never agree on religion is because people can't speak for god. if there is one, we will never truly know what his intentions were. i choose to believe because I'm an optimist. i think the natural processes of our world and universe are astounding, and that we were designed intentionally.
even if im wrong, ill have lived my life trying to be generous and do more for others than myself. isnt that what atheists and christians alike aspire to do anyway?
+lowermiddleclassy Completely disagree, Michio is a very nice person and it seems obvious to me that he has a bunch of religious friends or family and he could not stand the cognitive dissonance so he compromised his own integrity to sort of say "The universe is God". It's really sad to see actually.
+lowermiddleclassy "isnt that what atheists and christians alike aspire to do anyway?" depends on the atheist right? just because you don't believe in a god doesn't automatically make you a nice person, the same can be said for a religious person. Don't shove your religion down anyone's throat, don't push for it to be taught in schools as science. It should not influence and or dictate any laws.After all that, as far as I'm concerned there is no issue with you to believe whichever religion you want. My opinion, or any other atheist's opinion on whatever you believe should never be remotely relevant to you, and it should be the same way the other way around. Cheers
Kaku was always given very little time. Why????
I admire him the most among them
I love Dr Kaku's argument. This kind of debate is misplaced. Scientists can only argue with other scientists or vice versa unless they are crazy.
Michio Kaku: The answer to the unified theory that Einstein was seeking was...
Mexican: TIMEEEEEEE!!!
Duh.
+LesPaul2006 [Pink Floyd's "Time"]:
♪ Ticking away the moments that make up a dog day ♫
Faqyur Ma'ama Dammit, I knew I got something wrong. Still, "dog day" can work because it means a period of stagnation or inactivity.
Anthony Ocran that being that kaku doesnt deny the potential existence of a god....
@@GuyI9000 no he is just trying to sell his books
Kaku and others are too in awe of Einstein. It's incredible how much stuff done by others is credited to Einstein.
I am going to tell you the answer of everything int he universe. Is not a number and is something that will blow your mind. The answer is..... TIME OUT!
This is ridiculous. How much time do they have to speak? 10 seconds? How can you make a debate like that. Really bad organization.
On the other hand, Michio Kaku is mistaken on what he first said. If he has ever listened to Richard Dawkins he would know that he never claims to be 100% certain of what he says, and you can't even get to that conclussion of what he says here. And also he never ever said "the universe has no purpose"..
the only purpose the universe has is to be a creation with an end. to develop and die. our purpose? we dont have one. me make it. what I hope the human race does in all of its struggle to survive. create another universe. how? learn the secret of life.
of light*
THANKkkkk yoooou. Ricard Duckins. Ladis, gentle, applause!
LoL
+Lobos222 roflmao.
Such discussions, I think, are problems we create with words. Trying to formulate something like the purpose of the universe into concepts and figures will always prove to only ever be an approximation. I will now proceed to respond with words :). You seem to be making a fallacious statement of human separation, by saying that the universe has purpose but humans don't is absurd. Humans are an aspect of the universe, and thus, our purpose is that of the universe.
This is a terribly moderated debate.
Agreed. Embarassing
We're not used to have this types of debates here in Mexico therefore, the moderators are clueless.
* Interrupts* THANK YOU!! THANK YOU RedTriangle53!!!!!
12:20 The fact that he believe the dying person is going somewhere means it is true!!! Is that what he uses for logic?
+fred smith
that is what they always use...
+fred smith Yes, but I agree with Kaku, I don't like the certainty either side presents with. We don't know what happens when we die. I don't buy into Christianity, or think there is some anthropomorphic beard man in heaven, but I don't doubt that there could still be some type of spiritual realm or dimension the mystery that is life and the Universe. Even if science eventually describes how everything operates, we are still left with questions like why is there a universe to begin with, why is there life as opposed to nothing at all. And it could be argued that the Big Bang occurred because of irregularities in a singularity and evolution is how diversified, but you're always going to be left with a why.
+fred smith Every christian that i try to argue "god/after-life" with, always pull that shit..
+screw .Google Some things science can't explain at the moment. No one can say what happens after death because the dead can't come back and tell us but because atheist think that a heaven is made up they won't ask what happens on that one. Life if it was formed though processes on earth won't have a meaning, it would just be something that happened due to environmental conditions on earth and the universe may not have a reason in terms of a meaning given to it from a creator if it happened on its own but it might have a scientific reason/explanation on how it was formed and what caused the big bang.
+Colours of the Rainbow consciousness is the binding force that drives the universe. it can't explain the big bang, but it does show that the universe was by far and large no random accident like once thought. Things happen for a reason. And that reason is the sub atomic particles which drift through space know their own purpose. And when they connect with others well thats when the magic happens and planets, stars and galaxies are created.
So no evidence of God = likely to exist???? wtf?
That's the "logic" or should I say wishful thinking sort of logic of believers. In german we have a saying "Glauben heisst Nicht-Wissen", means "Believing equals Not-Knowing". Maybe the God-Believers should contemplate about that.
+Manek Millano ich empfehle Kubitza!
+Bill Meacham If you know what Michio Kaku was saying when he stated that this debate is undecidable, then you understand why you shouldn't ask that question. What he was trying to say is that there is no way to prove the existence of god, or any way to disprove it.
+Noah Tackett "Celestial Teapot" and "Last Thursday-ism" are weak hypotheses. Karl Popper was of the belief that ideas that are unfalsifiable are very weak ideas indeed and with a little help from Occam's razor, the weakest idea should be discarded. Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. It decidedly takes more assumptions to support the ideas of both the Celestial Teapot and Last Thursday-ism than it does to simply discard them. For instance, regarding the Celestial Teapot idea, we know that teapots are a relatively new invention made by humans, designed for a purpose (specifically for boiling water with the intent to steep tea). We also know that space travel to Mars is an arduous process, taking years to come to fruition after decades of research and planning, and that no human has made the voyage to Mars in human history. Therefore, it would be silly to think that a man-made object would just happen to be orbiting Mars at this very moment and that we simply do not know of it's existence because our telescopes aren't powerful enough. Ridiculous ideas that are largely based on assumptions are weak ideas and should be discarded by any rational person.
+Garrett Stoddard
You make a strong argument. From a scientific evidence-based perspective, we can't really draw any conclusions about any purpose to the universe. I would go further in saying we can't really draw any reasonable conclusions about the origin, future, or nature of the universe any more than we can decide what the plot of a movie is by seeing only a single frame of the film.
...unless the single frame was an image of Christopher Hitchens, in which case it would be safe to assume its all pointless.
(Okay, I guess I stretched the analogy a little too far.)
In defense of mystery (and perhaps mysticism) allow me to explode the myth that Science will eventually figure everything out. This is evident in the simple fact that every new discovery unleashes dozens of new questions. Essentially the mystery grows rather than being diminished by the progress of Science.
I do agree; don't let "God did it"; keep us from not studying. Yet that studying; should lead TO THE CONCLUSION, which should be obvious; "GOD DID IT!"
How can you make , " no" last 17 minutes ? Only reason I'm here .
+Michael Trudell (-MikeT) And 30 seconds.
You're an idiot...you make people who are actual truth seekers look bad. You came looking for your particularly biased answer...Idiot
If you only wanted a single word as an answer, why did you click on a video that was shown to be 17+ minutes long?
Aside from that, not everything can be answered with just a single word.
look up the word "joke"
"Bias answer" that falls in line with microbiology , embryology, DNA, archeology , history, evolutionary theory . I am convinced , wake me up when jesus comes down to say hello and I be like "well shit there he is " .... or Zeus, ja, Yahweh, Allah , the great juju at the top of the mountain, roman mythology , greek mythology . Oh wait why do we call it , "mythology " is that narrow minded in your view to refer to those as , "mythology " after all we don't know maybe the greeks and or Romans had it right . What would you call it ? I'm curious.
Bad title. It should be Michio Kaku _AND_ Richard Dawkins...
_NOT_ Michio Kaku vs Richard Dawkins.
+Adam Mangler Vs has been known to be used as a phrase to "team up".
Years ago I was lead to believe that to practise Nichiren’s Buddhism correctly, one had to attend meetings and belong to an organisation. Nowadays I’ve come to understand that anyone, regardless of whether they become a ‘member’ of a group or not, can benefit from their own personal practice.
The reason for this is that the Law Itself represents the identity of what some now refer to as the ‘unified field of all consciousnesses’. In other words, it’s the essence behind all existence and non-existence, the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence is simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source.
Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the true creator of everything that is, ever was and ever will be, right down to the minutest particles of dust, each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting ‘Nam-myoho-renge-kyo’ and most conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a middle man to connect us to our state of enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves by tapping directly into it by way of self-produced sound vibration.
On the subject of ‘what or who is God?’, when we compare the concept of ‘God’, as a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to Nichiren’s teachings, the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people call ‘God’ is our enlightenment, which exists nowhere else but within us. When the disciples asked Jesus where the Kingdom of God is, didn’t he tell them that it was within them?
Some say that ‘God’ is an entity that can never be seen. I think that the vast amount of information that is constantly being conveyed via electromagnetic waves gives us proof of how an invisible state of what many call ‘God’ could actually exist.
It’s widely known that certain data being relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects, including instant global awareness of something or mass emotional reaction. As well as many other things, it’s also common knowledge that these waves can be used to detonate a bomb or to even enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars. However, none of this is possible without a receiver to decode the information that is being transmitted. Without the receiver, the information would remain impotent.
In a similar way, it’s very important for us to have our receiver switched on, so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our life, all other life and who we and all else that exists truly is. Chanting ‘Nam-myoho-renge-kyo’ helps us to achieve this, because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and switch it on. That’s because, as I mentioned before, the sound vibration of ‘myoho-renge-kyo’ represents the combination of the three major laws that underlie all existence.
‘Myoho’ represents the Law of latency and manifestation (Nature), and consists of two alternating states. One state of ‘myo’ is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists. This includes our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them, our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re not being expressed, our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma, and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ‘ho’, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes obvious to us, such as when a thought pops up from our memory, whenever we experience or express our emotions, or whenever a good or bad effect comes forth from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it simply means that it has come out of the state of ‘myo’ (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ‘ho’ (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing something.
The second law, ‘renge’, governs and controls the functions of ‘myoho’ - ‘ren’ meaning cause and ‘ge’ meaning effect. These two laws, ‘myoho’ and ‘renge’, work together simultaneously and underlie all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination, ‘kyo’, is what allows the law ‘myoho’ to integrate with the law ‘renge’. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects together all Life and matter, as well as the past, present and future. It is often termed the Universal Law of Communication. Perhaps it could even be compared to the ‘string theory’ that some scientists now suspect exists.
Just as our body cells, thoughts, feelings and all else are constantly fluctuating within us, everything in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux, in accordance with these three laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of ‘myo’ and ‘ho’ in a single moment than it would ever be possible for us to calculate or describe. And it doesn't matter how big, small, important or trivial anything may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now, or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of 'myoho-renge-kyo'. These three laws are also the basis of the four fundamental forces and if they didn't function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. Simply put, all forms of existence, including the seasons, day and night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation, rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two states of ‘myo’ and ‘ho’ in accordance with ‘renge’ and by way of ‘kyo’. Even stars are dying and being reborn again in accordance with the workings of ‘myoho-renge-kyo’.
‘Nam’ is like a password or key; it allows us to reach deep within our life and fuse with or become one with ‘myoho-renge-kyo’. On a more personal basis, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives from moment to moment, as well as our environment.
By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth turns and rhythmically chanting ‘Nam-myoho-renge-kyo’ repeatedly for a minimum of ten minutes daily, any of us can gain actual proof of its effects in our life. By building up a force from within, it allows us to pierce through even the thickest layers of our karma and reach directly into the ultimate wisdom of our and all other life. Unlike the fantasy of a magic wand to make our problems vanish, chanting ‘Nam-myoho-renge-kyo’ awakens our innate wisdom and brings to the surface our hidden potential, a much clearer realisation and understanding of our good and bad karma, and positive ways that we can both cope with and change our negative circumstances into positive ones. It also allows us to see and understand things outside of ourselves more clearly and, by way of the electromagnetic forces of which we are all a part, helps us to connect with, or draw towards us, any external circumstances or help that we need. Proof of this effect soon becomes obvious to anyone who chants ‘Nam-myoho-renge-kyo’ on a regular basis. Of course, the more sincerely we chant, the more powerful and faster its effect will be.
Michio Kaku is an amazing scientist and philosopher. I was more like Dawkins previously, but more and more, I'm uncertain that he is right. I think that it is very likely that there is a creator. Maybe the creator doesn't even know that we exist, but created us by accident.
"Maybe the creator doesn't even know that we exist, but created us by accident" - First time I've heard someone else say this - I agree this is absolutely a potentially valid scenario.
As smart as these two men are , neither of them really have a clue and are bias , as is the human condition. We simply cannot help but develop emotional attachments to ideas
sounds like Richard Dawkins is playing upon an emotional note as well...
When i was religious i never gave a second thought about nature when i went on holidays.I sure appreciated the calm and serenity but got bored after a while.Since becoming an realist and an athiest i can now sit in nature for ever.I can pass my whole life looking at one acre piece of natural landscape.I can watch my child all day with intense interest and love since i know how the world works.I now respect myself and others but then i never respected anybody including myself.
Sounds like you were “religious”. I believe Jesus walked this earth. He died and rose. I love science, nature, animals. All of these things were brilliantly created by God. Modern science does not touch the mind of God.
There is no such thing as realist
@@randallarmstrong1840
Jeez.. He clearly said that he isn't religious but you think he is. Do you know him better than himself? 😁
Plus religions are nothing to do with science, buddy.
Some religious books have only a few verses that are against science and some books have a lot. Thats the only difference.
Sounds like a major category mix up. Not quite sure what sitting outside and studying the world around you has to do with rather a particular religious practice is beneficial or true. But good for you, I suppose.
Reason and logic would dictate that we should all (atheists or theist) be agnostic as far as the question of God is concerned.
In as far as the emotional part of me has a hunch that God exists, the logical side of me simultaneously states that it is an undecided question.
It often leads me to think that the true nature of God could be beyond the realm of this reality as we know it and even beyond reason and logic because we only arrogantly assume that all knowledge that is attainable is readily available to us via our brains and/or via our reason and logic... but is it really?. Michio is right. It is undecided and perhaps always will be in as far as this existence is concerned.
well said brother...
+acool6401 Beyond the realm of this reality and..."And indeed We have created man, and We know whatever thoughts his inner self develops, and We are closer to him than (his) jugular vein." - Qur'an [50:16] :)
"we only arrogantly assume that all knowledge that is attainable is readily available to us via our brains and/or via our reason and logic"
Gödel prooved in his incompleteness theorem that even in a formal system there are true statements that are not provable within the system. So we know that all truth is not acquirable by lgoic and reasoning. But may be with intuition? We don't know.
So it IS true that a leprechaun lives in my garden! WE should all be agnostic about that too.
***** Not sure if you replied to me or someone else about the "WE", anyway, "We" in the Qur'an or Bible does not indicate plural but it displays the highest position in the language. For ex.: when the king says, "We decree the following declaration, etc."
Cosmologists don't claim to know the ultimate nature of the universe-- most scientists would say that it is a mystery waiting to be discovered and will probably defy all of our expectations, if it is even graspable by the human mind at all.
I love Michio Kaku!
Yeah he's cool and also brilliant. His main point here ("you can't prove God doesn't exist") is a classic logical fallacy, though.
+Corey Dickie I like him but he has fallen victim to the logical fallacy "proving a negative".
+Kroko84 How so?
How to prove to a blind person that there is light?
I think you fail to understand the word "prove". In science, you don't prove stuff TO anybody, you just prove them objectively.
罗文彬 I would ask a blind man.
Obviously do some surgery and let they see for themselves... ??
BUT,
Light itself are electromagnetic waves. It vibrate, maybe you can "inject" this wave with same frequency into their brain. Even if their eyes cannot open, this electromagnetic wave will process in his brain and the brain read it as a light.
Blind man can get sun burned from sunlight. He csn't see it but he csn feel it. Blind man thinks radio better than television but what would he know he can't see it. What good is the radio to a deaf man?
Humans are low level byproduct of the universe that judge based on their 5 senses alone. Human mistakenly take the data from senses and form a formulae, which they call the truth.
Qoute "To assert that the universe has a purpose implies the universe has intent. And intent implies a desired outcome. But who would do the desiring? And what would a desired outcome be? That carbon-based life is inevitable? Or that sentient primates are life's neurological pinnacle? Are answers to these questions even possible without expressing a profound bias of human sentiment? Of course humans were not around to ask these questions for 99.9999% of cosmic history. So if the purpose of the universe was to create humans then the cosmos was embarrassingly inefficient about it."
My question: what is the efficient age and size of the universe to create life?
Exactly. Assuming intent is like putting the cart before the horse. You'd have to go into every little detail of where somebody might see purpose and intent. What was intended, to "create" species in a way that they are perfectly adapted to a certain environment and then put them into that particular environment? Or is it the adaptability of species that was intended? Such questions are meaningless since adaptation is merely the effect of a cause which doesn't require intent. Most phenomena in nature can be fairly accurately explained without assuming any intent.
Another example is the birth and end of stars. Stars keep exploding and forming all the time without any external trigger. The laws of physics themselves are enough.
This is so funny.... Michu Kaku.." ..... long story ....... and so ladies and gentlemen, the candidate for the mind of God is ......" Boinggggg times up lol
+Aubrey De Bliquy Yeah I was like... Oh man. Let the guy speak!
+Aubrey De Bliquy THENK YOU VERY MOCH!
The universe is because it can. If it couldn't, then it wouldn't.
well said, sir
+Bobby Cheezpuffs -A nice play of words, I will give you credit for that.
But the word "can" is an active verb, which makes me think that you believe that the universe had a choice (which in turn implies that the universe has some kind of sentience, or else it could not choose). Do you believe that the universe had a choice and that it has/had sentience?
Jon Doe Why does "can" denote choice? It doesn't.
Same way you can say, "A rock CAN be thrown." It doesn't necessarily mean that the rock can decide to be thrown. My use of can doesn't implicate the belief of sentience; only the mathematical possibility of the existence of said universe.
+Bobby Cheezpuffs Can you provide another example... A rock can only be thrown if someone or something throws it...
Michael Pedersen A rock can be thrown by a person, tornado, asteroid impact, etc. Why does a rock "need" to be thrown by "someone"?
When God-breathed his breath, Immortal Spirit, Soul into Mankind's nostrils, it was God's intent to become a living Soul; The Soul, Immortal Spirit of God alive in the Flesh Body of Mankind.
I love this man. I almost lost any hope in any famous intellectual's point of view aligning with mine.
Oh, I mean Michio Kaku, of course.
Dude! This is in no way a Michio Kaku *vs* Richard Dawkins thingie! They are on the same side.
No i think that michio kaku is more on the agnostic side ,while Dawkins gives me the vibe ,that he 100 percent knows the truth.
@@mastermaster7498 Are you depending on vibes as a basis for conclusions? Dawkins is actually an agnostic, but I think you might misunderstood in which ways. He has explained in the God Delusion book, and in various videos too why he's an agnostic. That does still not mean he thinks of it as a 50/50 chance, as according to my understanding he seems to think that gods are equally unlikely to the existence of unicorns, goblins etc. Just the fact that such things can't be disproved, doesn't mean that it needs to exist or not exist, but so many things we mutually can't disprove such as unicorns, goblins, tooth-fairies, gods, Hercules, etc
Michio Kaku openly stated that he believes in deistic concept of God lmao
@@slavicemperor8279 Where did he say this. Not trying to disprove you just curious.
@@slavicemperor8279 i personally think kaku believes that the universe and physics is god, not in a magical sense but in a physical sense
intuation of purpose is a great thing and worth believing in ..
Michio Kaku sparked my love for science back in high school. Dawkins helped me let go of religion. I am truly torn about what I hope will happen in this debate.
Then an asteroid smashed into the building, killing everybody but one, he whose final statement was "Time out."
Eastern philosophy such as the Vedas of ancient India stated that the purpose of life is the expansion of bliss and happiness. Around 3,000 years ago the Vedas also correctly calculated the age of the universe ..which modern science has only recently acknowledged. There's a great quote by Prof Carl Sagan about this.
I have lots of respect for Dawkins as a great scientist, whose work has been pivotal in fields such as genealogy, and memeology, but when he tries to be a philosopher of theism he fails miserably.As Dawkins quite rightly knows, the only thing we can talk about as being 'true' are observations, shared by all able minded humans, that have been studied with rigor and based only on empirical data. What qualifies Dawkins to state, as a matter of fact that: "Life has no meaning", 'God does not exist' to any person? A persons views on matters outside empiricism, are only relevant, and meaningful, to the person holding that view. Someone trying to convert a person to their religious viewpoint, is just has pointless and harmful as Dawkins forcing his atheistic view on others.And before people attack me on this comment, I am myself non-religious, and studied theoretical physics at university.
+Jamie Fearon "A persons views on matters outside empiricism, are only relevant, and meaningful, to the person holding that view."
I think Dawkins wants you to question this view, to justify it. It's usually emotion over reason.
+Jamie Fearon I agree with you. He seems to have an "expertise" on the "social" gene but at the same time fails to understand that society itself (with multiple religion and revisionist history) "explores" all possibilities, collects what seems to be the best line of thinking (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and not understand that the "flow" of religion is part of this social evolution-- so if he tries to attack it, but only scratches the surface of religion. Dawkins is an "incomplete" scientist in that regard.
+Jamie Fearon Does this universe really exist? it may be something like a glorified hologram. That can give purpose for the universe. A fun palace? An amusing place to spend time?
+Jamie Fearon
he meant to say that it is a silly question. it cannot even be discussed objectively. what you may find to be meaning in your life may not be what i find in mine or somebody else's. it may be a question to ask philosophically but it is a useless endeavor to ask in a scientific context.
+jacobji555
if it is a "hologram' then it still exists as a 'hologram'.
Why does saying; "God did it"; LAZY? It's a WAY more perplexing question; to say, "Evolution did it?"; or by some universal unknown random "Chance"?
J. Chuck Wycoff the difference is science is trying to figure it out.. where religion have said “it’s god” no they’re done that doesn’t answer the question where as science is trying to find the detailed specific answer
Evolution can address how something happened. That's the fundamental difference.
Did I just hear Dawkins say that evolution explains where life came from? That is not what evolution is about. Evolution, from Dawkins mouth, is an explanation of how species change. Not where life comes from. I think Dawkins may have been a bit emotional. :)
While Michio Kaku has a great point how in 100 years we will probably still be debating this topic, I feel that many more people will be on the side of evolution and science rather than on a universal creator. But nothing is for certain.
The side of evolution and science rather the a universal creator. If there is a universal creator, wouldn't that also fall under the embrace of creation? I was under the impression science as a tool if understanding.
@@greylatern scince just descover sconce don’t make anything any thing
@@MamaMama-sv3b that's a odd statement. Could you explain what you mean?
@@greylatern I laws of physics any thing that’s physicsest descover god create it’s they just discover how to work
@@MamaMama-sv3b correct. We like to discover and understand the workings and the very laws and nature of gods creation. The way in which our scientific principles are structured says we will only acknowledge officially the aspects we have suggestive evidence and verifiable evidence for. This does not
In opposition to creationism. Because in science there is no way to test for or against in a tangible way. Anyone who says otherwise either misspoke, doesn't understand the principals of sciences, or has a agenda(bias). True science has no bias.
Mom: "Son, can you bring me a glass of water?"
Son: "TIME OUT!!"
I have no idea why, but the idea of a meaningless universe calms me the fuck down.
I think it is somewhat similar to the Japanese philosophy of Wabi-sabi: nothing lasts, nothing is finished and nothing is perfect.
umm dawkins and kaku are on the same side of this so they arent vsing each other
+Kylie Divens Not at all. Dawkins is clearly against God. Other dudes are for God. Kaku seems undecided and he remains neutral in this.
+Andrew Seeger He seems to be agnostic-atheists or simply agnostic. Nothing wrong with that.
+Andrew Seeger He seems to be agnostic-atheists or simply agnostic. Nothing wrong with that.
michio is Buddhist
They are very far apart in terms of point-of-view. Dawkins is literally a reflection of the fundamentalists. As a "scientist", I say that jokingly since his only success in science actually was outside the scientific field; he should understand how the null hypothesis works in the scientific method - I feel he either is dishonest purposely ignoring that so he can get his fallacious point across or in genuinely an atheist zealot. Kaku on the other hand, as a Physicist, is the only one using simple logic and the scientific method to say , _hey, to be certain of a side of the question that cannot be answered is pointless, you're both wrong_ . This is actually the only logical answer.
Honestly both had the same point of view, but expressed themselves in different ways, each of them using their scientific field, be it biology for Richard or physics for Michio.
I respect everyone's opinion to believe or not believe in God. There is no way to prove existence of God, or that there isn't a God. The main point is Faith. You either have faith or you don't. For many of us, there is an internal pull drawing is to want to believe and have faith. For others, not.
What upsets me is not that we have different camps of thought, but that some scientists and educators act like they have all of the answers- but they don't. There is so much more that we don't know. Kaku himself said there are probably 11 dimensions, yet we can only measure 3. Gravity, the largest force in the world, crosses into another dimension that we cannot see.
What we know today is like a handful of sand, when the entire beach represents all knowledge. We are just scratching the surface of new knowledge, yet some people think they have it all figured out. Theories are just that- theories. There is so much more to uncover. Energy doesn't die- it converts. Is it so crazy to believe that our spirits pass into another dimension when our physical bodies die? Or is it crazier to think we are all-knowing in 2017, and therefore shut down the conversation and try to destroy others' beliefs that can't be measured?
We all cast our votes here in life. I believe we'll see the truth when we die, and I believe there is a God. To each his own. No need to shoot each other down. We still have a lot to learn. Only time (or death) will tell. This argument to disprove God shouldn't even occur while scientists struggle to determine string theory, or whether we have 11 or 26 dimensions. Come on, really? Grains of sand...
u might wanna view death as a means to start a new one, the death of our universe may mark the beginning of another.
Do the religious people even understand how some of their points have flawed logic?
+Hifza ahmed nope their brain washed sheep
*****
o thanks
+Hifza ahmed no. because we believe our logic is relative and limited in practice in relation to absolute logic. we accept that there are things we will never fully understand, while atheist believe anything can be explained. its funny and amusing to see two sides constantly fighting over it.
josipa josipić Not exactly. As its been said many times, its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Therefore I don't feel its a rational decision to put absolute faith in something that has the same credibility as the easter bunny.
What if i asked you 'prove that the easter bunny is not god', and you wouldn't be able to because its impossible to prove. Then I would say 'Yeah you can't prove that its not god, so it is god.'
+Hifza ahmed That's faulty logic from you.
Being able to prove or disprove the existence of something is not the same as that belief in such existence being "rational decision" or "irrational decision".
Seriously.. go take a logic class if you are going to start talking about "flawed logic"
The question is not, "Is there a Creator God"?
The real question is, "If he does exist; Do you desire to know him and are you willing to submit to him as God?"
alex williams no that’s not the question haha you’re just taking a giant step over to la la land and saying “if god exists” PROVE HE DOES THEN ILL GET TO THAT ONE
purpose is to defeat boredom
Richard Dawkins never stated that a "creator' does not exist. He merely stated that there is no evidence for it.
Kaku was a little presumptive in his statement
And I'm sorry but string theory is a joke.
+zarni000 Why is string theory a joke? Not the biggest believer myself but to say that an entire area of physics is a joke is a pretty radical point of view.
+Jan Pedersen
String Cheese Theory is a joke.
it's been around for about 40 years now and it is still not really fully developed or accepted. obviously it's a metaphor but what i meant to say it's not a very successful theory.
Look man, if a hypothesis (as it's not widely accepted and rigorously tested yet, thus not a theory, yet) requires we design our mathematics around 11-dimensional hyperspace just so the equations can work out properly rather than strictly the dimensions of our physical universe, there is definitely some reason for skepticism in said hypothesis.
don't disagree with that.
*"We are formed by the universe to be its consciousness. We tell the universe what it is."*
Terry Pratchett
You don't need God to have purposes of life
your life you give it it's purpose
+Chung Lee finally.... from my perspective humans are empty - they need something to give them value.. many use god/deities/money/themselves to feel of value.. Everything a humans does (actions) are to make themselves feel good or satisfy a dominant need.... it is all believe system.. One person's garbage is another person's gold. What is right for one may be wrong for another.. everyone's life is no less real to them than mine is to me. Your reality, your truth - my reality my truth... I tell people to get the heck out of my reality - control exists when someone wants you to come into their reality or believe they are right. No right or wrong - from a philosophical perspective.
Clearly there's two sides of the brain at work here one creative seeking purpose and meaning and the other analytical, empirical and calculative. No wonder everyone was clapping for both argurments
Everybody is focusing on life after death. What were we doing before birth if our souls move on after death?
Life's purpose is to serve the many faced god.
Valar morghulis.
Only if the many faced god allows it. One way or another a face will be added to the hall.
Primitive slave/servant views - born when Kings ruled. Slaves/Servants good life depended on the King/Master. God was made in his image. Why do you want to serve God? For the reward? You fool think God has nothing better to do than let you just sit on your sorry butt and do nothing for eternity in Heaven? Religion just telling you what you want to hear and they tell you pray to this God, he will give you the good life and you foolishly believe. God is no Sugar Daddy, there is no magic land of plenty waiting for you
A man is ready to become no one.
Man being ready to become no one? To become nothing, or meaningless?
I don't think soo. We wouldn't be here today if we didn't have a reason or rather a drive to become someone or something, to experiece the world, to unravel it's misteries or whatever gives us reason to live.
If people we're indeed ready to become no one not even the concept of God would exist... nor the need for love, beauty, pleasure, things that make us stay up in the morning... If that would be the case then there wouldn't be a God, nor a concept of it... Nor humanity for that matter... Don't you agree? Or did i missunderstood your statement? Thank You.
A man simply has no name. A man serves the many faced god.
Valar morghulis
Have to admit. These are two great minds of this generation.
I thought the colour of jealous was green, ie "Green with envy". Although they do have slightly different definitions.
the meaning is evolution of consciousness... life is growth. only things that are dead do not grow. in other words universe was created to later on extract knowledge from it or lessons or simply explore our consciousness. our curiosity created the universe.
Well said
Consciousness is a byproduct of evolution.
And lessons are learned to survive.
We are biological organisms.
Michio is wrong. Dawkins never claimed 100% certainty.
+al t michio didn't claim that he did, he just claimed that his "colleagues" did.
PrizePirate Which one?
+al t
yeah Michio is just trying to be sensationalist. shame on him.
+gunit8590 exactly. not 100%.
+gunit8590 but not 100%. That concept doesn't exist in reality, and where michio is clearly fully aware of this, he should have phrased himself better as others can and do grasp on this
"I have concluded that our universe is governed by laws, these laws required an intelligence to be put in place and set in motion"
Dr. Michio kaku.
Mr. Kaku said the most intelligent statement of everything said. "They are both wrong".
It is quite simple. God is the personification of nature. Before we had societies that knew of atoms, germs and diseases we had oral stories that explained nature, that is how we survived generation to generation. I am Atheist and believe in the scientific method. All of this arguing of whether God exists is pointless. He does exist in every blade of grass, sunset, broken heart and in every question that arises from the human mind. Science is the understanding of what God created. God is a concept created within the human mind for the human mind. A bird does not care about such questions. A bird does not fight and kill over such questions.
To argue over whether God exists is like punching yourself in the face and getting mad with your face for hitting your fisted hand. I understand and believe that the concept of God exists, but the concept of God does not care if I believe in it. We do continue on after death in the form of energy that gets dissipated and morphs into other energy. Our personality will likely only exist in the mind of others after that point we call death, but our contributions to the universe survive many short generations.
We are literally the universe trying to understand itself. That is more fascinating than whether "my God is better than your God" or "God does exists" type of arguments.
....plus Dawkins is a bit of a dick :)
:P
***** Thank you. It is quite lonely to take the enlightened, literally correct, view on things. Rising above the petty and self centered view us humans have of our place in the universe is a refreshing way to not take things too seriously in life. Everybody has personal drama that is important and serious, but so does everybody else. I see humanity as a living organism, and each person is a cell within it. Some are thinking cells, some immune cells fighting for homeostasis, some are nutrition cells, some digest, some excrete, some are diseased. Sometimes it needs to get hot, sometimes it needs to cool down and dissipate excess heat energy. But in the end there is not one cell that is unimportant, and they all dance and collide beautifully. Even when the collisions are destructive they create new wonderful things. While 911 was a horrible thing, it brought the best out in humanity for a time. Now the organism is tightened and unable to grow, once that relaxes new growth will make a better organism.
...sorry for the ramble. :P
If we are, as you say, "the universe trying to understand itself" then that 'universe', or rather that totality IS in fact the One, or God if you prefer.
But to fully comprehend that totality, that Oneness, we have to think in terms of a universal mind or consciousness as opposed to only material planets and stars. Or to quote the founder of quantum theory......
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter".
-Max Planck
i like a lot of that. curious tho, does that technically make you a bit more of a pantheist rather than atheist? no?
vanessa benoit Perhaps it does. I never considered that. It is odd to define it with a single word. I actually had to look that up, and I do see a lot of similarities to what my current understanding is.
I've researched many philosophies and religious thoughts informally, and am more concerned about the living religion than the texts. By that I mean how a religion is expressed in people more than the "teachings". I'm always following the evidence of truth, and it has led me in many directions that are not wrong. Zen Buddhism feels the clearest to me right now.
If you step out of the human realm of dramas, systems, societies, and minutiae of everyday life, and step into observing the world from a childlike eye that just observes and seeks to understand what it is seeing and hearing without labels, you will begin notice how small humanity is compared to the vast life and movements that are always around us that are never noticed.
It, ironically, is quite lonely to feel connected to everything, without someone to share it with. That cuts to the heart of all life: Everything wants to be happy and not suffer. That is why we eat. That is why plants grow towards the sun.That is why we fight. That is why we cry. That is why we love. We are forever coming together and dividing, and that creates both joy and pain.
...K sorry for the ramble :P
***** I understand that. I try to avoid labels a little bit myself I probably should've been more understanding of OP if they feel atheist fits them best. because theres so much variance.
I can't call myself christian because of all the presumptions that come with it that don't fit me AT ALL. (like believing in a blood atonement)
i tend to say im an agnostic theist, very much inspired by christ...and thats the best i myself can do with labels.
but yes they're meant to be tools to explain...but most the time our beliefs can't be explained in just one word.
I believe in god. I have no way of explaining god, and in words. you can t debate god. and science talks of the physical world, not the spiritual world.
Science is not a suitable way for proving GOD......
Science is blind..... It Wants direct evidence.....
There are many things that science can not prove....that means science has limits...... So science is not superiority...... And the other hand God is beyond the limits..... Like Infinity....
If you believe in miracles..... You believe in god...simple
I highly appreciate Richard Dawkins. He is 21st century Darwin
DUDE, you unmathematical youngster yes most of his life was, but even if he was born in 1980 then most of his life would've been in 20th century!
I have this unsettling thought: what if we're manipulated by the universe, or a god of some sort (or a pantheistic universe?
As in, our cells serve us by being little factories, what if we serve the universe in a similar way to carry out a task that reauires consciousness? Molecules obey laws of physics, doing all sorts of stuff, reacting chemically, grouping up to form stuff so that the universe can run its course.
What if consciousness is just an extension of that. The universe for some reason needs a quantum computer to be built or whatever unforseeable thing we or other species may accomplish. For those who believe in evolution of universes (penrose?), this could be part of how that evolution happens, life as the dna of the universe. Either this is retarded, or people have thought the same thing and i just havent noticed. The chilling part is if the universe is indifferent and lets us suffer to carry out this.
I've thought about versions of this. The singularity before the big bang manifested itself in infinite particles of existence that as a whole mass, moves like a conscious throughout the fabric of our space, time, matter, energy that expresses itself in United ways be it Gods, planets, life forms.
'just because some people don't believe it today does not mean it is not true' well just because people have believed in it since the beginning of time doesn't make it true either
I go with Michio Kaku.
I'd go gay for dawkins
but would you go Dawkins for gay?
+Peter Jackson Profound, and well spoken.
wtf..
+Josh Traffanstedt ha-ha!!!!
+gerard henry truly.
"The mystery, when it is solved, will be solved by scientists who will use the Darwinian method." (Richard Dawkins)
How does he know "the mystery" will be solved? Or that, eons from now, the Darwinian method will still be relevant?
Rightly said
that boxing ring is so cringe worthy. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea?
But then we wouldn't have: TIME OUT!
Finally, someone said it correctly - bravo Michio Kaku.
My hypothese is:The goal(purpose)of nature is self-understanding.
Think that human is nature and will understand nature.When the interlect understand nature(?) all the questions are resolved.
why cannot jealousy have no color, when the predominant color of love is red :-)
Just came from Michio Kaku videos and stumbled upon this conference and I have to say, I'm in awe of the English fellow that spoke last.
Never seen him before, but he wiped the floor with everyone there!
+KailleraNinja
Richard Dawkins. He's an evolutionary biologist and a great speaker.
You should check his debates/speeches where he demolishes theists.
+The Long Lost Brother Who Has Forgotten His Name
Dawkins obviously never read the line from the Bible where Jesus astutely says "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". Modern faith is an art and does not claim to be scientific. He wants all faithful humans to give up delusion. But he (and all you science worshipers) don't own up to his/your own delusions that science will solve all our problems or get us all the answers. Kaku is more on the money in observing that despite all that science has achieved, we are still rather clueless. Every answer spawns dozens of new questions, so the mystery grows rather than being diminished through the scientific endeavor. But as Dylan says "You got to serve somebody." Whether science or God, you got to serve somebody. Every athlete psyches himself up before a race or a match - whatever the competition. The athlete must believe he will win or he doesn't stand a chance. Dawkins would say that's stupid and delusional. Because he is stupid and delusional and doesn't grasp the importance delusion and self-deception play in accomplishing anything. He rips religious delusion while carefully covering the tracks of his own delusion. His humungous ego won't allow his own self-delusion to be revealed.
+The Long Lost Brother Who Has Forgotten His Name lol. if hes a evolutionary biologist what can he know anout god? its not his area of expertise. its like saying a priest can demolishes atheists.
blazh femur
Science worshipers? Deluded by science?
Science is not deluding anyone.
The word delusion means belief in something that is not true. A false belief.
There is no such thing as believing in science and I'll tell you why.
There are two types of beliefs:
Beliefs based on evidence which is knowledge.
Beliefs without evidence which is faith.
Faith can be a delusion whereas knowledge can't. You can only have knowledge in science, not faith, therefore your statement is invalid.
Wow, alright, I didn't make my comment to attract butthurt deluded imbeciles with imaginary friends.
If you don't like the fact that we're more intelligent than to be followers of something so blatantly obviously false, then maybe you should go pray to your man in the sky to fix it for you.
Because y'know... That works.
Regarding the Creator, science is just what "the cups" can think to understand "the Man" who made them. This is the comparison used by God to make us understand our limitations (the HUGE difference between us and divinity).
i never understood why people need a purpose?
just enjoy live as long as it last. improve your suroundings.
you dont need purpose or meaning.
That's an easy thing to just say, but whether you think so or not, you have formed your own purposes that you follow. It is an idea involving worth of something (life in this case). Otherwise you're just living to die.
'Improve your surrounding's' - this can be a purpose. Are you referring to the purpose only from something like believing in a God?
rubikfan1 purpose sets a goal for human reach, whether it exist religiously or not. Humans can create it themselves too, Its a goal setter. If all humans think like you, just enjoy life, we would probably still be homo erectus at this point.
Just look at the nature,there is a purpose and meaning for everything.Even if you say you don't need it,your life is related with it and going through it.It is not our creation or withing our control,it is already there in the first place.
Some smart people here changing the minds of no one.
+TheSwamper True, but the moderator is worth the watch.
+TheSwamper Who says they are smart? How did they get their degrees? A group of people within the same profession gave them their degree.... who says they were right!
Perceptions - one can only predict what one perceives.....
+Wall Raker well... exactly. Thats the whole idea of "I think therefore I am", the only thing you know is that your conscious exists. Beyond that, one could argue, there is no point in learning anything else - however, these people with knowledge that can "predict phenomenon with more accuracy than someone without that knowledge", generate further knowledge and research into fields that can even let _you_ attain greater prediction to phenomenon in your _own_ version of reality. If you want to progress beyond going round in circles with "I think therefore I am", you have to assume that you definitely exist; make all your predictions with the assumption that your reality exists.
+Samdeman22 That is an interesting perspective and well stated.....though from my perspective, I do know more than as you say, - the only thing I know is that my conscious exists - As an energy being, every thought/action leaves an imprint... all thoughts that have been thought still exist. Nothing on this planet has been invented that has already been invented elsewhere. Your neocortex is an antenna to all thoughts that exist and in particularly for each individual's experience. One connects/taps into this information... I have way more knowledge than any scientist for the path I am on. Scientists are limited by their belief system, their so-called degree....how they grew up, their physical cellular memory, which in turn plays out via through their subconscious... So some humans may need to follow the scientists, some need to follow organized religion... I choose to follow myself.....
When you read a book, you do not store the information within unless you from a belief system. (your cellular memory) Your synapsis fire and your neutrons connect to the energy/frequency of the person that wrote the book.. all that information is outside ourselves and available. Hence why books with multiple authors take more time to "understand." Hence why you must dream. Your spirit body must leave to get it's intuition/guidance. There are those that can get the information directly once you contact to it. Lots more on that but... .....
" Dawkins is such a reptile" Sticking your finger's in your ears and yelling "no no no" is not science and yes Richard you are being the emotional one. I love how he goes on about simplicity being a bad thing.. "In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result. As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data."
Dawkins is boss! as usual his counterparts are too arrogant to accept the obvious ;)
+EpiDemic117 If some time we don't even know our grand parents names if we never met them,and that happened 2 generation ago,how in the world are we ever going to find out who was first the chicken or the egg?
After I died nothing happened, no pearly gates, no fires, and no bright lights.
+Otis I died and rose again? Or, I died and got better? Take your pick.
+Otis Jesus didn't die, he went to India. I died 13 times so far(unlucky) many die and come back, except for Jesus. Only on the cross for a few hours will not kill! Stay off the drugs!!
+Otis Why is it that ignorant, stupid and "Prideful" people are always saying that other people are ignorant, stupid and "prideful".
+Otis why are you quoting "dieing" like someone said that, you didn't even spell it correctly lmao
+Michael Gfroerer few hours on the cross after being tortured and holding hands in that position can suffocate a person.
do what ever you want it makes no real difference . but What you do through Love will echo through eternity much respect to all
i'll tell you the real purpose of the univ...time
Samuel Gonzalez time does not exist so how can it be a purpose?
F**kiin LOL xD
wow, K C....just....wow
TIME OUT!
time does not exist throughout the universe in any kind of consistent way.
10:45 I'm Agnostic but this is why this concept of a God starts to seem more and more unlikely, because at some point, something had to come from nothing. Where did string theory come from? Well, maybe it did come from a God. But, where did God come from?
Everytime you ask any Theist where God came from, they all give a cop out answer saying something along the lines of "we can never know because God exists outside of time, or is so powerful and above us that we could never understand even if he were to allow us to". I've heard this argument for years from so many people and it's aggravating because these people seem to be so content with not knowing where God came from but they don't want to even consider the possibility that maybe this existence is where it all starts.
And in terms of the NAMED Gods, like that of the Bible and Koran, yes science can disprove these Gods or the stories/claims within the books that create these Gods. When the Bible is telling you Jesus walked on water, the earth is 6,000 years old, and that humanity came from a divine creator, these claims are testable. Once these claims are debunked, how in the world can you continue believing in the God that is described in the Bible?
Maybe there is a God, or Gods. Who the hell knows? But if there is a God/s, he/she/it is definitely not the God of the Bible or Koran. This God would have had to create a world of beauty, yes. But also a world of murder, war, hunger, disease, and poverty. What kind of God creates a world where children and elderly people can experience harsh deaths through various types of cancer. What kind of God creates a world where children can starve (like in Africa) or be trafficked (even in 1st world countries). An all-knowing and all-loving God is definitely not a possibility.
redlegagent The problem I run into with Christians or other Theists in mentioning that there were religions before there's is that they say "yeah but they all worshipped the same God. There is only ONE God".
Tasheem -- You bring up a point that I often bring up, that being that as an Atheist myself, I acknowledge that maybe Science cannot disprove all the supposed "Gods". But it CAN Disprove Specific ones, and already has, as you mentioned.
The funniest thing about disproving specific "gods" is that religious people do it all the Time!! lol!! Religious people are, well, religious. But whether they like it or not, they are also Atheist!! lol!! Yup, like it or not, they are atheist about most of the "Gods" humanity has ever believed in. Only difference is, we NON religious people take it just ONE God further.
As for the bible, in 2016 now has over 40,000+ different denominations that all believe that their specific interpretation is the only real one, and that rest of us will burn in hell. lol. Well, they should ask themselves........why aren't they Protestant? If they are, then why aren't they Presbyterian? If they are, then why aren't they Lutheran? How about Mormon? 6th Day Evangelist? Etc, etc., and so on for over 40k different denominations. Oh ye of little faith! lol!!
: )
“We are all Atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” - Richard Dawkins
-- Exactly! Then one has to ask: What is the better candidate for having always been there, some "God" that no one can see or prove......or Matter, which CAN be Seen and also Tested!
Call me crazy, but I'll vote that Matter is the better candidate.
Energy MIGHT have always been there. However, it has not always been in the form of matter. Contrary to what many seem to think, the first law that says energy "cannot be created or destroyed" does NOT mean "always existed." It just means that the amount of energy stays constant.
Tasheem Hargrove ok this one I can answer. look do you have any idea of the concept of God. in the bible it is stated he is eternal the definition of eternal means without beginning or end. remember we are also talking about a being that created time, space, life, death etc. also when you consider how the galaxy wouldn't have supported life or formed even if it was as much a hair fast or slower in its expansion. as for the whole something can't come from nothing argument. a created being (aka us) will always think in that fashion. if it created us something must of created it.
but I do hope you realize that if the atheist are right than our brains are subjected to the laws of physics and all our thoughts are just chemicals. which means we don't have any free will at all and is even having this argument is pointless.
another thing is the vast majority of atheist arguments even if they are correct don't prove that God doesn't exsit.
It's such a tragedy that "purpose" is always linked with "existence of a god" in debates.
Can't a purpose exist without the existence of a god?
there's no way to prove or disprove god, therefore, its pointless to even talk about it.
God never existed, nothing to prove.
mundhanai mudichi says the almighty/all knowing mundhanai
Since the beginning of mankind humans have had an intuitive feeling there is a God. The debate will never stop as long as there are humans.
Surprisingly, scientists aren't very good at philosophy.
Are you sure?
Andrzej M he was a philosopher...
Andrzej M All philosophers would make scientific discoveries since they essentially founded what would later become the scientific method. But he wasn't a scientist in the way we would describe modern scientists.
ya i think so myself specially modern scientists
WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF A HUMAN LIFE?
“Why does God want you to know him? He wants to see His reflection in you. This is why He
has created you and He wants to see His reflection in you”.
“Same with the Goddess”
"She has given you Self-realization because She wants to see Her reflection in you. So you have
to prepare yourself for that reflection, which is so much purer, beautiful, loving,
compassionate, and above all full of wisdom.”
- HH Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, Cabella, Italy, 20 August 2000.
Look at all these scientist in the CZcams comments.