Leonard Susskind - Arguments for Agnosticism?
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2014
- Agnostics do not know whether or not God exists. Theists surmise they're reprobates. Atheists suppose they're cowards. Are there different kinds of agnostics? Can agnosticism deepen appreciation for God-what it would take to believe in God and what it would mean if indeed there were a God? A robust, energetic agnosticism is a credit to God if there is one.
For more on information and video interviews with Leonard Susskind click here bit.ly/1xAleZd
For more videos featuring arguments for agnosticism click here bit.ly/1I5XlMG
To buy episodes and seasons of Closer To Truth click here bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For more Closer to Truth interview videos, please visit www.closertotruth.com
Closer To Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
i love it when smart people say "i don't know" . it's a good thing, humility. it makes me(a mental midget) feel much happier.
Can you not know if Santa Claus exist?
Now THIS guy know what he's talking about.
He is not dismissing anything. very logical and rational.
Best explanation so far, Respect.
Exaxtly, such a lively, truthful wisdom he is. It inspires us all humans.
He does string theory, which is a big waist of tax dollars. There is a general consensus in the science community that string theory is not a scientific theory.
Agnostic = ignorance.
Agnosticism is more of a dishonest position than Atheism.
@@AhlusSunnahwalJamah Not necessarily. Depends on the person in question.
It seems beyond our comprehension, yet we can't seem to stop wondering about it.
I wanna see what's BEYOND our universe, it's very interesting
What a quoteable thought you wrote right there, so beautiful :')
Refreshing to hear intellectually honest people
Leonard Susskind is one of the least egotistical, most humble physicists out there. Some of those guys can be real self-absorbed and "religious" about certain theories or hypothesis. Not saying they're bad people or anything, but a good scientist shouldn't hold any theory too close to the heart.
They do because science has become a religion unto itself, which is kind of ironic.
It is not possible for science to become a religion. Bertrand Russel gives a good definition of religion as (I paraphrase) "the blind acceptance for that which has no proof". Science is precisely the opposite and NO "scientist", no one truly trained in the disciplines of logic and thinking, accepts anything that lacks substantial evidence, proof.
A man wise beyond his time. This capability to rationale beyond emotional aspects is impressive. We need more stable minds like this in our world.
Actually he is great, and wise, and stable, but he definitely showed his humanity there, in the common tendency to lean toward what one wants to be true. He has said and even published pretty extensively that with our current knowledge, it appears *much* more likely that the universe could have been different. But when it came up in this context backed off fast. Nobody’s perfect though.
“Could the universe have been otherwise ? I have no idea, I think it’s way beyond what we are currently capable of answering” and religious people accuse scientists of being arrogant
“Religious people” accuse “scientists” huh? Lol
you're basically missing the point and being exactly what susskind is objecting to you typical western cr@tin.
The interviewer himself was really good, he has a great sense of understanding and where the conversation was going. Leonard is always a class act I can see why he was good friends with feynman.
That is the best video on this topic I have seen on CZcams
He teach physics like entertainment
This is EXACTLY it.
Leonard is one of my favorites physicists still alive. I would say Penrose and Leonard!
I agree
+Diogo Canina Really great teacher too !
+Diogo Canina Total agreement. I thought I was alone in this. Paul Davies seems very open minded too.
Kraus and Dawkins should learn some humility from this guy
You failed to understand what he was saying.
Sean you fail to understand. Kraus would say that the universe came out of nothing and there was no intelligence or consciousness behind it. Oh really? How would Kraus know that? The fact is that he doesn't and he should simply have the integrity to say so. Which is was Leonard is doing.
Even Dawkins says he's agnostic (he says he's a 9/10 on the agnostic scale.
I think only Theists think that they have the ultimate answer.
@@amadexi Dawkins doesn't really understand Agnosticism lol If he wants to use it for himself, sure, but he is bastardizing Agnosticism and missing the point.
@@purposespecific670 Knowing how he is highly involved on the topic, I think he does.
Maybe you do don't understand the meaning yourself.
Best approach to this question, the best answer we don't know and we're not ready to answer, let alone ask.
The quest for the answer is the catalyst for discovery. lao tzu ; The search is the answer.
I think it's just a dumb question left over from prehistoric culture. Like asking where leprechauns come from.
People who believe in leprechauns think I'm a terrible person for dismissing the most important question in the world. I hardly know how to respond to them.
I doubt more knowledge will improve the question, but it seems to reduce the number of people asking it.
Some are interested in folk lore. Others aren't. Some hear the world Bible and go into convolutions.If they hear Jesus is Lord, Jesus is God the one and only Son of God, Crucified for your sins , they have seizures. .
truethinker You mean Shakers, or Quakers? ;-)
I've never convulsed, but I sometimes go light in the head.
@@truethinker221 Yeah it’s definitely wise to take the book your grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather used as the basis of society and of taming nature and building civilization and if the founding of every single great university, and knowing nothing, laugh at it and discard it. Seems to be working great.
I’ve never heard such a profoundly thoughtful answer to this question.
great discussion
Susskind sounds like he doesn't want to admit that he's agnostic, because the uncertainty is what defines it, but at the same time he's recognizing that traditional, archaic perspectives on God are not likely to be true, which I think any sensible person can recognize.
you pagan you are not welcome here.
Not really sure. I mean, if God exists, what if He's actually very different than we all thought?
1/10 of people are sensible, lol
Thank you Lenny for your honest personal beliefs, I'm happy you are Agnostic on this issue, I look forward too talking too you about what I have seen , I hope I blow your mind as was mine, peace and love, Doug, (were is Juan?, what is he doing?).
When we imagine for some intelligence to have caused the universe why do we always imagine that intelligence to be something like us? All gods of religions are so human like who speaks language, they have their own favourite countries and group of people and love them and give them rules. I think its wrong n biased to think that if possible, that being will be like us. I think that intelligent being will be very alien to us and we wont even be able to tell if its there. Do you think a tree or a cell is intelligent? They are but so alien to us. May b its the case that universe itself is intelligent and we r part of it. The intelligent being already exists its the universe itself.
I doubt there's anything anyone would call God, but if there was it seems it would have to be like you describe.
Bishop: "and what have you discovered of the mind of God through your study of his works in nature?"
Scientist: "An inordinate fondness for beetles."
(I forget who the scientist was, maybe Haldane?)
I agree with the statement on not asking the question correctly and not having the ability to understand the answer if ever opening that final curtain. Hmm....maybe the final curtain should be kept unopened. I'm an agnostic but at the same time I believe in the "Picard", haha. Great conversation, I always enjoy this channel's talks.
Well Explained
He gets it! Great answers
Props for the interviewer too.
Maybe I'm just ignorant and I don't know who is he, but he's very professional and does have a solid background.
I admire this man because he shows respect
Extreme knowledge. I like extremely professor susskind
It's just this and nothing else!
a truly wise man!
Refreshing to hear an honest and frankly rational position.
It rings of Douglas Adams writing in the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, where the mice invented a super computer to find out the answer to "life, the universe and everything?" only to be told that the answer was "42... the problem is, you don't even know what the question is yet".
All explanations for ultimate creation that humans have so far come up with, all appear to be nonsense (one way or another, there is an explanation - we're just not even close.... yet)
This video reminded me of another video at wordonfirevideo2 video: "What Is God? (Faith Seeks Understanding)" . The Catholic also says that we can't know the nature of God is in this life. Very interesting.
Very convenient too.
I am an Atheist, who wrote the following November 27, 2017 … A spoof on agnosticism … Two agnostics sat on a fence, Pondering on how humans are dense, Wondering which way the wind would blow, Losing their balance to fall below. "If we fall on the side where religion is real," One said to the other "I will appeal, To God's holy grace for having doubt, Of his existence and his mighty clout." The other agnostic soon agreed, That falling for God and his holy creed, Would save them from a writhing hell, Where forever they just might dwell. Soon they climbed down off the fence, Convincing
Where is the whole series with Susskind?
Is a music piece that doesn't have any patterns (as in repeated same groups of notes) considered as a part of a universe without patterns ? Or is it more fundamental, in that that the air must show a certain consistent behavior for us to be able to hear the notes ?
I question what he means by a universe without patterns.
Thank you for this answer. Yeah, my original question was a bit out of point, since it didn't respect the definition of music as being rythmic.
In your last two sentences, you speak of "cutting a note of a violin" in any sound "I have ever heard". Do you perhaps mean through Fourier analysis, or something along these lines ?
Absolutely nailed it for me...
Atheism/Faith are both fundamentally just speculation/opinions when considering the ultimate questions really aren't they?
The answer may as well be '42'!
I'm a huge Leonardo Susskind fanboy
There is No Argument in favor of being confused.
In a universe of information, what you see is what you get, infinity. In our QM limited state, is it possible to ask a question about it that it is possible to receive and understand? To be Agnostic is another name for what it is in science to be reasonable and rational.
But outside science there is no limit to what it is possible to believe, if you can live with the consequences, or God would have excluded all our mistakes.
what is that
LEONARDO DAVINCHI BOOK please?
Yes. Exactly.
100% my own view. I'm not educated like this guy but I've dwealt on the veil issue all my life as an adult.
How can there be arguments for it? It’s a lack of a position.
It's interesting and true, At the same tme, I think they're talking as if they were two gods looking at the world. Image if they were two cats for example, and thinking if they can ever "move the curtain back all the way".
Well said.
Agnosticism seems eminently cool - just so long as we fail to think it through for any distance. Where is agnosticism supposed to stop?
Withholding belief in X seems an eminently rational response if one feels there are insufficient grounds rationally to support belief in X. Not ruling things out without sufficient rational grounds also seems rational. All this beautiful rationality, though, raises three further (and awkward) questions:
1. What different sorts of ground _do_ rationally support various kinds of belief?
2. What (non-circular) rational grounds are there for thinking we should be rational? (Shouldn't we be agnostic about rationality if agnosticism really is the 'best philosophical position'?)
3. If agnosticism is the "best philosophical position" to take, ought we to be agnostic about our grounds for agnosticism?
*A Point* The laws of nature do not 'point' to certain things being ruled out, they are simply expressions of our _belief_ that certain things are ruled out. Moreover, no amount of evidence could ever show that any 'law of nature' is truly universal. To think otherwise would be to abandon one's agnosticism. But then sooner or later we all do abandon agnosticism, don't we? Especially at the points of beliefs we have firmed up in our minds already.
Agnosticism is kinda like skepticism, you're not gonna say anything with absolute certainty unless you finally have evidence, though each one has his opinion.
Atheists choose the opinion that there's no God, agnostics say _maybe_ God exists, maybe not, basically "I won't pass a verdict"
@@yub2.045 Greetings. We must never think of agnosticism or scepticism as neutral. It is just as much a "choice" to say "I will _not_ pass a verdict" as it is to say "guilty" or "not guilty". If one feels that agnosticism or scepticism on this, that or the other is sound, then one must indeed uphold it. But this is just as much to 'uphold' as is any other position. It _is_ a position, not a philosophically neutral floating raft from which one can sit comfortably surveying other territories. It's hand are not clean. It has its own history and its own grounds for what is thought to be acceptable for belief.
@@theophilus749 Hello. It's hard for me to rephrase what you said but I think you're speaking from like a solipsist/ultraskeptic perspective. Not defaming you or anything with these terms; I'm just recognizing that you're going down the fundamentals of logic/philosophy which some would say "splitting hairs"
I'm not feeling well atm and am stressed so I apologize for not having the time to analyze and understand your reply. I think I got the general idea of your comment; that my logic itself cannot be 100% verified as it is a matter of where one is coming from and by which fundamentals does one agree with. I hope this reply suffices
@@yub2.045 Hello, and thank you for your response. No! I do not uphold Ultra Scepticism, still less Solipsism. I think these are hardly rational positions. I do think, though, having read through what I did say that I could have been much clearer. I hope you soon feel better.
@@yub2.045 Interesting thoughts. More importantly, I really hope you feel better Sir. 🙏🏻👍🏻
شكراً لك سيدي....
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." -- Voltaire
I hope that each of our own personal deaths will reveal the answer to the god/no god question
You still have to make the decision now.
I hope it reveals ALL truth. People would also be in for a hell of a surprise when they find out they lived entire lifetime morally in a world which knows no morality.
Why is that?
@@claudiucojobv i suppose because we didn't need to be on our best behavior after all...lol...no hell for our transgressions
@@zatoichiable dude lol way to put pressure on people
i’ve frequently come back from psychedelic experiences with the conviction that the question “is there a God” doesn’t really make sense and misses the point
Despite endless claims to the contrary, the Buddha clearly said exactly that. In the form: “To say there is a God is incorrect. To say there is no God is incorrect.” Which obviously defies rigorous logical systems (they cannot both be certainly incorrect, and he expressed certainty). Even though illogical, still seems to have some truth to it. I read once a wise Catholic, I think a saint, say “The last great barrier to God is the idea of God” or “is ‘God’ ”. Or even “the knowable God”. Can’t remember.
"psychedelic experiences"-------
φᾰρμᾰκείᾱ : referring to drugs and frequently translated as sorcery
"there was a certain man called Simon which beforetime in the same city used sorcery (φᾰρμᾰκείᾱ) and bewitched the people of Samaria... But Peter said unto him... I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity"
(Acts 8)
@@andrewferg8737 ty for the fascinating trivia
@@ibperson7765 "a wise Catholic" ----
Aquinas echoes and articulates all OT & NT theology: God is existence in and of itself, ipsum esse subsistens.
There are certainly similarities to be found in other traditions as should be expected, though they often appear to get bogged down in pessimistic or passive nihilism and pantheism.
@@jd35711 "ty for the fascinating trivia" ----
You're welcome.
Someone once told me, "beer muscles ain't real muscles". Beer muscles indeed lead to all sorts of problems. Never confuse a simulation with the real.
"who are always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth... For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
(2 Timothy)
Peace be with you.
He says he is fairly sure no supernatural entity will intervene if I step off a cliff... He's trying to say that God doesn't change the laws of physics to accomplish His will? God doesn't have to. God can simply put the thought into your head to look around so you'll avoid the cliff.
"the inner nature of THE ALL is UNKNOWABLE. This must be so, for naught by THE ALL itself can comprehend its own nature and being."
Three Initiates. The Kybalion: A Study of The Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece (Illustrated) (p. 55). The Kybalion Resource Page. Kindle Edition.
-Nil Sine Numine
That assumes that something called "inner nature" exists, and that there is an "all," and that the "all" can perceive or think. I bet all that is nonsense.
Wish the interviewer had followed up when Susskind asked about "complete randomness"
yeah
I'm an Agnostic too: When I date a girl I DON'T Know WHEN she's going to Dump Me.
wow john malkovitch is so smart! i didn't know it
The question isn't 'Is there a God?'. The question is 'What do we mean by 'God'?'.
The problem with that is, we don't need to be able to unpack God in order to know God exists due to God revealing it. However, that second question is probably the second most important, after the question of is there a Creator God.
The "curtain" argument is an explanation of God of the gaps fallacy. It's the best refutation for any religious claims on science.
I think if each universe is formulated as a wave function & if there's a multiverse, if you add up all the wave functions of all universes you will get nothing, I call it the Zero Sum Infinite Wave Function.
If all multiverse Infact exist, and propagate this same wave function which cancel each other out to a net zero, then it's sum would not allow the creation in the first place due to the fact that if would cancel out if it did. This is a paradox, but in a sense I believe that the universe is a paradox so to some extent I do agree with you lol
Not only can we not know why we exists or anything exists we can never know - it's never knowable or unknowable. You just can't get around the problem of infinite regression.
...so simple.....so honest opinion.........".....the curtain is alway there..." :) :) ;)
"One cannot disprove itself." - Wald Wassermann, Physicist
🤣 again!!! So you have changed your user name for 3rd time in 24 hrs! You going to keep deleting the threads I call you out on?
Funny thing is that while you talk of love as the highest virtue you cant even respect people enough to be honest!
well, i raise another question, do we know all the laws of physics so we can say that it will always work the same way? absolutely we do not know it all, and thus, we dont know if a prayer is considered another hidden knowledge from us. not that we have to prove religion; it is still a faith-based ideology. however, religion does explain a lot of the sciences we now know, and more that we cannot know at the moment. maybe thats why it is baised on faith
hey before answering your question i wonder what is your qualification?
+brock lesnar hes a WWE Wrestler
@@quantumgravity92 Wim Hof he has several world records
I agree with Leonard. I don't think we should be so heavily destracted with things that have literally no proof at all. We should work on it untill we find the answer.
I would say, we should forget about it until we find a sensible question.
110%
Few don't want to understand this history of evolution through scientific approach...
My opinion: It's their ego which is stoping them from knowing the truth, they are destined to be slaves of their beliefs.
I started reading one of his books but it was beyond my present knowledge of physics, will get back to it in the future, though. Regarding the topic of the video, whenever the god issue arises, I invoke Newton's Flamming Laser Sword, if you can't settle the argument through an experiment, then it's not worth discussing.
I think i can answer this...whatever created the human...was fucking genius!
I can understand this brilliant man's irritation
I as a theist basically agree with a lot of things that Leonard Susskind said. However, he as a physicist uses science to find out whether a supernatural being exists or not, but we theists use logic and philosophy to prove the existance of God, simply because science is the wrong tool to prove it. Science is very good at describing how nature works, but it doesn't tell you who behind all this is.
1:34 "is there or isn't there a god. I have the feeling it's the wrong question" ------
Classical theology agrees that this is the wrong question. The term "God" refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens. One does not ask if there is or isn't "a" existence in and of itself nor is it logically coherent to posit existence in and of itself to "not be".
Peace be with you.
"what's the purpose of the universe, why and by whom was it made" is such a human thing to ask. as if there should be a purpose, as if there should be someONE or -thing that MADE it for a REASON. people ask this question because that's the human nature to try to see connections, reasons, consequences… that is what help our kind to survive, and it has become the basic quality of every human.
that's how gods were made up. people tried to see reasons where there were no any.
and that's why there is no god(s).
Well, yes, maybe evolution made that for us, but that still doesn't absolutely rule out the possibility of God's existence nor proves it.
From my agnostic standpoint, what I see is that you merely gave an atheistic perspective, not compelling evidence
@@yub2.045 Yes, but it doesn't rule out a host of any other ideas on who, or what created the Univers eithere. The Abrahamic relgions don't have any more validity than other forms of mythology. At that point speculating becomes fruitless. Greek myhtology is no more untrue, than Christianity. Even if something created the universe, it doesn't follow that it has anything to do with Gods imagined by human beings. The need for creation alone doesn't validate Christianity, or any other creation story adopted by human beings.
@@itheuserfirst3186 Yeah it’s definitely wise to take the book your grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather used as the basis of society and of taming nature and of nations and of building civilization and of the founding of every great university.. and knowing nothing, laugh at it and discard it. Seems to be working great.
Also makes perfect sense to call oneself educated while knowing nothing about what’s in the single most influential book every written (well, nothing except the caricatures of craven children). You can definitely understand culture and history and politics and jurisprudence and mankind without having any clue about the wisdom that Western civilization is built on.
@@ibperson7765 Or the meaningless medicinal recipe.
@@itheuserfirst3186 You didnt read the second paragraph of what I wrote. Beliefs aside, your complete ignorance of the most important book in history and the basis of western civilization makes you uneducated.
I consider myself to be Agnostic. I have no evidence of god or a god and I don't claim to know that it does or doesn't exist. I also don't debate theists or atheists. I refuse to. If my knowledge is I have no facts, why would I argue to defend or to denounce. It's pointless. If you have faith, great, if you do not believe, fine, but just know that we all are seeking the same answers; how, why, when. How was the universe ignited? Why are we here and are we alone? When does it all end. All 3 think the same
that's how i look at it , we all seekers of the Truth but with different routes leading to it
But I also know that the believers have no facts.
The "cliff example" is a little weird. Is he saying that because God doesn't make dramatic interventions into nature that He is incapable of interventions? History is full of examples of the smallest action that caused enormous consequences. Napoleon was ill at the battle of Waterloo. Did that minor illness change the entire course of history? God didn't need legions of angels to defeat Napoleon. Likewise, God doesn't need to switch off gravity to keep me from stepping off a cliff and falling.
We humans have a deep-seated goal to live our lives as we choose and our beliefs develop in our unconscious mind to support that goal. We cannot live our lives as we choose and at the same time believe in God. So we assume as true (i.e. believe) that God doesn't exist or that God no longer cares.
Leonard is describing the igtheistic position. I think.
Now, if only theists and their churches held the same honest position... what a beautiful world it would be :)
What physicist like Susskind or Einstein refers as god is something completely different from what other people thinks.even if there is a god I'm almost sure it doesn't have anything to religion or morality.Atheism is about not believing in that moral god created by religion.
1:34 "is there or isn't there a god. I have the feeling it's the wrong question" ------
Classical theology agrees that this is the wrong question. The term "God" refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens. One does not ask if there is or isn't "a" existence in and of itself nor is it logically coherent to posit existence in and of itself to "not be".
WE REALLY DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE HONEST WE REALLY DON'T KNOW THIS IS WHY WE CREATED RELIGION TRYING TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION
Agnosticism is stopping before you've thought it through.
Think ...
1) The Universe had a beginning
2) The Universe had a cause
3) What we observe is organized: various forms of matter and energy behave consistently under given sets of conditions and the observable constants that govern those conditions are very finely tuned.
4) Much of what we observe is organized in highly complex ways into highly functional substances, objects and even entities , to the extent that we exist - capable of observing and even understanding much of the complexity we observe.
5) This finely tuned, highly functional, organized universe points to a Design.
6) Design can only be accomplished with intent, foresight, and the planned use of information.
7) Intent, foresight, planning, information usage are all activities of a mind - a Designer and Creator.
The problem is, no matter what lines of evidential reasoning you put on the table, many atheists will just sit there with arms crossed , rolling their eyes. With the position, "you haven't proven it to me" . "Science is proving things" , "And their working on proving all the things that can't be proven right now" . "No god needed in that process of proving things". "All we need is the scientific disciplines" .
@@ChessArmyCommander Yes atheists are olympic-medal level eye-rollers. That and “omg like, youre so dum” is their best argument.
You call THAT an argument?
If there is an all-knowing God, then CZcams comments prove he didn't make us in his image.
For me the haunting thing is that we know our exceptional (compared to all the other present species on earth) brain with it's cortex and all is a product of nature and evolution just like the exceptional neck of the giraffe is a product of evolution.
There is nothing inevitable about us coming in and it's just as easy to imagine the earth without the human brain as the giraffe's neck. One big nasty flu epidemic at the wrong time in the wrong place and we wouldn't be here.
But the point is, just like nature can produce giraffes with their 2 meter necks it could in the right circumstances produce a species with an 8 meter neck. And just like nature has produced a species with an IQ of 100 it could produce a species with an IQ of 11 000. Like us compared to a shrew.
So how far can we trust our brains and our perception of the world. To some future-not-yet-evolved-species (unless they're already somewhere out there!) our view of the world can seem as primitive as the llama's perception of the world seems to us. You can't trust anything these days! Kisses!
+Pertti Heinikko
_"There is nothing inevitable about us coming in and it's just as easy to imagine the earth without the human brain as the giraffe's neck. One big nasty flu epidemic at the wrong time in the wrong place and we wouldn't be here."_
That's not an argument that it's not inevitable that we got here though. If determinism is true, then it would be an actual impossibility for your flu epidemic to happen.
_"And just like nature has produced a species with an IQ of 100 it could produce a species with an IQ of 11 000."_
IQ is normalized to 100. It's not like humans just happen to get 100 IQ on average.
ok, i give you that with the iq thing. but a species that would be a hell of a lot brainier than we are anyway..
There is no evidence for w, y, z. Therefore one should not take a position either way on w, y, or z.
Science ..physics chemistry biology explains how things work not why things exist. So there is catagory difference. Science cn nvr explain logic and numbers whch science relies on. Science cn nvr lead to truth ..the most it can do is provide workable theories
It all boils down to whether you need a personal reason for the universe to have a purpose, and iif that's the case you are trying to make your feelings scientific valid, which is nonsense. The last question on whether the complexity of the universe mandates a creator, can easily be countered by the fact that if God created it, the universe could be a very simple animated projection, with no need for physical laws. The fact that it is complex is a sign that it was not created and needs to work self sufficiently without intervention.
@@Tore_Lund ..who talks abt personal feelings???. It is all abt simple logic whch is everythng tt is created hs a creator. Any creators, whether it be creator of atomic bombs or creator of sponge bob created their creations wth purpose. To say no purpose is simply to deny simple logic. If u cant use simple logic then hw wud use complicated logic to comprehend complex concepts
Sorry Ahmad, you are completely right in that for life to have a purpose it must have been created, but the subject here is the opposite question: Do your and my need for a purpose warrant the existence of a creator? The answer to that is clearly no. You are also contradicting yourself when you say that everything needs a creator to exist, as it excludes any original first creator, which also excludes any original intent or purpose with everything, as we are using logic here.
Dr. Susskind should go Full Monty and admit that the universe is self generating, it does not need a creator.
@zoperxplex , can you explain this?
@@madebyourcreator lol ! No. No they can't ! Good question. Short, simple, succinct, and yet powerful.
But you first have to invent the concept of a god to make agnosticism relevant. Before humans invented gods no one cared whether he/they existed or not.
It seems incredibly irrelevant to invent something just so you can speculate whether it exists or not and it is time you could have spent exploring the natural world.
jatoxa No, you don't have to invent God first. Susskind address that in this video. Agnosticism is not an answer to the question of whether God exists or not, it's just honestly admitting you don't know enough about some aspects of reality to disregard that kind of questions as irrelevant or already answered.
Just because the idea of God seems to be man-made doesn't mean God is 100% fake. Who knows, maybe God created us and left us without traces of him, and we "invented" the idea of him
Basically, your opinion is just the atheistic perspective of this topic, it's not evidence
P.s., I'm agnostic
Any serious discussion involving science and the universe has to stop asking dumb questions about a god.. it can only lead to baseless speculation and distracts from finding solutions..
I have a question being a believer in GOD.
When you came up with idea of No God you must have some solid evidence for that. Obviously if see a plan in jungle I would think it must be created some one as its probability of being assembled by itself with time is impossible. How can I think that a bird flying in air is assembled with time by itself.
Agnosticism is ignorance. Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world!
@ruben Hi. I do not need to give you evidence for God because you already know that He exists. For example, you want 'evidence,' assuming the unchanging, universal, eternal laws of logic - and you claim to be an atheist?
Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
we'll never know about god, or first cause. we'll never know where matter originated. we;ll never know if there is something outside of our universe. the god question is just not useful in any way. the imagination of brilliant people looking at how our universe is something to be grateful for. keep god on the back burner. the jewish prayer Adon Olam is in every jewish prayer book. it tells us that god is unknowable. if there is a god that's how i would describe it.
If there is a god, I can tell you he gives zero fucks about humans. We live in a hell hole with no hope but to slowly rot and die, each and every one. The entire history of humanity is misery, suffering and death. Everything that mankind has achieved has been through the painstaking hard work of courageous men and women.
What makes Christianity so special? God came into the world and dwelled among his creation.
Fairy sure = Don't know
Chicken or egg first
Why is there a universe??
Why is there a big bang?
Why do God create the universe?
Complete accident, random, or plan
I'd say consciousness is something that can never be understood with science only
I consider myself an atheist, but technically I'm also an agnostic. I believe there are no gods, but I am open to having my mind changed.
Same here. Show me a God and I will reassess.
@@twirlipofthemists3201 you do realize how unreasonable that is
Funny he's agnostic yet believes in his own sci-woo... A universe as a projected hologram and 11 dimensional superstring theory... Ironic... On this occasion I agree with him though. Wise to admit some things we may never know.
People who believe in God are fools. Hawking had a go at formulating the beginning of the Universe with his no boundary proposal. So it's not impossible to try to answer this question.
Your comment gives zero evidence to rule out the possibility of God existing. What if God exists somewhere in this no-boundary universe? Evolution, no-boundary, none of them contradict the possibility of God, they only contradict religion
Up til today, we have 0 evidence for or against God, so we can't say anything with 100% certainty. We can have opinions, but calling others fools for not having the same opinion is incorrect. None of us can be 100% sure
I think his posision is called ignostisim.
Trestein Jordklatt yeah sharlok Holmes ^^
There's something that creates life and we don't understand it. Simple.
+Sammybizness
I am agnostic, but I can agree with you. We do know nothing!
Cristian Tase I'd love to believe in a higher power but as yet I've not had any direct experience that one exists and believe me I've tried reaching out to it. My experience is that nature creates us and then we're pretty much on our own to try to survive. I'm a naturalist you could say.
Sex is the best creation of nature. Nature is very clever. It gives us the most pleasure in the thing that it wants us to do.
100% PERCENT PROOF OF A CREATOR
In layman's terms This Energy/Time(creator) it HAS the ONLY ability to save its OWN creation which is energy/time meaning us humans who are made up of that energy/time.
So that means no other god or gods under the heaven(skies) can save the spirit accept The Holy Spirit.
Im trying to make it easy enough for you to understand ...You know when they say Gods glory is every where, well it is because Energy and Time are all around us.
But since Satan is on earth he also is a form of (time/energy) runs his government(energy/time) here on earth...thats why we are in a fallen world (death and destruction famine and disease depression, ...its because of this evil energy/time(Satan) is over the whole world.
Man is a broken man because of this evil energy/time(satan)
But The Holy Spirit is the creator of evil and he has the ability to destroy His creation evil energy/time satan.
satan is no match for God the ultimate authority.
That Energy/Time came down as man JESUS but they
crucified Him and His Energy/Time(spirit) went back into Heaven. And NOW that Energy/Time is coming back with vengeance against the evil energy(satan) and his followers ....God is King you dig and He is coming back for revenge ....repent my friends!
The word supernatural is contradictory in of itself. How can something "natural" be considered "supernatural" when the very idea of "natural is to be "natural?" "Supernatural" elevates it above the status of "natural" making it no longer "natural." Which leads me to my next point.
In this debate, if it is in fact a debate. It can only be conducted 1 on 1 b/c according to the definition of "belief,"it is subjective. The second part of the debate a decision must be made as to whether you believe that:
1.)knowledge=belief
2.)belief=knowledge
If you chose 1, then that would convey to me, if I were debating with you, that you had to have had some kind of divine experience in your life to lead to belief in a supreme being, or, you have never had any kind of divine experience and therefore "do not" believe in any form of supreme being. Either which way, to say either stance is "default" is folly.
If you chose 2, then you are basically telling me that none of your beliefs are grounded in anything that can be measured within the realm of understanding we currently observe and therefore have a child-like mind that creates fantasies for itself out of comfort.
This is why atheism and theism will never have a full understanding of the material and the ether, b/c it is too black and white. If I had no sense of smell that doesn't mean flowers don't have a scent, and a phenomenon is not wrong, it is just unusual.
In the quantum universe the statement "nothing is certain" is absolutely correct. Don't take my word for it, go look it up. The only objects that can be used in measurement to the existence of deity are tangible objects we can, and have experienced with the human senses of touch, smell, feel, see, hear.
Anything outside of this is what we call an unknown variable. Therefore, using teapots, and unicorns are invalid comparisons b/c they are creations of mankind, even the unicorn, born from the mind of a child like being, a product of our creativity and imagination is incompatible b/c the vision of such a creature was formed in your head of what such a creature can and should resemble based off of human fantasy.
I say as an agnostic. Do not speak to me of unicorns and teapots b/c all analogies fall short of what this supposed god is supposed to be according to account.
Basically means I don't know, I am not sure I am not testing that subject base on a Higher Being. Um next person? Glad I believe in a Supreme Being LOL!
You can push the curtain as far back as possible but you will not see the secret behind, even if you speculate endlessly.Understanding physical reality is limited.
The secret lies in the mathematical model of the parameter space of the Standard Model of particle physics [the mathematical model is the mind of God] that fine tuned creation, enabling self-organizing property of matter, ensuring delivery of life and evolution with probability one, and eliminates randomness and chance.
Maybe. Or maybe we'll figure it all out. We don't know how complicated it is. It may or may not be discoverable.
Anyway, it's far too early to claim that anything is "the mind of God." That's uninformed speculation and/or an attempt to accommodate untested beliefs.
Why is it that both religious folks and atheistic folks get so excited about their beliefs. And why is it that they won't leave people that do not claim to believe one way or the other alone? I've had Catholics ask me if I know where I'm going. I've had Atheists ask me if I believed in God. The answer to either question was considered by each person as a clever trap. At first, I felt irritated by either question and then I understood how pathetic each of them was. Unfortunately, that was after I answered in caustic terms. "You just think that you know where you're going!" and "It's difficult to prove something with no evidence!"
It is indeed inevitable that we are all agnostic about the precise nature of reality. But we can all be certain that there was a first cause -- something that preceded the big bang, even though we do not know (and perhaps cannot know) the details of its attributes.
It is therefore inevitable that we live out our lives in terms of beliefs, not knowledge. To live as if the first cause was merely a materialistic something that just always was (a field or a force) is to live out an atheistic belief. Likewise, to live as if the first cause was / is an intelligent (and/or loving and/or indifferent) entity is also to live out a religious (or deistic) belief. To live out our lives as if the nature of the first cause does not matter, is to live out an agnostic belief.
Some beliefs may be more reasonable than others and we can argue about these (and probably get nowhere).
Ask God to show you an example of prayer changing things down to a fundamental level.
For example, Abraham pbuh was thrown into a fire and the fire was cool for him instead of burning him alive.
" Abraham was thrown into a fire" ---------??????