Paul Davies - The Rise of Scientific Atheism
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 09. 2020
- There have always been people who did not believe in God, but science today has made it more acceptable to be an atheist. As science continues to explain progressively more of how the world works, there is less need for a 'God of the gaps'. As such, many scientists predict that religion will go into a long, steady decline.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on atheism: bit.ly/2EBlVvY
Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
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.
Its a pity that most people who comment are not as careful or as subtle in their argumentation as Paul Davies
The entire comment section doesn't understands a shit about Philosophy of science and philosophy in general.
I was just scrolling through thinking that getting more and more pissed
Disproving God is logically not possible...This is also true for anything that does not exist...
So not being able to disprove God does not mean we have to believe in God's existence..
Edited: please refer all of my replies (& preferably of others too) before commenting on the above matter...
Flying Spaghetti Monster ftw!
So anything that we don't observe or find is non-existent?
Well, you'd have to demonstrate that god exists in the first place. If you simply don't believe that one exists but you don't really know, ok that's different.
@beasts_and unicorns lol
@beasts_and unicorns a bit of a rash generalization but point taken.
Paul Davies has kept a balance between arrogant atheism and naive theism.
I like your statement. Neither of those 2 categories are helpful.
Haha good observation!
I find it interesting that scientists have no problem believing that everything came from nothing in an unexplainable "big bang" but struggle with believing in a "creator".
What is nothing? How does one know that nothing exist in the first place?
I find it interesting that theists have no problem believing that a creator can be the uncaused cause, but not the universe itself.
@@rG1vZ universe and God/god are interchangeable to me. Not really into biblical God, but I think our idea of something greater is God/universe.
"People have always had the option of not believing."
I guess. As long as they kept their mouths shut and pretended to believe anyway. Still the case in large parts of the world.
If there was a god that wants us to know it exists it would show us in a way we would all be convinced! Instead he shows up in burned toast in South America!
I wouldn't be an atheist if there was one constellation that, no matter how you looked at it, spelled "It's true, I exist" in every language and alphabet, past, present and future.
@Fernando Scasioso Is lack of knowledge a better basis for atheism or for religion?
Maybe there is one god, or maybe two, or maybe many, or maybe none. How do you decide which idea to believe? (Answer: For most people it mostly depends on which time zone you're born in.)
atheism is a religion that says reality is meaningless. if reality is meaningless then you're not making arguments as your arguments are meaningless.
atheism is a religious position, of the dumbest kind. You cannot escape it.
Bo Zo the chances of there being a constellation of stars that say that in every language are unfathomably better than the fine tuning of the universe. So if the constellation spelling that would convince you of Gods existence then the fine tuning should easily convince you.
lol this is basically all atheism arguments
"I'm always careful about using words like "purpose" or "god" because I get jumped on." I feel the same way Paul.
Paul actually said "purpose or _goal."_
@@davide724 Are you sure? I'll have to listen to his words again. Maybe I have "god" stuffed into my ears or maybe my chemo-brain is playing tricks on me. Thanks!
@Language and Programming Channel The words mean something to me.
@Language and Programming Channel weren't you an Orthodox Christian theist? lol
""purpose or goal because I get jumped on." I feel the same way Paul."
"I get jumped on." is only one of many endings he could have said.
If, as one is speaking, the unconscious delivers a phrase
that seems acceptable in the moment,
sometimes, a moment later, one realizes that one's phrase was not exactly what one intended.
This happens sometimes because the unconscious search for the best word came up empty or came up with an approximation or some automatism or habit of speaking overwhelmed the efforts of the conscious to accurately shepherd the thought to its vaguely intended precise conclusion.
Sometimes one loses focus, loses interest or becomes lazy and says any old thing with the hope that no one will notice.
One stands in awe of the smooth and cogent delivery of folks like Sam Harris.
I wouldn't hold Paul Davies to that ending.
It seems to me that what folks put in writing is more reflective of their true thoughts than whatever they might speak about it.
"everybody is guided by their own wishful thinking." Truer words were never said
I would amend that to say "Most everyone". Some people are seeking the truth, more or less. E.g., I would wish that god existed, and that I will live again (in heaven, hopefully). But I'm quite aware that wishes are not facts, and the facts to not support these wishes. Sigh...
@@roblovestar9159 said, "I would wish that god existed, and that I will live again (in heaven, hopefully)"
1. How have you proven scientifically that God doesn't exist? I'd be interested in learning how you did that. And if you have, why haven't you won a Nobel Prize for it?
2. You're probably right on the assumption behind your parenthetical statement. You won't. There are no fools in heaven.
@@googlefalseprophetstevefle8206 In reference to your 1). Russell's teapot.
I love what Paul Davies said about everyone being guided by their wishful thinking. It is so true. People pretend to be so objective. But so much of what people believe about things like God come down to what they want to be true.
@@eoeo92i2b2bx God loves you and wants you to spend forever with Him. To put it straightforwardly, Sir, you are without excuse to believe in God. That's what God says in Romans 1. This is because, through His creation, He's made His existence plain enough: czcams.com/video/X_tYrnv_o6A/video.html
@@kb24crazylaker - Christians have the evidence of fulfilled prophecies, which prove the Bible cannot be "only the words of mortal men."
Only the faith of an Atheist is truly "blind faith." The Atheist has no evidence of most of the things he asserts (hopes for) in his assumptions about the beginning of the universe and its undeniable order, or the origin of life or conscious thought or conscience. And the word "wish" isn't the best to describe this either - the better word is "hope." All Atheists have hope that God doesn't exist, in order that the Atheist can go Scott-free for his countless sins against God and humanity.
you suggest that men (human beings) "believe_in" atoms electrons and subatomic particles because they want them to be true?
Who knows? - It may well be, given that men (human beings) are plainly as credulous as imbecile children and as passive as sheep. They are so ovine that they will accept without question anything you please if you can persuade them that all the other sheep accept it without question. No doubt someone as fanciful and prone to imagination as democracrates dreamed up the Mr God fantasy exactly as that latter dreamed up the atoms fantasy.
Both are clearly imaginary and both equally incapable of direct immediate personal experience. It is hardly surprising that those that will accept without question the Mr evolution fantasy will also accept without question the atoms and electrons fantasy, both of which are no more or less fanciful than being Mr God fantasy, and both objectionable for identical reasons
@@googlefalseprophetstevefle8206 There’s plenty to argue about in your post but the last thing you wrote is simply not true for the majority of atheists. Firstly, there’s atheists who actually wish there was a god and then there’s anti-theists who do not. Of those anti-theists, I am sure that some might want to escape their moral shortcomings but I think these people are probably very few in number. I can’t imagine that most who are morally repugnant actually have the intellectual curiosity to even ponder existence and god.
I would suggest that the anti theists that are left are those like Hitchens who question the morality of the Christian god and want no part of that or are those people like me who believe that god diminishes existence so they hope there’s not a god.
I always found it very odd that there weren’t more theists who actually wished there wasn’t a god. Honestly, I don’t want to be in a universe of anyone’s creation. It’d be like living in the Truman Show.
@@googlefalseprophetstevefle8206 One of the worst occasions of the Strawman Fallacy I have ever seen. You have no idea what Atheism is.
"I don't think you can use science to prove, or disprove the existence of God." Spot on.
Information doesn't create the cosmos. Information waves are the fabric of the cosmos. And, as demonstrated with the famous double slit experiment, a conscious observer converts those information waves of potentiality / probability into "particle", "matter", or "cosmos". The Prime Observer creates the Cosmos.
I read Paul Davies excellent book "God and the new physics" some years ago. It is well worth reading. He really gets into the science side of it, so for those who have a background in theoretical physics the book is not a disappointment.
What is the main point he makes wrt the connection between physics and “god”
Some will not what-is-called “believe in” God for particular reasons, but not apply those reasons to not believing in atoms and subatomic particles, which are no more and no less fanciful than the Mr God fantasy and for exactly the same reasons.
Exactly as one might wonder from where men (human beings) got the idea of God and equally one might wonder from where they got the idea of atoms, which is no more and no less fanciful than God and the apply the same reasoning to support their fantasy atoms as do the lunatics that imagine God (whatever that might be).
Just as some what-is-called “believe in” God, so others “believe in” atoms, and they use identical reasoning to those that are proponents of the Mr God fantasy, so presumably these fantasies come from the same source.
Clearly those that what is called believing God cannot help believing in God and by exactly the same token those that believe in atoms cannot help believing in atoms - neither have any choice in the matter and both are passively accepting without question, because men (human beings) passively accept without question what they*want*to passively accept without question. Both are a function of the dreaming or associative apparatus that is called the mind. There is no essential difference between Mr God and Mr atom in the land of the psyche.
@@chrisdistant9040 We are the system(maybe). Cosmos is the surrounding (perhaps). God is both the internal and external variable(irrefutable). The system and the surrounding interact with eachother, but neither can interact with the variable unless it's God's will. God is just a name for something to which we owe our very lives.
The science atheists use to usurp religion comes from religious people; their minds and discoveries they made.
Albert Einstein
amazing chanel, thank you!
coco does it for me.
Please give me a summary of what Dr. Paul Davis said in this interview. I do not understand the language of English so I would like your help. To re-translate the words in the application.
The Universe is mystery wrapped in a conundrum surrounded by bozos who tell you they know it all.
Science is pure, solid and elaborated theories but it has never discovered or explained how life emerged....
Not yet but it's getting closer. Just because it doesn't have answers on your schedule, doesn't mean that god is a shoe in.
And it has never discovered the things that will be discovered.
@@karlschmied6218 sounds like a promise
@@leopalce311 Yes, the promise that there will be more discoveries.
Religions cannot afford to have "God(s)" discovered by science in ways other than in human neurons in different forms, e.g., in different languages. As John 1 rightly states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So different languages make different gods.
But if gods in a different form than the one I mentioned were observable by scientific methods, we could do scientific experiments with them (God discovered at CERN or Salk Institute). This is such a bizarre idea that I think most religious people would be shocked, and they would reject such a discovery. They are satisfied with the idea that their gods are inscrutable. After all, they are much more useful that way, since you can project everything into them.
My personal opinion is...
You can give your life whatever purpose you want...
But there is no overriding, universe given purpose
At least you preface the remark with the words, "personal opinion." I don't often think about this issue, though I used to. I think I came to accept the ambiguity and uncertainty that usually surrounds discussions like this. Those who talk about it with certainty exaggerate the scope of their own possible knowledge.
You said: "You can give your life whatever purpose you want.." Then you say "But there is no overriding, universe given purpose." BUT what if my purpose for life INCLUDES an "overriding, universe given purpose"? Why can't I give myself such a purpose? ( Maybe I can't. How could I possibly give such a purpose to my life when that characteristic belongs to the CREATOR ( or universe ).
John Brzykcy then you are wasting your life to a delusion
@@johnbrzykcy3076 If you believe all purpose is purely personal then it would be a contradiction to say that a non personal purpose could be included in purpose. Believing purpose includes non personal purpose and personal purpose would resolve the issue. You then are back to demonstrating the existence of non personal purpose.
@@bazstrutt8247 I hope I'm not wasting my life, although I have often felt that way. I'm 66, almost 67.
It's always worth listening to and considering seriously what Paul Davies says or writes.
Paul: "I find the debate very shallow and very silly"
Every commenter: *debating their point of view*
atheism is a religion that says reality is meaningless. if reality is meaningless then you're not making arguments as your arguments are meaningless.
atheism is a religious position, of the dumbest kind. You cannot escape it.
@Carlos Alberto Cristobal that's what they all say.
@Carlos Alberto Cristobal because reality being meaningless is implied in atheism and that is a religious position. you don't get meaning from mere matter.
@Carlos Alberto Cristobal just because you're an atheist isn't a valid argument. I was once an atheist as well so it's irrelevant.
it doesn't matter what you individually believe as an atheist, under atheism reality is objectively meaningless - a religious position. atheism isn't the reciprocal of Christianity or some specific religion, it fundamentally denies any kind of creator and teleology. unless you can provide a coherent argument otherwise, you can be the first.
@Carlos Alberto Cristobal subjective meaning has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.
however, atheism does statistically tend to lead to nihilism and suicide, and also less babies. but that is not the argument I'm making.
let me know when you have understood the argument.
I like this guy(Paul Davies).
Me too !
If a being could harness thermonuclear energy to make stars, and was advanced enough to create life and complex human beings, do think such an advanced being would demand burnt animal sacrifices? and flood the earth to kill everything because of 'sin'? And be jealous of people worshiping idols?
Why not, they got to make space for new highway, factory or military base somehow.
Appeals to incredulity are not arguments.
"Science actually works" and 'miracles actually happen' are contradictory ideas.
Davies says scientists have to believe that the universe is rationally ordered, that it’s schematic, and that the purpose of the scientific method is to uncover that order. So he implicitly rejects the view being circulated in these comments that order in the universe is just a self-centered human fabrication or that the universe is so chaotic there’s no order to be uncovered or explained at all. Perhaps these folk would like to tell us why they think Davies is wrong before attacking theism.
Please, someone tell me why he says at the end “the Atheists wish there is is no God or purpose to the universe”? Why would the wish that?
I'm not sure why he says that. But I hope we are guided by more than just "wishful thinking." I think he is kind of generalizing that point of view. I really can't respond properly because I do believe in a god and a purpose.
Well he had to juxtapose his own silly wishful thinking with that of the other group’s, to not look ... silly himself. I can’t know but also can’t imagine anyone would ever wave their fist at the sky “Damn you, why is there purpoooooossseee???”
@@chrisdistant9040 Hey Chris.. that's a good one! "... wave their fist at the sky...." Who knows... maybe some people actually do that? I certainly hear expressions with "damn" a lot !
dlucas90 because they didn’t any other faith/doctrine to interfere with their own (communism)
@dlucas90 Ever wonder why communism and religions are so similar? They both believe in utopias and the possibility of perfection.
I like the zen master's answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?" He said, "If you don't I do, and if you do, then I don't. I have often said this, and it usually stops the silly conversation.
Sounds like the zen master is simply being oppositional. ;)
@@roblovestar9159 No, not that at all. Rather, it is hinting at the fact that the question is meaningless without a definition of "God". We ask that question often, without bothering to explain what we mean.
I Love You Paul Davies. That smile at the end was priceless.
My relating the myth of god, angels, devils and man was just that, relating a myth. I can also relate myths surrounding Norse gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, some native American gods, etc. It was not meant to be a definitive recounting of actual events. If you prefer to believe that angels exist but Thor and Zeus do not, that's entirely up to you.
However, until you can provide some evidence, a shred of proof for your belief in the existence of a god or gods, you should give atheists the same respect you demand for the religious.
Your god needs to stop playing games, come out of the shadows, tell us what he wants and get on with it. Until then, you'll pardon the atheists for believing that your belief in god is no more than the 'opiate of the masses'.
I agree. We should "give atheists the same respect..." I get so frustrated by comments on here by "militant atheists" although I try to understand their anger and frustration. I don't even like to make arguments or challenge people, especially about beliefs in god. I mostly like to listen and share. I don't consider the words of atheists as "word salad." ( by the way, I think Jesus told us 2,000 yrs ago "what he wants." My problem though is correlating my wants with His wants. Seems very difficult to do )
Why do we put so much effort into separating ourselves from identity groups, then foolishly jump right back into them. If you're a real scientist, I personally don't care if you're a theist or atheist or ietsist, or fill in the blank. As long as your work is honest and isn't corrupted by selfishness; who cares what one believes or doesn't.
Agreed!!!!!!!!!!
I wish it was that simple.
First I would say an atheist’s ideology can’t be presumed like that of a theist, obviously because the atheist doesn’t have a book from which to refer to, or maybe s/he might. An atheist could think there is no purpose to exist, or that there is. Existence itself is such that one can discover purpose, not discover it, or reject it. This brings me to the question of what his idea of freewill is? He appears to be saying there is an idea of god in the understanding of science or in the notion of purpose. But I would say that’s just intelligence’s relationship to nature. “Smart” people or “good” people are pushed in a certain direction in as far as their trend of behavior is concerned. Are u saying they are closer to god? I’m looking for god in this understanding of it. All I see is the notion of god being some kind of benevolence or beauty, which is aesthetic and anthropomorphic. Clearly the world isn’t so pure and innocent. So it just seems like a false impression of god to say it is here in the “good” place but not there in the “bad” one. His idea isn’t from a neutral and objective position.
Too long.
Their god would have to be a real dick. Or that evil villian who sets the town on fire and then wants credit for putting out the fire.
Man: why did you create evil ?
God: someone has too take the blame. And it can't be me. Then when they are hopeless. I will give them some for the right price. I will be the hero. Win-win-win
I disagree with Davies' assertion that "..the atheist wishes that there is no God or purpose.." Most atheists' position is that there is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore there is no reason to believe in one.
Being an atheist is like refuting the existence of fishes while standing on the top of a mountain.
A universe from nothing cannot be there had to be outside interference which shows that there is a supernatural which leaves room for a god also. Atheists i spoke with and see on CZcams like Richard Dawkins are materialist fanatics who want to destroy all of religion and reduce us to being a piece of meat with the ability to think.
I think this broad view of atheism effectively squeezes out agnosticism. Atheism is the ACTIVE/affirmative belief that there is NO God, not simply the statement that there is no evidence of one to-date. And taking that extra step involves a ~belief~ on the subject that effectively amounts to a guess.
A weird non impossible thought:
By accepting all possible Gods and Godesses in human history, I'm curious to know if there is regular meeting between creators in heaven. Did these creators exchange thoughts on how to improve human's life, how to reduce suffering on earth, how to make their created happy, etc.? Because if they combine their powers since billions years, it would be a piece of cake to solve any sort of problem. All of them are omnipotent, omniscient, etc... all best desired human vertues. They could exterminate hell in a second, reduce covid positive by snapping fingers, etc. So I'm curious to know, when do they implement the resolution? If there was/is one, and if they did meet.
Gods and Godesses, celestial guys up there, now is the right time to show off, to do miracle again. Humans need miracle now like in the past, please manifeste your combined skills. Amen.
Many polytheistic religions don't include the idea of gods being omnipotent or omniscient. Not all religions have a creator god either. Some gods as emerging some time after existence started. In Greek mythology for instance the Gods where proceeded by the Titans whom they defeated. IIRC the Titan's themselves didn't actually create existence either but rather emerged from it. Not all religions have a hell either, or at least don't have a permanent one.
weird indeed. You long for the deus ex machina, like so many others.
When you start your discussion of God it may be helpful to identify which God you are referencing. Maybe place an image, plastic statue or reasonable likeness, with a name, next to the Bunsen burner so that we have a clear notion of which God we are talking about. It also would be helpful to list all of what humans knew about the Universe, at the time of this God's discovery, . I suspect, that, in all cases, humans were not aware of our galaxy, let alone the Universe. Each time you get to a juncture where you are speculating on the creation of time, space, nothing, and the nature of the Universe, glance over at your little statue of God, and ask if that notion of God would fill in the answers.
I don't know about the scholars, I do believe Robert is referring to Creation and manifestation of the All of the Universe.
I too question the same thing.
Another conversation, which makes absolutely no sense. Davies is fundamentally wrong when he claims that not believing in gods is wishful thinking. There is no scientific atheism. Not even atheism itself exists. Everyone is born with no belief in any god, tooth fairy, or anything supernatural. He only learns of these things through other people. Before that, they just don't exist. Gods are made by humans, just like the tooth fairy or mermaids. That is the only thing that is plausible when it comes to the existences of gods or other man-made creatures.
@shaky God is no man-made creature.
Físico Nuclear Cuántico Yes, it is.Of course it is. You wouldn‘t know anything about gods if nobody told you.
@@shaky7344 Can you disprove God?
Físico Nuclear Cuántico Can you disprove the tooth fairy?
@@shaky7344 No, I can't. Can you disprove God?
It appears to me that the interaction of order and chaos is generally towards ever greater complexity as the universe cools and settles down. At 13.8 billions years, the universe is very young, with almost a trillion more years ahead producing new stars. So it's no surprise that the universe we observe is largely chaotic.
Who or what is not chaotic at 1/100th of its expected lifespan? Any long-lived life (or post-life) forms even in just 20 billion years' time would seem godlike to us now. Note that only one billion years ago, the Earth was only populated by single-celled organisms.
I think you are wrong because we live in a universe where entropy is always increasing. The universe is running down and it will eventually loose its ability to support life.
A billion years ago the Earth was only populated by single-celled organisms. So what do we make of entities a billion years more advanced than us? Or ten billion years? Fifty billion? A hundred billion years? My guess is they would be incredibly hard to kill off. They would be as impossible for us to understand as it would be for bacteria to understand quantum physics. Maybe by then they will be able to generate energy from scape itself?
@@garyheron Earth has a sun which makes it an open system. A river might flow towards the sea but it has eddies and back-currents.
Why is it so difficult for people to say I don't know? You don't know anymore than I don't know...no one knows I don't care about your background or how many degrees you have you may have an opinion but you don't know the secrets.
For many people, the "I don't know" state is stressful for obvious reasons. The brain involuntarily "tricks" (arranges) itself to relieve stress. Each brain does this in its own way. Some brains share their methods, just as people share cooking recipes. This is also called culture. For me "I don't know" is sometimes stress, but sometimes pure joy.
Science cannot disprove God (or the tooth fairy for that matter). But it can sure pile up a lot of empirical evidence that undermines the notion.
But God is not an object like, you say, the "tooth fairy". www.firstthings.com/article/2013/06/god-gods-and-fairies
Yeah evidence against god like fine tuning, consciousness and the fact living beings look designed. Oh wait!
DBK living beings look like the product of evolution, consciousness is an emergent property of neurological activity and “fine tuning” is just an anthropocentric view with no objective evidence to support it.
On the other hand we have countless examples from archeology and history that not only different human societies adopted different gods but also adapted them to their needs as societies evolved. We have pretty solid evidence that gods are manmade and the funny thing is that theists completely agree with that explanation except when it concerns their god of choice.
@@pansepot1490 You contradicted yourself, admitted that most civilizations believed in a god while saying that we look like a product of randomness (random mutations). No evidence for fine tuning? Hmm, not sure why there is multiple unsolved physics problems related to fine tuning then. *thinking*
Comparing the concept of God to the tooth fairy is a clear indication of an atheotard
My understanding is that in the last 40 years the idea of scientific materialism has been in retreat. As science realizes how unsatisfactory an explanation it is. Several key points.
(1) If the creation of the universe was random where did the laws of physics comes from?. The fine tuning of the universe is a powerful testimony to this.
(2) If the creation of life was random then how is it possible for such an unlikely event to happen in such a limited time frame? its mathematically impossible given the time frame.
(3) Conciousness anyone.....................hmmmmm. Not to mention purpose of existence............
Paul Davies is smart enough step carefully through all of this and not rule anything out.
1 - The laws of physics/nature are not legislation, they are observations made of consistent phenomena under various conditions. They are emergent properties of matter and energy. Fine tuning may not be as fine as some would like to imagine. It is a very open question and in what way is it "powerful testimony" for "If the creation of the universe was random where did the laws of physics comes from?.", which is a question, not a statement.
strange
2 - Another big IF and misuse of "random". We know from evolutionary biology that selection is the active force in generating variety and in speciation. Pure randomness does not factor into ev9olution at all. - We do NOT know how prevalent abiogenesis is in the universe, what its timeline is or any probabilities associated with it. You cannot assert that it is "impossible" under any conditions, without having perfect knowledge of ALL CONDITIONS.
Do you have perfect knowledge?
3 - Consciousness is a mystery. God is not the default explanation for mysteries. - Existence doesn't need a purpose, however much you want it to have one. If wishes here horses, beggars would ride.
Paul Davies may be smart enough to step through this but you stepped right in it, a number of times.
@@con.troller4183 oh what tiresome nonsense really. Your bias is evident a mile away. Yet like all who peddle these tired talking points you have no proof. Your's is the realm of speculation. Your cry is " have faith" but stripping away the insider language of physics....all you have is random theory.
My questions stand. Unanswered.
Impossible in the rational world is defined as 1 over 10 to the power of 60.
The perfect knowledge of all conditions is a nonsense strawman. If you applied that to all phenomena ....nothing could be stated in science. Nothing.
I am the insurgent here challenging scientific materialism. I get to pick the holes in your orthodoxy. I picked those holes and your smug attempt to bat them away with airy nonsense only confirms I am on to something.
Adopting the tone of a medievel churchman in dismissing so called heresies wont get you far.
To summarise your response
1 you have no idea where the laws of physics come from....
2 You dont know......nobody does....
etc..
in other words...God is just as good an answer as any other. Thanks
So get serious... introduce some proper science or get off the train please. And stop wasting my time.
The first two are straw men. Nobody said that the creation of the universe or life was random. The third is incoherent.
@@aaronpolichar7936 oh dear. Its like you missed all of the school days and not just a week or two. I have nothing against people who are home schooled but I do require that they occassionally looked at a book. Sadly in your case it just didnt happen. Daytime TV can be such a distraction eh......oh well. Too late now.....
@@fiachramaccana280 Blah blah ad hominem, none of which is true.
There are many ways a thing can be a sphere.
There is only one way a thing can be a Mandelbrot set.
A Mandelbrot is an iterative math which includes all connected Julia sets and the logistics map. The logistics map at its least complex is where the complex plane of the Mandelbrot set is most complex and where the logistics map is most complex the Mandelbrot set is least complex( or rather more iterations go off to infinity).
We are all crazy.
They talk a lot about the scientific method, discovered by devout Christian Francis Bacon (some would argue Galileo too, also very devout based on his own in-depth theological writings).
Please name some peer reviewed, scientific papers which include any god as a data point.
Thanks.
@@con.troller4183 Please define a true statement in a purely physical universe.
@@ibperson7765
Irrelevant question.
Please name some peer reviewed, scientific papers which include any god as a data point.
Thanks.
@@con.troller4183 Not irrelevant. God is built into the only world view that allows for the existence of truth. The fact that you can’t define truth in a purely physical universe makes that presupposition impossible via reducto ad absurdum
@@ibperson7765 "God is built into the only world view that allows for the existence of truth."
Circular reasoning AKA begging the question logical fallacy.
"The fact that you can’t define truth in a purely physical universe makes that presupposition impossible via reducto ad absurdum"
You can't define truth except as a quality of god, which you define as truth.
And your random logical fallacy spinner failed you. Reductio ad absurdum isn't even in the ball park of possible objections.
The atheists do not whish that there is no god, they are just not convinced by the argument that there is one. Most atheists like myself spend a lot of time searching for a good argument that there is one, because it is exciting. And disproving god or the loch ness monster or santa claus is impossible, and you know it very well. I am amazed that someone that smart can even come with such arguments, that they know to be untrue.
Paul Davies claims knowledge of atheists; that they are indulging in wishful thinking that there is no god, while talking to to an atheist that spent most of his life desperately seeking his wished for God.
@Language and Programming Channel But there IS a god: the wonder of the self-organizational creativity of the universe is god in action!
atheism is a religion that says reality is meaningless. if reality is meaningless then you're not making arguments as your arguments are meaningless.
atheism is a religious position, of the dumbest kind. You cannot escape it.
@@AP-bo1if Atheism means non-belief. Try to read something, for a change.
@@johannuys7914 Atheism originaly has to do with rejecting the belief in a god/gods. Modern atheism is the belief the matter is all there is...that is what most people believe who call themselve a atheist.
I'm pretty sure Davies was responding to the interviewers statement that belief in God was wishful thinking.
Davies was asserting that wishful thinking can be found everywhere and it's something to work against as a scientist. Mainly because the potential bias involved.
Excellent
So basically agnostic. Yes, a pox on both houses. Science can operate independent of the viability of religion. It does not require "creators" to exist or not exist to engage in it. Until that day we confirm otherwise the whole discussion just distracts from the work. Let science worry about this stuff only if and when it becomes relevant
Let me get this straight. The universe created itself and the extreme fine tuning is an accident....?
that's the atheist religion in a nutshell
Let me get this straight. An infinitely complex being came into existence on accident, then created everything?
@@kevinmm20 LOL you missed a few logic classes in skool, didn't you?
@@les2997 Why do you think that?
@@kevinmm20 Who created the uncreated God? This is a category mistake. You are assuming that everything needs to be created.
Faith is unscientific!
yeah, you certainly is a more "scientific" person than Leibnitz, Kepler, Pascal, Newton, Plunck...you´re just a parrot....
@@heitord5539 you nailed it
@@heitord5539 fallacy of authority point blank. They all believed different nonsense under the umbrella of supernatural. It is what they believe that is testable that gave them the authority (name) that you now drop to construe your fallacy.
@@Renato404 Exactly right!!!
Theists know what they like and like what they know.
Did I hear that right? Science can prove everything?
Who said that?
The universe is governed by physical laws. We call these laws "science". Physical laws aren't dependent on the acknowledgement of sentient life.
@@rimbusjift7575 "We" don't call these "laws" science. Science is an attempt to find patterns in our collective perceptions. We don't know all the patterns, probably we will never know all of them.
"Physical laws aren't dependent on the acknowledgement of sentient life." I am inclined to agree with that, because from time to time and more and more frequently physicists find facts that do not fit into the previous physical world view. I don't see an end in this process.
I enjoy these discussions, but why is the camera always in motion....there are two talking heads....the movement is nausea inducing.....come on director - learn from other shows like this - some motion is ok, constant useless motion detracts from the conversation....
We know the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything...
It’s 42
Personally, I'm leaning towards 42.3 due to our finding of the higgs boson
Ha ha the meaning of life actually is 42. That takes me back! Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy. I watched it back in the 80s as a kid when we only had 4 TV channels. In one episode an advanced race of aliens build the greatest computer in the universe and ask it the meaning of life. After a billion or so years it comes up with the
answer 42. It’s a perfect illustration of the absurdities you reach when you try to use technology, utilitarianism and the natural “sciences” to answer a philosophical question about life.
"God does NOT exist"... Me: I don't care.
"God DOES exist"... Me: I don't care either.
I like your short and direct answer. Thanks.
Thanks for sharing. I think many people feel the same as you.
"Well 0:40 I don't think you can use science to prove or disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In popular parlance 0:50 the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a blob of spaghetti with meatballs and eyes flying in the sky. That of course is how the people who invented the Flying Spaghetti Monster define it, but that's silly and people who believe that are cavemen - and anyway, let us not get distracted by what everyone thinks a word means. Because 1:45 there are many many word games you can play by substituting the original definition of the FSM for something that sounds like a bunch of word salad and word games and a coping mechanism of denial but I swear it totally isn't. As a result I make it sound like all True Scientists™ actually believe in God™even if they claim to be atheists - oh-oh, someone's in denial and it's certainly not me, hehe! Oh, and anyone who doesn't hold the view I've just outlined is No True Scientist™, and therefore to be ignored - unless of course 2:14 they're a totally cynical scientist, which of course means they're the Baddie™ and a Total Sham™ and therefore also should be ignored.
Because let us remember that Teleocentrism™ 2:18 is not a widely recognised logical fallacy but actually the foundational principle of science, as is using the word "rational" in order to sneak in the Trojan Horse™ which is a Higher Intellect™ Because obviously, as everyone familiar with Adams' Puddle Analogy™ knows, if you can understand something using your human brain, that means it was designed in order to be understood by your brain, and not at all because your brain literally runs following the exact laws it's trying to understand, oh no. You just wouldn't do science 2:30 unless you believed those two things. I'm not even sure what I'm talking about here 3:50 because I forgot the words Teleocentrism™and Anthropocentrism™ but let me stop myself right before I remember it and replace it with the word Point to the Universe™ and Point to Human Existence™.
Oh, what's that, I'm being called out 5:55 on my wishful thinking? I can't deny that, so ket me borrow a page from the book of Theists™ and turn the tables right back on ya: they call Atheism™ a religion and accuse atheists of *believing* there being no gods, so I'll just accuse the scientists who simply follow the Scientific Method™ with its Occam's Razor™ of being wishful thinkers simply because they *don't want* to assume that which has no evidence to warrant the assumption, and they *believe* what is supported by evidence because *they want* to believe it! Ain't I smart? If everyone does it it's not a crime, amirite? 😀
Oh, and if we should find 6:32 other Intelligent Beings™in the Universe, one of the tests is that the emergence of life and mind and the knowability of the Universe are Teleocentrically Pre-Determined™. Haha, the video's just ended so you didn't even have the time to call me out on the fact that I just called my Wishfully Teleocentric Conclusion™ by the word "one of the tests" so that it sounds like I'm not spouting 100% Verified Organically-Sourced Nonsense™. What I was actually saying was that one of the tests is trying to find other Intelligent Life™, and if you find more Puddles™ that eerily fit their Holes™, naturally it's evidence that some Higher Rationality™ was at work, and oh boy doesn't that thought make me feel cozy and no longer alone! Oh God, oh mommy, oh daddy, I miss you so much!"
And well he should disagree with his fellow scientists when they say human life and the universe have no purpose. I'm sure he has in mind that the purpose of human life is to hydrolyzed carbon dioxide, and and the purpose of the universe is obviously to move from low a entropy state to a high one.
Carl Sagan said that too!!....Science cannot prove/disprove the existence pf god....
@Ozymandias Nullifidian "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of belief." - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
@S Gloobal In the absence of supporting evidence nobody can make the claim that God doesn´t exist, so atheists don´t claim that God exists. You have raised a classic straw man argument often used by apologists to crassly shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on people making claims, not on people unconvinced by or not making claims. Your assertion is patently FALSE,
Sorry ....atheists don`t claim that God DOESN´T exist.
@Ozymandias Nullifidian "Atheism is not simply a lack of belief. It is not the default position. Let’s get our terms straight. The theist affirms the statement, “There is a God.” The agnostic says, “I do not know if God exists” or “You cannot know God exists.” The atheist affirms the statement, “There is no God.” These are all beliefs. To say you simply lack a belief about something is to say that you have no beliefs about it. For example, if you asked me, “Who is the best female polo player in Europe?” I wouldn’t know where to start. Why? Because I have no beliefs about the quality of women’s polo in Europe, or any other country for that matter. I truly lack a belief regarding that question. This is not the case with atheists. People don’t write books about things they don’t have any beliefs about. No one debates about non-beliefs. If they did, there would be nothing to talk about. This attempt to change the definition of atheism to a lack of belief is a tactic to try to shift the burden of proof. But it won’t work. The belief that there is no God is a belief. And if the atheist thinks it is a reasonable belief, he should have reasons to believe it." - Tim Barnett
@Ozymandias Nullifidian They aren´t making a claim, are not asserting that God exists or doesn´t exist. They are unconvinced , on the grounds of lack of confirmatory evidence, that God exists. If someone claims the moon is made of cream cheese it is not for me to prove them wrong. It is for them to justify this astonishing claim.
"Of course there is wishful thinking...Atheists wish there was no God..." In other words, atheists wish there was evidence that there is no God... so that they could call their wishful thinking science... lol
There is a quite primitive defense mechanism called projection. It is used quite often when a person is desperate because of perceived threats to a system of belief that is rapidly becoming extinct. For example, when it becomes increasingly clear that religions are actually false, the person might blame the perceived source or messenger instead of examining her own beliefs and eliminating errors.
ALL SCIENCE THAT CAN'T BE TESTED BY SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS WISHFUL THINKING.
@@beckmack1994 Beck I would like to suggest a few minors changes. Experimental testing is indeed important. But most of what questions are asked cannot be tested and so there is no need to consider such questions at all. Another thing is that all observations are theory-laden. We have preconceptions about the phenomena we are considering and so we need ways to criticize our results. Argument and Persuasion are part of the scientific process and we are looking for the best explanations. Feyman said that science is what we have to learned to use to keep from fooling ourselves. What do you think about that description of science?
@@beckmack1994 So, what should be done with a theory that doesn't meet the criteria of the scientific method???
@@tomashull9805 Tomas if you mean your god theory and all others like it then every one of them should be rejected. For example, I think that nearly all people would say that a cure for pancreatic cancer can be had for the person suffering from the cancer by drinking more alcohol and singing "Amazing Grace" three times a day would probably not cure the person. But I am also sure that there could be people who might believe in it if it was presented as true by a "holy" man. The whole idea about genuine science is to NOT accept any authority and to seek good explanations.
I’m a Problacist which means I put my trust totally in the consciousness of the universe to look after me. I just behave like the Good Samaritan in the Bible by helping and being kind to everyone without any discrimination and with no expectation of any reward and my cup really does ‘runneth over’ as the universe always adjusts the chances and probabilities of events in my life to my favour.
May the odds always be in your favor.
why does 2+2=4? what is a tree? what is a flower? what are you? why are there laws at all? if you cannot answer the questions, which you can't, to say with certitude that you are an atheist is irrational, and/or comes from an ignorance of all the various forms of spiritual and philosophical traditions. which is why everyone from newton to einstein to Wittgenstein, etc. understood this.
When somebody comes to me with an unsubstantiated claim five years in a row, I get annoyed and will stop listening. Christianity has pulled this off for THOUSANDS of years now, and the best they got is called “apologetics”. Lol.
I have seen GOD. Wearing bandana and thong, showing epic dance moves.
atheism is a religion that says reality is meaningless. if reality is meaningless then you're not making arguments as your arguments are meaningless.
atheism is a religious position, of the dumbest kind. You cannot escape it.
@@AP-bo1if That was ricardo milos reference.
Good discussion. Just a slight caveat to the opening. To say that people have always had the choice of not believing in God is technically true, but if you had openly expressed that view in the Europe of the Middle ages you wouldn't have lasted very long.
I prefer the more humble view of Albert Einstein: "The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written.
The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God.
We see a universe marvellously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism."
Albert Einstein, 1930, Glimpses Of The Great
It is not scientific to say there is absolutely no God.
It is if what you are saying and describing, is what is represented in ANY of the 'Holy Books'. STILL zero evidence for the existence of god.
Sean Molloy Science has zero evidence he doesn’t exist. That is how science is actually supposed to work.
@@terrywbreedlove Not true. In science, if you have a hypothesis, it becomes your responsibility to show proofs that support your contention i.e. god. It's not anyone else's problem to disprove a thing that does not exist. There are a number of logical fallacies committed there; False Cause and Begging the Question fallacies to begin with.
Sorry friend....
@S Gloobal Fair enough....your first idea (scientists should take the agnostic position which is I don't know) is quite right.
However, in science, negative results can be just as important as positive results. In other words, after many thousands of years of life searching for the existence of gods/god, ZERO evidence exists to support the idea of ANY supernatural layer to reality. No gods, no fairies or genies, no ghosts, no angels. Nothing but reality, which is observable, testable, and verifiable.
It is scientific to show that there is no evidence for the kind of gods most people believe in. What people put forward as reasons to believe in their version of a god are all so tenuous that others who don't share their belief only see confirmation bias.
God ideas began as very specific entities that acted in the world in ways that we now don't need those gods to explain. As the natural explanations have piled up, those gods have retreated into vague abstractions. At least Kuhn recognises that he wants to believe in a god.
Just as all spirits and gods began with animal and human attributes, and the heavens have always been seen as reflections of human societies, going right back to when the polytheistic gods were seen as families with parent gods who were kings and queens, and all their children as royals, reflecting the social structures on the societies of believers, god ideas have always been reflections of us.
Humans have reasons and purposes. Isn't it suspicious how we still look for these human qualities in the Universe, or 'behind' the universe? Aren't these just another way of us looking at the world as a mirror? That the gods had desires, plans. With the Sumerians, who looked at life with all its hardship and misery, they saw themselves as slaves of the gods, created to work the land to have offerings that would please the gods. The Akkadian word for a slave had a broad semantic range, used for subjects of the king, worshippers of a deity, and a person we would consider enslaved today.
So people could find meaning in the idea that they were slaves. Is this because their beliefs reflected some divine reality and purpose, or that the feeling of not knowing is so existentially threatening that the tranquillising effect of the belief system made life bearable? It's not hard to see how evolution would select for people who could find a meaning to go on. Those who didn't were less likely to carry on and reproduce.
At least in Eastern thought, as in India, there was an understanding of the problem of even talking about what might be ultimate reality using human language and concepts built from that language. A suspicion about the fact that the gods were so human.
Theists then tried to escape this trap by claiming that Sanskrit was actually the language of the gods, that the words for things were actually identical to the things themselves. That the whole of creation came about by god speaking it into being. You'll have Hindus now who'll see that as Vedic scriptures predicting string theory, how the talk of sound vibrations bringing the creation into being was ancient sages predicting the findings of future science. Of course, if we eventually reject this hypothesis the believer just moves on and dresses their god up in whatever understanding comes.
And that's the way it has always been. Whatever models of reality humans come up with end up being seen as somehow a reflection of whatever ultimate reality might be. It reminds me of the doctrine of Signatures. That plants that looked like human organs would be curative of diseases of that organ. An idea that has been arrived at by humans all over the world. That somehow an intelligence in nature was tagging the world for human benefit. Most of it turns out to be nonsense, with pure chance explaining when a plant actually has any effect on the particular organ. Yet the idea is still held meaningful by fans of herbalism today. As if evolution had never been discovered.
Science can't explain the origins of human beings..... So there's that...
Science has a very good understanding of the origins of human beings. Are you uneducated. Just google it and there will be explanations,links to research, studies etc. please don’t be dull headed
Abiogenesis sciences.
Go get that high school diploma. It's never too late.
Kinda of a dumb statement. But for conversation purposes, which God do you think did the job? Your version I expect. So my ending comment will be-----religion can't explain the origin of their God..... So there's that
@@davidstemmler1836 Exactly!
Consider this syllogism...
*All religions are created by 'man'.
*No proof of the existence of god can be found by man.
*Therefore, religion is not proof of the existence of god.
The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own.
Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own.
If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity.
And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago.
Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time.
Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God.
Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us.
Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.
At about 3:30 I don't understand why they are suggesting that most scientists wouldn't agree that there is a link between human existence and cosmic existence. I would think that would be a very strong scientific observation and conclusion. After all we evolved from the stuff of the cosmos. Why would any scientist think that our existence shouldn't be linked to the cosmos from which we evolved?
I also disagree with what Davies says at the very end of the video. He suggests that atheists actually wish that there is no god and no purpose. It seems to me that I've heard many scientific atheists say that they would love nothing more than for a supreme loving being to exist that will insure that ultimate justice and fairness and offer eternal life. They simply see no evidence for the existence of such a thing. So it's simply not true that they are wishing that there is no god or purpose to our reality. So I'm not convinced that wishful thinking can be attributed to scientific atheists on any meaningful scale.
I read your 2nd paragraph. I appreciate your observations.
Because that is not the point that guy being interviewed was making. what he is angling towards is the idea that there is something about consciousness that requires magic and can't be accounted for by physical processes. I'd also have to say that the very idea of eternal punishment, or reward for finite actions is inherently unjust. There is no action a human could take that deserves eternal punishment, and likewise there is no action a human could take that deserves eternal reward.
@@KonradZielinski " what he is angling towards is the idea that there is something about consciousness that requires magic and can't be accounted for by physical processes"
I didn't catch that part in the interview. I also didn't think Paul Davies would support such a notion. If you are correct, then it's no wonder that no scientists are interested in those ideas.
"I'd also have to say that the very idea of eternal punishment, or reward for finite actions is inherently unjust."
I agree with this 100% and I have rejected any and all religious myths that make such claims. IMHO, they are clearly nothing more than man-made nonsense.
The problem we face is not whether god exists or not, but the fact that the system of life on this earth is cruel and we must find a practically implementable way to overcome it. This is only possible if nature (or god or whatever name one prefers to call the system that created us) permits such rectification of its error. It is imperative that we believe in such possibility before searching for the method. And the method demands that we interpret the four arithmetic operations ( or two ~ if we can reduce multiplication and division to addition and subtraction) as the fundamental laws of motion of particle physics and link it to our feelings, instead of "application of mathematics" as he mentions. Obviously, the criterion of proof needs to be changed from observation and experiments to satisfaction of needs of all beings. This implies theory cannot be separated from its implementation.
You almost sound like you're referring to the idea that mankind is "fallen". However you lost me when you mention "the method demands that we interpret the four arithmetic operations..."
@@johnbrzykcy3076 to lose someone I must have had them, in the first place. I never had you. So I can't lose you.
@@mykrahmaan3408 Hey... by "you lost me" I meant that I could not understand what you were talking about. Sorry for the mistake I made in my English comments to you. ( Unless you were making a "play on words"?)
@@johnbrzykcy3076 sorry, I was not familiar with that particular meaning for your expression, so I responded to the literal meaning. Now that you have clarified I feel obliged to provide you a deeper explanation of what I meant because I am fully aware of the complications involved. Let me know whether you are really interested in such a detailed explanation of the theory and I'll forward it here. It'll take a little time (a couple of days) to prepare, though.
But if you are interested I'll definitely do it.
@@mykrahmaan3408 Wow.... No one has ever offered to take such time to prepare any explanation to me. I leave it up to you. How many pages will it be? You are not obliged in any way to respond to me with a deeper explanation but I'm open-minded to listen to you. Thanks
atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
There are many who see the theism/atheism debate as inconsequential as theism requires a belief in something that is beyond knowing. The idea of scientific atheism closely parallels humanism in both of its forms, secular and religious..
Just is not true. I talked with many atheists who for the most part are fanatic materialists who redicule folks who think otherwise. Just look at Richard Dawkins who is a modern atheist, a fanatic materialist who want to destroy all of religion. Modern atheist are ultra right wing fanatics who want to reduce a human to a piece of meat with the ability to think. You really should stop reading books and spend some time in the real world bro.
@@fortynine3225 - No two of us believe the same. Impossible.
“Le coeur a ses raisons que la Raison ne connaît point” ( Blaise Pascal)
Je m'en fiche.
Paul is always so clear
If you define God as being an almighty or omnipotent being, then by that definition, that kind of God is also self-sufficient. If God is self-sufficient, he has no need to create anything. If he has no need to create anything, we should not exist. But we do exist. Therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist. If an omnipotent God does not exist, then perhaps a non-omnipotent God exists. But what is the point of calling a non-omnipotent being a God? And so, the whole idea of a creator God is silly or irrelevant.
Print the law of nature on t-shirt; the rest is work, play &pray. But when work is scarce &play is over, contemplation is cutting across the cosmos
I like your statement: "contemplation is cutting across the cosmos."
We only find things that make sense to us. This self-evident fact is overlooked here. Individual people who believe things that don't make sense to most are considered mentally challenged. If there are enough people who think the same thing makes sense, you have religion. But there are different irreconcilable religious beliefs. Science, however, is not a religion because it can be accepted as meaningful by almost everyone except those who see their own religion threatened by it. But even most of these people use the applications that science produces, which amounts to recognition by action.
Even if there is a deity it'd only be our perception of it and the same is ultimately true with scientific evidence
I have yet to see any scientific evidence for the existence of any deity. I'm open to it. I just ain't seen it yet.
I think "True Believers " believe it because it is easier than trying to understand reality.
Some LIKE being told what to do, what IS .
so their had the option of beleving their no god Robert pressoupsing by that very option they have the will to choose
which most physicists determinist claim we have no free will etc
Seems to me Paul life follows a law that intelligence increases at the expense of energy the end result
you use up all the energy and end up with a massive amount of intelligence maybe to start a new or different universe
Is there a scientific cognitive orientation and a theological cognitive orientation? Is there a superstitional cognitive orientation?
"The scientific view" as though it's an ideology with set beliefs on meaning and purpose. I don't recall seeing a proof that the scientific method can explain everything anyway.
We cannot know somethings. Some questions are undecidable. Some miracles like rebirth etc appears to be proof for god. But there is no evidence that people who claim they remember their past lifes are honest. They may be liers. We don’t have any solid proof. But we cannot tell that the probability of existence of god is zero. There is a high probability that there are atleast things which are beyond the physical world.
While I think I understand what you're eluding to. As you said, personal experience of miracles/supernatural can't be used as evidence because it doesn't provide physical evidence, it's not repeatable, and we couldn't know the truthfulness of the person or the claim.
But I would add, That since we don't have any other proof/evidence of the supernatural/miracles to begin with. We can't begin to calculate probabilities in any way.
Trace 23 if you don’t want to believe in god it is fine for me. I request you not to even think about this question whether god exists or not. If someone is able to do this then he is a real atheist. People who are interested in knowing whether god exists or not talk about things like probabilities. I am interested in these things. We cannot use mathematics and calculate probabilities. It is just my belief.
Trace 23 death is the main reason people think about god. If there is no death no one will think about this question whether god exists or not. Many people who claim they are atheists think a lot about questions like whether god exists or not. Some are hypocrites they claim they are atheists but secretly do all the things which believers do. We all have to die. It is frustrating. We have to face that pain. There is no escape. If we believe in god we can tackle death. You may not agree with me.
@@srikanthtupurani6316 Wether I believe or don't believe in a God isn't the point. Wether or not I think about the existence of a God or not and the implications thereof is also not the point.
The point was You can't calculate any realistic probabilities without some numbers for or against a premise to begin with in the first place. Otherwise it's guessing according to beliefs and has nothing to do with probabilities.
Also, you are wrong again. Most atheists began their journey as believers (usually by upbringing not choice). And think about the subject a great deal. Most atheists I've talked to simply believe that there isn't evidence either way, to prove or disprove a God of any kind. The same atheists also seem to be on this journey because of the inherent hypocritical nature of religious doctrines. And are looking for truth that is backed by evidence wether scientific or philosophical.
And not going with "The God of the gaps" system of belief.
The problem lies in the definition of God. The God of religion is an artifice used to explain morals and natural justice. That is not the co-ordinating intelligence that
is the glue that oversees the tension in and between atoms.
That’s where God is -
I wish more people would stop and ask what the questions they are asking actually means. I find the question for the meaning of life itself to be completely meaningless. It presupposes in many people’s minds that there is a universally given “meaning”. What does meaning even mean here? The language being this undifferentiated doesn’t help. Does meaning mean “reason to live/exist”? If so, then anything Christian religion has to offer is an unsatisfying answer at best. “Serve god” some Christian may answer. Ok, but what is the meaning of serving god? What for? I think this whole question is an exercise in asking it because someone heard others say that sequence of words, not actually asking what the question itself even means. What is the temperature of envy? What is the correct order of clouds? In what compass direction should I be facing while drinking coffee? Now, take those questions seriously please and write some books answering them, ideally without getting concrete of what any of it means.
I like your observations. They make me think. Yes, I agree that many people presuppose in their minds "that there is a universally given 'meaning." You sound like you've studied linguistics? It seems like you prefer to get down to the basic idea behind words and phrases. Are you a teacher?
John Brzykcy No, I’m not a teacher or linguist, I just have heightened awareness of ambiguity, which tends to make me go think about what it actually is someone says. In everyday life this is everywhere and is usually clear what someone intends to say. In philosophical discussions about fundamental things I find it very frustrating.
@@chrisdistant9040 Hey... I like you view of "heightened awareness of ambiguity". I wish I had the same. You have a special gift!
So you always try to decipher what a person actually says and what they mean? That can indeed be frustrating, especially in philosophy. For me, it's almost impossible to understand what people mean in philosophical discussions because I lack understanding of philosophy and difficult words and concepts just puzzle me. I'd be cracking the dictionary every minute to try to understand words and ideas behind the statements people make.
So.... What things to you, philosophically speaking, are fundamental?
John Brzykcy oh me too. I just like to think and discuss, and hope that the other person can explain their arguments in plain english, otherwise I’m out. Often I get the sene some people hide behind terminology, even if lots of things *are* hard to discuss without preparation and education. I mostly think and discuss about how we as people come to knowledge and view our world, what biases and fallacies exist, how people argue. I grew up religious, but at a early age became dubious of many of the claims, and now I am fascinated with all the topics related to that, including the important effect of cognitive dissonance on peoples world views.
How about you? What topics are you interested in?
John Brzykcy it’s a gift, that makes you really annoying to people. I have a habit of asking for clarification a lot whenever I see multiple ways something could be interpreted, and people get annoyed quickly, “isn’t it obvious?”. It’s a gift when you can prevent misunderstandings though, it’s really good for mediating between people.
Thank You All Powerful Lord Jesus Christ for Paying for All my Sins Thank You Jesus For Shedding Every Last Drop of Your Perfect Redeeming Innocent Blood For The Forgiveness Full Remission of All my Sins Thank You Jesus For Dying in my place on The Cross ✝️ ❤To Pay for All my Sins as The Perfect Sacrifice because You Have No Sin Thank You for Being Buried Thank You Jesus For COMING BACK ALIVE 3 Days After Your Death because You Are The Son of God and God At The Same Time!!!! God Is Love I LOVE You Heavenly Father ABBA I LOVE You Jesus I LOVE You Holy Spirit Not 3 Different Gods But The 1 The Only True Living GOD Most High Revealed to us in 3 Ways ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤she who is Forgiven Much LOVES Much!!! Within his heart a fool says there is no GOD In The Beginning GOD Made The Heaven and The Earth
It would make no sense to develop a brain that is not able to correctly observe the things around you. Evolution would go nowhere! So it seems logic that our senses evolved in such a way that we can see more and more with the fantastic ability to connect different observations with each other. I am convinced that animals are able to do the same till a certain degree. So I am not surprised that we can study nature around us learning more and more how it all functions. If we are going to be able however to understand the ultimate reality, I have serious doubts.
The fine tuning argument is simply a restatement of intelligent design, or going farther back creationism. The arguments against all three are the same. Give up on fine tuning.
Fine tuning means matter and electricity are the same everywhere we look in the universe. We can see things because same kind of light come into our eyes from edges of reality.
@@xspotbox4400 Wrong. Fine tuning means the universe appears to have laws and constants tuned specifically to allow life. It's a bullshit argument for creationism. Shows how depraved the naked philosopher's mind is without any scientific tools for investigation.
@@DavidSmith-wp2zb Not just life, it's strange energy can form any solid structure or atom. Matter is solidified energy.
@Language and Programming Channel What do you mean not true, light is excitation in electric field.
ID hasn't been refuted. in fact quite the contrary. DNA = information.
Such god could logicly ,exists ((rational statement) ,but not attractif(subjectif statement), i choose the rational one, it 's atractif for me and i am a scientist.
Not.knowingg the difference between Creator who has made God and God itself is the source of problems in science and philosophy. You see I searched for Creator for 14 years and then found Creator first and God afterwards. First I was given the knowledge of top down Universe and then I was given bottom up Control of Life and Universe
You're special!!
Just ignore evidence to the contrary.
The wishful thinking is, in other words, a kind of belief on a religion.
I like that Paul Davies resists being pigeonholed as either “atheist” or “theist”. Science is both miraculous because it works (the universe is rational), and yet science can only every be a partial description of reality which strips out all meaning, all ethics and aesthetics from reality. Why do we then think these are not real, not an important part of reality? Truly science is the “view from nowhere” - a viewpoint that doesn’t actually exist anywhere. The map is not the territory. To mistake reality for the description given by science is to make that fundamental blunder.
I really like your observations. Thanks for sharing
The difference is that science is based around reduction to the knowable, falsifiable, repeatable, and religion/faith is ... claims. Any claims, really, with no standards for evidence or consistency. How anyone can see those two on equal footing must not understand either of them. Science not being able to answer some of our questions is no excuse to sneak it religion.
Chris Distant Yes. My point is that “reduction” necessarily strips out certain features of reality, and places limits on the kinds of things (measurable, repeatable, objective etc.) we can know through science. Religion, metaphysics, philosophy etc. are still based on empirical observation and reason (albeit often subjective), but in exchange for certainty, they attempt to capture a more holistic description of reality.
@@uremove What do you mean by "in exchange for certainty, they attempt to capture a more holistic description of reality"? I like your idea of "reduction."
uremove but how can you know whether or not it describes reality, if there are no means to compare the two?
Davies, I reckon, is being a wee bit ‘coy’. He just won’t show his hand. He’s an agnostic. I think that sometime in his future he will ‘come out’ and admit he believes in a Supreme Being. He’ll have become a Deist( not believing in a personal God ). Let’s wait and see.....
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith.
We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors,
but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.
We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness,
and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
When the ill literate are taught mythological as actual it produces patho logical cultural institutions.
How is it in this age technically advanced western cultures subsidize businesses (churches and skewls ) which market ignorance and superstition ?
Why is it the disease is never addressed?
How is it we can have the most powerful person on the planet overtly marketing iron age mythology in view of the entire world?
We are led by idiots and greedy lunatics. Imbeciles. Where are the EDUCATED LEADERS??
When will the educated persons of substance stand up and lead this ignorant horde into an age of REASON????
RELIGION is the issue which must be addressed not esoteric endless unanswerable inquiry. Politics is the emergent.
It is the dragon which must be slain lest we destroy the very biosphere and everything on it. FOR WHAT???
RESET... Capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism will not survive the end of history. The future will be unrecognizable to any of these archaic political paradigms. The invention of the new society of the future will be birthed by the mother of necessity. The future may be anything but dystopian. The future could be bright. It all depends on whether people can let go of the past to embrace a future beyond the power of money and political economy. Transgressing Political Economy is a step in that direction.
The statement, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” has been asserted without evidence. I therefore dismiss it.
@@ibperson7765It A proposition or argument based on a false premise leads to
false conclusions. it is difficult dealing with ideas that are not factual or based on sound science or reason. The ideas you present do not even rise to the level of being wrong. Somehow the premise of the statement is overlooked in your irrational response. The party making the unfounded, unsupported assertions is the one required to provide evidence. People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.
Is nothing something? Is a non belief a belief? Sounds pretty short sighted considering what science does not know.
Paul's philosophy is that of a *Deism.* Which fails by not giving his God, (who is so powerful he could arrange a whole universe complete with sentient beings who could discover his work), the ability to communicate with us! This like all God's we make up to suit our thinking is self contradictory and illogical. Why not just seek the real one who has told us who is and what he did and compare that with what we actually know?
_"Does he who fashioned the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see?"_ Ps 94:9
Sign me in.......
After science has explained life and physical nature, the nature of God and role of God in our life, is totally different from what is claimed in all existing religions..
So our belief books are no longer a reliable source for believing in god...
Most practitioners of religion may find it difficult to reconcile with a concept of God who could never discriminate...No one is special..
-------
@beasts_and unicorns Read a bit on evolution, astro physics etc.. ....
These questions were asked atleast some 200 years ago..No way its possible to answer them. through post.. Also you should read it directly from books written by an appropirate authority (experts)..
(you may even consider reading you beleif books deeply and do a comparison with other religions.. Thats how most people who now are skeptical/agnostic/atheist.. realised that books are man-made, show clear limitation of knowledge of people compiling them. .etc....)
@beasts_and unicorns
Please read about what and how science knows... You like most of us will find it difficult to frame questions that science has not already investigated and found very convincing answers.. ( to know what science does not know, one should have a fairly good idea of what science knows !!.)
If you insist on questioning the frontier of scientific knowledge.. its better that you develop an understanding of the real issues... Dont just assume what they are based on some key words/memes ... The mystery is not that mysterious!!.. and certainly is not experted to subvert/ upend say newt-onion physics, evolution etc...
Even many Christians have stopped presenting Bible as a book that "correctly" explains the natural world.. It appear that even the Pope is inclined towards assimilating evolution..(while claiming that evolution is being occasionally guided etc)
But correctness of Koran argument is still being forwarded...
One possible reason is that democracy is largely absent in most Muslim dominated countries... in fact they seem to opt for Islamic based society.. (a question of when and not if)...Making it extremely difficult/threatening to cultivate/profess views that are inconsistent with Koran etc..
Even those Muslims living in Democracies generally do not want to be seen in their native counties/religious gatherings/local societies as being opposed to express statements in Koran etc..
Eventually as more and more non-muslims read Koran, this arguments will be confronted more and more vocally by referring to specific statements in Koran..
We are already seeing this interrogation of Koran happening and videos being posted with related quotes from Koran and other Related books.. ..
There is a limit to what can be rectified while retaining civility..Therefore I am letting go of this at this juncture..
Thanks..
It sounds like Mr Davies is more of a deist. He seems to believe in a clockwork God. Or does he?
Einstein believed in God, but the God he believed in was not the Biblical God, the God he believed in was the totality of the existence we live in including all matter & energy and the Laws of Nature. I believe in this God too and believe it is very worthy of the honorific title of God. But it is not a God you can pray to and it will answer your prayers, because as a whole it does not have a personality like we do which knows about our existence and pays any attention to us. It also does not show any level of intelligent personality which is changing or violating the Laws of Nature which appear to be virtually unchanging across the estimated 13.8 billion years we can observe them to some degree.
On the other hand, the body of all elementary particles which exist within the Observable Universe which are obeying the virtually unchanging Laws of Nature are observably forming a pattern of development that looks a whole lot like a cosmic scaled seed of life which is in the process of sprouting, which means from the beginning of the Observable Universe as we know it life like us was guaranteed to evolve around the time we have evolved and if we project this forward in time then it is predictable the Observable Universe is going to explode with super intelligent life within 200,000 years to 2,000,000 years.
This is because we will most likely begin colonizing and ecoforming every planet and moon with nanotech grown cybernetic life custom designed to thrive within each environment and begin colonizing other star systems at an expansion rate of somewhere between 0.5c and 0.99c using clouds of microscopic colonizer ships. In other locations within the Observable Universe some number of other races will be evolving and doing the same around the same timing as we are. The further forward in time we go the greater the number of such races will evolve.
That gives us a pretty clear purpose from the beginning of our Observable Universe, but within this there is not evidence of an active intelligent God interfering in this process.
Paul devis Is Researching On warm Holes For time travel.
warm holes in a cold universe :-)
Comments 666
When I saw that I knew I had to change it 😂
Wtf I added a comment but it still says
Comments 666
I'm scared
Don't be scared. The beast known as "666" has been defeated!
@@johnbrzykcy3076 ah yes, I see it now reads
Comments 673
What a relief 🙂
It seems ridiculous that the religious can believe that an infinite god can exist without a beginning but there can be no infinite multiverse without a god. God doesn't require a creator but everything else does?
Sorry, I know better than to ask the faithful for evidence. The faithful exist on faith, hope and word salad.
I don't like that word spelled "word salad." What does it even mean? I'm not very scientifically-minded so I can't specify anything that is strict scientific evidence for a god. However I believe we can look at other categories to reason God's existence - philosophy, history, psychology, archaeology, biology, etc... ( Ooops... I guess biology is considered science. My chemo-brain is working again ).
How do Atheists reconcile their beliefs with the “incontrovertible” scientific evidence for the existence of God?