Full podcast episode: czcams.com/video/CGiDqhSdLHk/video.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: czcams.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: Lee Cronin is a chemist at University of Glasgow.
For millennia, connotations of the word "God" have become so deteriorated. The terms Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence seem more relevant for these types of discussions. It seems that the concept of God is not experimentally testable. However, evidence for the effects of Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence are scientifically demonstrable. The illogical, irrational, and unreasonable position of claiming that there is No Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence (i.e. Atheism): The fallacy is the assumption that something is true (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) unless proven otherwise. The Claimant making a negative claim (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) cannot logically, rationally, and reasonably prove nonexistence. Because, for a Claimant to know that X does not exist would require the Claimant to possess 100% knowledge of all things with 100% certainty and 100% accuracy (i.e. omniscience). Even mainstream secular scientists claim that approx. 95% of the Universe is still unknown (i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter). Of the remaining 5% of the Universe, only 0.0035% exists within the visible light spectrum which the human eye is capable of observing. Moreover, of all that is made of atoms and capable of being observed in this "Material" universe, 99.999999999% is actually empty space (Note: Scientists now believe that empty space is actually filled with "theoretical" Quantum or Vacuum Fluctuations. _"Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual (i.e. non-material) particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs. Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. This is theoretically allowable because the particles annihilate each other within a time limit determined by the uncertainty principle so they are _*_not directly observable._*_ "_ (Wikipedia) The point being, despite its name, Virtual fluctuations or “Particles" are unobserved *non-material* theoretical entities. Therefore, there is much, much more that humanity does not know about the Universe and Reality than it does know. Based on just this information, the position of claiming to be Atheist is shown to be illogical, irrational and unreasonable. *_“… Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner *_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics / biology have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of All Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is No biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed (i.e. Scientific Method) in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence. The fact that DNA / genes (biological coded information) exists at all shows that a Consciousness / Intelligence / Mind is involved in the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of living systems. Undirected random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information such as that required for biological systems, even at the most primitive levels of biological life. *_"Language: All Digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_* (Wikipedia: Digital Data) Inherent in DNA is language. Language is scientifically demonstrated to be the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence. Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Undirected random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence. The “World’s Most Notorious Atheist” and World’s Icon and Champion Advocate for Atheism for over 50 years, Antony Flew, finally concluded, *_“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from MODERN SCIENCE.”_*
During an on stage discussion with Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins admits, *_"I have a materialist view of the world ... so that commits me to the view that when I think I have free will ... I'm deluding myself."_* (Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world's foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution.)
The more I hear about God, consciousness, and free will from biologists, physicists the more I understand they all are absolutely clueless as anyone else. Just shooting arrows in the dark as theories. But I do really appreciate their efforts to unravel the mysteries of life and the universe.
Clueless is a little harsh, I'm convinced some have experiential evidence of ' god'. Some of the esoteric teachings from the east have a long lineage of proclaimed Realisation.
I agree with what you say but I would correct your wording because there’s an important distinction in science between “Theory” and what I believe you mean to say, “Hypothesis”. In overly simplified terms, a hypothesis is a shot in the dark. A theory has been proven over and over again before it’s become a scientific theory. It bugs me when conspiracy theorists throw the word theory around as if it’s just a thought experiment. In science, it’s not.
It's a bit reductive and egoistic to say they are just as clueless (not to mention easy). I think many of the people who have the most to offer up on these categories tend to be biologists and physicists. I do find it curious that the more education one receives the less likely they are to be religious.
I’m sure that the author of confusion is satan but Jesus is the truth the way and the life. The word of Δod is all we need to know how to perceive the life we live
i don't think it's fair to say selection is the force of creation and thus dismiss the creative force Lex was asking about. In my opinion, selection is a mechanism of God not a substitution for belief in God.
As someone who is not religious, I would argue that as much as scientists will argue that there was no creative force that caused / causes the universe to operate the way it does, there is simply too much complexity in a universe where randomness requires extreme luck every strip of the way against all other possible odds for us to exist. What are the chances of a Big Bang coming from randomness, and then the formation of particles to exist, then the functionalities of those particles working in tandem to form and maintain stable macroscopic structures, and also consciousness / sentience emerging from natural chemical processes that evolve to eventually become humans? Not saying there is definitively an explanation for what “God “ would be, but the evidence we call existence is by and large and sign of intelligent design unless somehow everything we know got lucky in different stages of randomness
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a god or gods do not exist, but the fact that the universe exists gives more evidence of a god than not a god. If there was nothing, which doesn't exist, then you could argue that a god or gods do not exist, but you wouldn't exist either to make that argument. So the logical assumption considering the evidence is that it's more probably that a god or gods exist.
It’s not the logical assumption at all. Just because us humans, with our current level of understanding cannot provide an answer to questions relating to why the universe exists or how the first self replicating molecules came to be doesn’t mean the logical explanation is a supernatural power.
@@serdavosseaworth6115 We have answers, we have expansion theory and science has debunked atheist's steady state universe and mutliverse theory. We just don't believe the atheists supernatural explanations of eternal universes, or universes from 'nothing' that have been debunked entirely by science and theism. So if God didn't create the universe can you tell me as an atheist how an atheist universe came about, as science seems to be pointing more and more to creation of a universe, rather than the atheist belief that the universe has always existed.
@@serdavosseaworth6115 I'm saying I don't believe in the atheist supernatural explanations that eternity and magic or nothing created our universe. Can you explain the atheist universe without gods without invoking 'nothing' as creator, magic as a creator or eternity as a creator of an atheist universe. Thanks.
@@ministryofarguments5257 No, of course I can’t, but I’m content with that. Think about what we have learned as a species in just the past 400 years, our current level of understanding of the universe would be entirely un fathomable to someone living in the 17th century. An atheist is free to admit that there is much about the universe we don’t understand, it’s obvious that we don’t understand, but it’s even more obvious that our current understanding isn’t even close to being reflected in any religious text. Ultimately, I believe it’s preferable to have no knowledge than to embrace something unsupported by any metrics we’ve used to guide our progress thus far.
@@serdavosseaworth6115You sound like you are a member of the online atheist culture. Theists worked out that a god created our universe thousands of years before science, and science now tells us that the universe had a beginning like theists said and atheists said it didn't have a beginning it was eternal, but this has been disproven with Big Bang inflation theory. Let me ask you, if the universe didn't exist, that would be good evidence for atheism that gods do not exist right? But you have a choice. Our universe exists though I hope you agree as an atheist. ergo: 1. A god created our universe. 2. A god did not create our universe What do you choose as an atheist? If so how to you explain how our universe came to be without invoking the debunked steady state theory, multiverse theory, magic, nothingness, or eternity? If you don't understand cosmology then just say so, and not preach atheism, I have studied atheism for 20 years and know all the made up dogma and the atheist thought that atheists these days reject and not talk about anymore. But I'm asking you a fundamental question about human existence in our universe and our ability as humans to process the existential thoughts, and our place in the universe.
People dont want God to exist, simple as that. If God doesnt exist, we can do what we want as long as we can get away with it. There is no higher authority. We are all our own God in our head.
Not really, you have created your own moral system, and so do the other 8 billion people. They have each made up their own where they are judge and jury
Not really, you have created your own moral system, and so do the other 8 billion people. They have each made up their own where they are judge and jury
Not really, you have created your own moral system, and so do the other 8 billion people. They have each made up their own where they are judge and jury
Not really, you have created your own moral system, and so do the other 8 billion people. They have each made up their own where they are judge and jury
Humans create the concept of God with their minds (or the concept manifests itself in human minds without their creative direction) -- but whatever thing or process created human minds is essentially God (even if you call it something else). The word "God" is optional. If it throws you off, use different terms. At the end of the day all honest people are left to admit that our ultimate origin is a mystery (even if we have some seemingly credible ideas and beliefs about it). Regardless, that mystery is, in effect, God (call it whatever you want).
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how exceptional Lex is at teasing out specifics based on the language Lee is using. Lex is an absolute master at appearing humble and speaking in a relaxed way, only to quickly hone in on a component of what someone said and demonstrate this deep critical ability. Such an inspiration to watch.
@@915tarponlegend To me there seemed to be at least some coherence. He has this model, which in some sense explains the coherence of external reality and then he connects that to the idea of selection (he could have offered more examples here to show why it follows that we might have reason to suspect the same thing for god) and then offers an explanation why god is "expected" under his/this framework of ideas. It does get a bit wishy washy from there on tbh, as he now starts to offer an account of what the transcendent might be in his model, but it still seems alr, at least not in some obvious way incoherent. Sure, Lex asked him more about the creative force and his answers get more mixed up as he throws all kind of topics in, but in his model the mainanswer is pretty alr it seems. (He obv lacks on giving reason at some points for it) To me seems more unstructured than incoherent tbh
@@imitationgame2328 you might think incoherent is a strong choice of words, but unstructured is pretty similar to unclear, which could be used as a substitute for incoherent.
That is seriously the best description/ definition of “free will” I have heard so far. And I am not convinced we have it mind you. It has to do with time. Very interesting.
well, freedom is a very very tricky concept. just like time. and it is not an accident that there is this similarity between them, since they are fundamentally related. time is about causality (which is the most fundamental footprint of consistency), while freedom is about the circumvention of this causality in a consistent way. I am pretty sure that the trick that allows this is encoded by self-referentiality. we, as subjects in the object (cosmos), have the ability to understand reality (i.e. the object). so it means that we are internal actors of the system. this internal existence causes the difficulty for us to understand reality. just think it over. because of this internal existence perception exists. and what is perception? well, the dual counterpart of conception. perception is the blurred lens through which we sense reality. but this is fundamentally, inherently, therefore also necessarily imperfect. this is why conception is difficult, i.e. non-trivial, so temporally generated (and not degenerated) as a process. however, this difficulty is paired with potential. it is hard to achieve high level of understanding of reality, but when we achieve it, we gain some freedom. so the internal existence encodes both freedom and its difficulty. self-referentiality is hidden everywhere. in every scientific discipline and area, in almost every fundamental limits (Godel, Turing, Russel etc.). this is what Douglas Hofstadter wrote his books about (which contain rudimentary insights about this topic). life, consciousness, evolution, dialectic and almost every important concept has a self-referential nature and/or structure. freedom is probably also a manifestation of self-reference. if we knew every logical, mathematical and natural law, those models would still be open-ended. why? because those models would map a world in which we subjects exists. and we are the element through which this self-referential nature enters every model (i.e. our models should include ourselves, our decisions, our thoughts, so even the models themselves and our relations to them etc.). this is like non-linearity in the study of dynamical systems (and even quantum systems). the necessary (but not sufficient) condition of classical chaos is this non-linearity. because non-linearity (one form of self-reference, the other is recursion) has the ability to introduce the concept of infinity and complexity into the model. so chaos and freedom have a similar source, but in the former the object carries the source by itself alone, while in the latter we subjects form the essential channel of this feedback. because we subjects are the unique construct of the cosmos that connect the two worlds: the physical and the conceptual.
What a thought.. everything in the past was deterministic, big but here, the present time (only present time), there's a component of free will that makes the future not determined
I wish I would still have the confidence that science leads us into a golden future. But maybe it is leading us just to build better arms, better surveillance technics and better torture technics. As a theist who was not that happy with Lees claims in the James Tours debate I still wish that Lee is able to retain that optimism - and that he keeps his mind open. Because the future causing the past even indirectly - that is not something that should be possible under reductiv physicalism. That he is able to see that is odd is a good sign.
When atheists argue against God, they are necessarily relying on God. Not the "God" they imagine (and reject). but the one pointed to by the great mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Because when atheists argue against God - more precisely against what they imagine as "God" - they implicitly rely on the spaceless and timeless, that is, immaterial and eternal laws of logic. It is precisely in this way that they necessarily recognize, with Leibniz, these laws as universal and unconditionally valid eternal truth. What is actually the case and can be seen, for example, in the fact that mathematical theorems, such as the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra, cannot be thought of in any other way than being valid in, before and independently of every conceivable world. Already that alone shows that they exist in some kind of intangible, immaterial manner. Indeed, if one admits that there exist spaceless and timeless and thus immaterial and eternal truths, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, then one must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this ‘something’ is God. The Logos God [cf. Jn 1-1] is the realm of eternal truths. Leibniz in his “Monadology“: "The understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and the ideas, on which they depend ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction." Every theistic, but also every atheistic, argument relies necessarily on logic. In this way both testify to the Logos God, the first consistently, the second obviously not 😉
Note - This explains why when you spend a lot of time with someone, you begin to think the same thoughts. Because everyone’s subconscious is the same. The only thing that’s different and a part of you uniquely, is your conscious brain which holds all your EGO and the idea that you’re an individual entity in your body. It’s bs. Were all the same life force or entity split into billions of separate life forms. But we can forgive ourselves for not being a hive mind. It’s not our fault we strayed from our path.. it’s the concept of Money we should blame
@@Madasin_Painepotentially. I think all life has the same consciousness and it’s our subconscious mind that is the same force that controls the likes of ants and all other creatures. Maybe it explains why we have the “instinct that there’s something watching us and then we see another human looking or an animal watching us because we’re actually watching ourselves yknow. So we know we’re being watched because the subconscious is the same. If that makes sense
What if it happens because in the long run it permits us to persist. Watching nature shows and tells. Bird watching. Watching the leaves fall . Having kids . Being there when family and friends die. Name a creature or plant or microbe that's not conscious of your presence 100%! Viruses share some essential fundamentals of our operating system like perpetual defense and reproduction. They communicate. Bacteria can remember. Fungi have networks and sponges use Vitamin D and sun damage matters to their descendants, too . Millions of years of consequences creates intentions.
I’ve never experienced sitting in a room with someone and thinking the same thoughts. Can we both be shaped by shared language and experiences? Sure! Does that demonstrate anything you wrote? I don’t think so.
He talked about objects in assembly theory, and how the objects build into and onto each other through the production phase. Is it a stretch to believe that the original objects were made, and the way in which they vie for success was also made, by the creator? And the thoughts of their existence were part of the program/ design?
Omnipotence is a human concept and can be easily taken apart with logic and thought experiment. However, the universe is so finely balanced, so minutely detailed, that changing anything by a billion billion billionth of a percent results in no universe at all - as if the ingredients were carefully controlled and cooked. Our interpretation of a god is clearly incorrect. But something put this whole show together.
@@jchneo26 Natural processes stemming from the Cosmos and it's laws of physics. Have you heard of the infinite regress fallacy? With your own logic, your God would also need a creator, but in your world view you would say that god has always just existed without the need of a creator. I would then be justified in asserting the cosmos could have always just existed in some form or another without the need of a creator
@@MohamedAli-hl8kzThe laws of physics were created during the formation of the universe. I could also just as easily ask where did your god stem from? You seem to want to deliberately delude yourself with fallacy's. I already mentioned the infinite regress fallacy and here you are using that fallacy. If your God does not require a creator than I am justified in saying the cosmos does not require a creator. You see how you deluded yourself with that dumb question?
These are very interesting times, universe is becoming much more complex with every new discovery, each of which is crazy and too abstract for most of the people to understand, that a concept of existence of god doesnt seem so far fetched when compared with some of these discoveries.
Think about the fact that for 10 billion years, there wheren't any eyes to see the univers or an intelligence to wonder about the existence of god. If god exists..lets call it a creative force, its not interested about humans in particular. We are just complex arranged matter, we are here because it was possible to be here and here we are, it happend after billions of years...the question is what other complex arrangements of matter can be possible out there?
We don't have to exist to comprehend God in order for God to exist. God exists objectively without needing us to study him. Example, if humans didn't exist, the planet earth could still exist without us needing to witness it. Mathematics, physics etc. could all still exist. We didn't invent any of these things, God did. We just discovered them.
The concept of "GOD" helps explain many of the thing that man have no answers to. There is an intelligence behind many of the things that we see touch and try to understand that the best mind can't determine it's origin..... like where do atoms come from?
Which God? Does he mean gods? There are many of them but of course some folks are fortunate to have been born in a time and region that supports their particular god.
3:48 "Free will occurs at the boundary between the past and the future."... "The universe is able to do what it can in the present. In the future there are other things that could be possible. We can imagine lots of things. But they don't all happen"... "What exists is a convolution of the past with the present + the free will going into the future."... "Our imaginations can actually change the future in a tangible way, which the initial conditions of physics can not predict. Your imagination has a causal consequence in the future."
life and freedom are both some forms (at different levels) and manifestations of the same thing, which is synergy. synergy, transcendence and emergence are closely related concepts. their most fundamental, shared aspect (their core) is what we can call as the "causality dilemma". i.e. something can be created from nothing (or at least new properties can emerge). synergy is when a whole formed by parts is more than the sum of the parts (quantitative aspect), while emergence is when a whole formed by parts has new property than the sum of the parts (qualitative aspect). so when they are talking about "novelty", they are actually (implicitly and perhaps unknowingly) talking about these. the real question here is this: how can the cosmos circumvent this "causality dilemma". if we find an answer for that, we find answer for almost everything. because the magic behind emergence, synergy and even the origin of consciousness, life and the whole cosmos are hidden behind this dilemma. and this magical self-generating process is so universal that, as I have already said, life and freedom are different forms (at different levels) and manifestations of the same thing.
At some point, scientists should not blush or be ashamed with such a theological question. Perhaps, many are still stuck in old views of a Deity - personally I think that humans misunderstand the nature of religion/God or whatever you want to call it, they look in archaic ways. IMO, science should not be opposed to the notion of a Deity and religion should not be opposed to the notion of science. If there is a Deity, then he must have science properties.
@5:10 how can he suggest that imagination breaks the laws of Physics when thinking requires energy, and right after using the expression "creative FORCE"? I've been less loopy on Cali weed 😂
God is merciful and created Paradise for those humble people who believe in Him. Paradise is not like ancient universities, only those who think they are scholars can enter.
Just admit, we don't have intelligence to determine if there is a God but we are aware there are forces that we only feel, they are teachable but still we are not capable of identifying those forces. It is hope. By nature we all need to give ourselves an explanation of our existence and in absence of better explanation we are hoping that that force is God. It's good to believe in God but it's terribly dangerous that some powerful people believe they are GOD.
Not really, when you think about it long enough it all becomes quite clear. There are only two things in the world that the scientific method can't explain - how did the universe begin, and how did your consciousness begin. It is not even a problem of the scientific method, but of limits of language, even if you try and hypothesize any type of an explanation it falls apart. Therefore, any force, rule or system that has been the reason we have this universe can be called God, cause any other name would just be unfair. To me, if the universe is perpetual and spawn itself, the universe is God, and laws of physics are the Bible. If it was spawned by something of a higher dimension, what spawned the spawner, and we loop on ourselves back to the incomprehensiveness. It is impossible for an eye to see itself without some kind of a mirror.
@@GodPredator-ev5se bruh, "god" is an answer to all of the questions, a "random dude" implies so many new questions it doesn't answer shit. Why a dude, why this, why that. There is reason to project human qualities onto the "source" of everything, since we are a part of everything and are a child of this world, but we are not the end all, be all.
Aliens too‽ Can it also be proven to most Hindus many gods dont exist but One? Does that mean that everyone shall has is Hindu or Buddhists etc and everyone else NOT one, mythically founded‽ monotheistic cult, or another, and going to hell BECAUSE? What in Creation WHY so destructive and cruel?! THEY watch on in 100 places NOT essentially different than Gaza Ukraine or Sudan. Or Argentina. Or California and Texas. It's like The Devil's Advocate Part 2. PHarma Law INC + MIC +Media +Accounting + Mining +Ag BUT any news than about these peaks of REAL power. Fairy tales and BS.Hie csn people be so arrogant about souls creation or the will of G*d or such methods yet be so infantile in their understanding thus justifying any behavior no matter how sinful! 3000 years offers more than enough evidence. What is it NOT? After all that should he discarded what remains? EVERYTHING you know is BS excuses. Doubt Defame Delay Drain Distance Dispatch The prophet gods theories have gaping holes and finding fair argument is too challenging to many . Meet evidence with evidence. Don't be an ∆ * Hole about it. Just let the most meritorious ideas bubble to the surface freely like eternal springs . That's I T online purpose too. if someone knows they have the Christ consciousness in them and that they will do like Christ why would they be violent or reactive or doubtful? Defensive to death? if Satan wanted to mess with God and humanity would be tricking people one God only exists. Then throw out a theory that 9nengod is basically Satan or Lou Cipher. Why didn't Jesus take out Satan when he had the chance and why didn't he set the record straight with Roman leadership. Put the fear of or LOVE for G*d in them enough? Why all the destruction and desecrations of creations and humanity too? Prive around the world in each countries court what Ttuth looks like and when any 12nangey people from one country can be persuaded and like the other 190, why, there is your Truth. Or any workable version you needed. People are unlike any form of life in being uniquely disadvantaged in how to actually live like their species is born for . Only people play these most grace stupid games with LIFE. Helluva thing to do to G*d . Any - Ism ir distraction story or indolence will do. Intel. in Service of Madness (HIS Majesty, Malignant Megalomanic - In Chief) Fools at like infants when they don't get what they want or get caught red handed Fool & mis®uled by IdIots reading and ad libing bad lines. ± IMHO. No excuses. DO better daily until you stop breathing. Like all other creatures, and more. Be nice. 😘 🌐 🌛 ⚫ v$ 😘 🌎 🌛 ⚫
If god existed nature would look like a Disney movie. Lions, crocodiles and zebras living together in peace. We'd see all these beautiful animals living together harmoniously and the only violence in the universe would be us with our free will. Instead, nature is animals (sentient beings) eating each other alive. And they don't have a choice either -- They have no free will. Obligate carnivores literally will starve to death if they don't eat meat. The ONLY species in the half billion year history of our planet that's been able to live in abject safety is us... Humans. Imma go out on a limb and say that a good god is a logical impossibility in a universe where sentient beings are literally food. Sounds infinitely more likely to me that we're the lucky ones that escaped nature.
The universe is probabilistic within its deterministic nature. dualism is always the key. the laws of thermal dynamics could be an example of the deterministic nature of our 3 dimensional reality but when you get into the quantum levels of reality and into 5 dimensions and more, that is where the probabilistic nature of the universe resides?
I agree, such as the brilliant Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ... When atheists argue against God, they are necessarily relying on God. Not the "God" they imagine (and reject), but the one pointed to by the great mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Because when atheists argue against God - more precisely against what they imagine as "God" - they implicitly rely on the spaceless and timeless, that is, immaterial and eternal laws of logic. It is precisely in this way that they necessarily recognize, with Leibniz, these laws as universal and unconditionally valid eternal truth. What is actually the case and can be seen, for example, in the fact that mathematical theorems, such as the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra, cannot be thought of in any other way than being valid in, before and independently of every conceivable world. Already that alone shows that they exist in some kind of intangible, immaterial manner. Indeed, if one admits that there exist spaceless and timeless and thus immaterial and eternal truths, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, then one must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this ‘something’ is God. The Logos God [cf. Jn 1-1] is the realm of eternal truths. Leibniz in his “Monadology“: "The understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and the ideas, on which they depend ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction." Every theistic, but also every atheistic, argument relies necessarily on logic. In this way both testify to the Logos God, the first consistently, the second obviously not ... 😆
Do you really believe we just live in our minds? He exists in our minds and you pray to him. And your prayer is answered how you feel that how it happens. just in my mind.
Lee is likely brilliant in his own right. Just not on this topic. I don't think he's truly thought this one deeply enough. Respect nonetheless for putting his opinion and thoughts out there.
Accurate. Lee never addressed the beginning of this “selective” process. Lee deals mostly in the present. Not the beginning of things. Paraphrasing Thomas Aquinas about God: There must be a first mover existing above all - and this we call God.
„There must be a first mover existing above all - and this we call God.„ Travel to the northpole and tell a person living there „there must be a direction north“
@@Defort-jd8xeWith this comment, you confine God to material dimensions. The nature of God is mysterious indeed. Only God the almighty could be capable of being further north than the north pole.
You know this how? I could just as easily say that God is all that is, and within God, your mind exists, as does mine. It is this complexity that makes me believe in God.
Find out who you are because you don’t know. You will put forward some ideas in answering that but you are not an idea, you are real here and now. Find out what consciousness is because you don’t know Find out what life is, not a concept of life but found out what life is. You are life. Find out who you are and you will know what consciousness and life is. Not as some stupid concept, a drawing on the wall but as reality here and now. Then you will be able to answer questions about god
Me personally I believed in God and heaven but sometimes I felt like you still didn't have to die on earth and where if we created immortality some people would suicide anyway in search of the real heaven and say that ours was not authentic
On existence and non-existence, zero means non-existence. Other numbers come from existence. Because of existence, we become acquainted with non-existence. Non-existence is one number, but existence is infinite. Just as there is nothing without Allah Nothing will exist
@@Defort-jd8xe You can make an argument beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. If you're looking for an absolute mathematical or scientific proof, then I don't think I can help. But I will say this, how can mathematics or science have enough order to exist without God putting said order in place to begin with? (I was an Atheist for 15 years BTW)
@@RobLewis3 The modern human is 300000 years old. Science is roughly 400 years old. The universe is ATLEAST 13700000000 years old. Us not knowing why mathematics or science exists is NOT proof for a god. Its just that we dont know it.. yet. You're just a modern version of somebody saying "look, its raining.. it has to be the god of rain, you cant explain rain otherwise, cant you?" thousands of years ago.. or in other words, you're a fool.
The idea that consciousness is Universal has gained much traction in recent years with theories like Pansychism. Rather than just ignore 'the problem of consciousness' Materialist just need to adapt their World view. .
Joe died once God died a thousand death with a thousand dead civilizations whose god is no longer worshipped or even remembered Joe wins this hands down
As for religious fundamentalists, you are undoubtedly right. The same goes for materialist fundamentalists. It is obvious that people like Newton and Leibniz, whose view goes beyond empirical reality, have the broader horizon. When atheists argue against God, they are necessarily relying on God. Not the "God" they imagine (and reject). but the one pointed to by the great mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Because when atheists argue against God - more precisely against what they imagine as "God" - they implicitly rely on the spaceless and timeless, that is, immaterial and eternal laws of logic. It is precisely in this way that they necessarily recognize, with Leibniz, these laws as universal and unconditionally valid eternal truth. What is actually the case and can be seen, for example, in the fact that mathematical theorems, such as the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra, cannot be thought of in any other way than being valid in, before and independently of every conceivable world. Already that alone shows that they exist in some kind of intangible, immaterial manner. Indeed, if one admits that there exist spaceless and timeless and thus immaterial and eternal truths, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, then one must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this ‘something’ is God. The Logos God [cf. Jn 1-1] is the realm of eternal truths. Leibniz in his “Monadology“: "The understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and the ideas, on which they depend ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction." Every theistic, but also every atheistic, argument relies necessarily on logic. In this way both testify to the Logos God, the first consistently, the second obviously not ... 😆
*I ONLY WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER IF GOD EXISTS OR NOT NOT BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO KNOW IF HE EXISTS OR NOT BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER HE CAN GIVE A GORGEOUS BEAUTIFUL THICK CURVY GIRL TO BANG OR NOT*
To me that was silly. There is far more evidence of God existing than whatever this guy was trying to come up with on the spot. Not to be rude, but the idea of God is much more realistic to me than these ethereal theories with nothing really backing them.
There is definitely more evidence for god than that, but it did not seem to be as if he was even trying to give evidence (and I do not mean that in a negative way). It seems to me as if he was merely trying to express his model/idea of reality and it is very odd to me, that after saying that there is so much more evidence for god, you then say "nothing backing them up", which just seems to me as if you did not try to understand his model of reality that he was presenting there. (Just to give some idea what backs this model up: He has a simple explanation for a phenomenon to the extent where it does not seem unexpected, that is a good step. In the end in his model he probably has way less ontological commitments. He can explain all his and everyone elses experiences of the world with the model, that is good as well. Don't get me wrong, did he offer the best justification for that, did he for example give some strong reason to assume that god is what he says it is? Nope. But maybe just be a little more charitable and understanding, as there is definitely some thought behind his idea) There is btw nothing against you saying that god is far more realistic than such a theory might be to you. That is fully reasonable.
Lex, do a simple experiment. Hug a cyborg and hug a real human child. Do it with the intension to experience, to feel the difference between the two. Then reflect on how those experiences affect your person. The very breath that you breathe is not mere oxygen but the Spirit of God in you that keeps you alive.
Full podcast episode: czcams.com/video/CGiDqhSdLHk/video.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: czcams.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Lee Cronin is a chemist at University of Glasgow.
Which god? Zeus, Venus, Neptune, Ceres, Allah or what?
Someone said “I dont know if God exists or not, but I know I don’t want to meet him”
No joke anyone who would pave streets with gold has a poor understanding of the fact that gold is way to soft of a material to pave streets with
For millennia, connotations of the word "God" have become so deteriorated. The terms Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence seem more relevant for these types of discussions. It seems that the concept of God is not experimentally testable. However, evidence for the effects of Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence are scientifically demonstrable.
The illogical, irrational, and unreasonable position of claiming that there is No Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence (i.e. Atheism): The fallacy is the assumption that something is true (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) unless proven otherwise. The Claimant making a negative claim (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) cannot logically, rationally, and reasonably prove nonexistence. Because, for a Claimant to know that X does not exist would require the Claimant to possess 100% knowledge of all things with 100% certainty and 100% accuracy (i.e. omniscience).
Even mainstream secular scientists claim that approx. 95% of the Universe is still unknown (i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter). Of the remaining 5% of the Universe, only 0.0035% exists within the visible light spectrum which the human eye is capable of observing. Moreover, of all that is made of atoms and capable of being observed in this "Material" universe, 99.999999999% is actually empty space (Note: Scientists now believe that empty space is actually filled with "theoretical" Quantum or Vacuum Fluctuations. _"Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual (i.e. non-material) particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs. Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. This is theoretically allowable because the particles annihilate each other within a time limit determined by the uncertainty principle so they are _*_not directly observable._*_ "_ (Wikipedia) The point being, despite its name, Virtual fluctuations or “Particles" are unobserved *non-material* theoretical entities. Therefore, there is much, much more that humanity does not know about the Universe and Reality than it does know. Based on just this information, the position of claiming to be Atheist is shown to be illogical, irrational and unreasonable.
*_“… Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner
*_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics)
Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics / biology have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of All Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is No biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed (i.e. Scientific Method) in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
The fact that DNA / genes (biological coded information) exists at all shows that a Consciousness / Intelligence / Mind is involved in the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of living systems. Undirected random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information such as that required for biological systems, even at the most primitive levels of biological life.
*_"Language: All Digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_* (Wikipedia: Digital Data) Inherent in DNA is language. Language is scientifically demonstrated to be the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.
Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Undirected random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.
The “World’s Most Notorious Atheist” and World’s Icon and Champion Advocate for Atheism for over 50 years, Antony Flew, finally concluded, *_“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from MODERN SCIENCE.”_*
During an on stage discussion with Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins admits, *_"I have a materialist view of the world ... so that commits me to the view that when I think I have free will ... I'm deluding myself."_* (Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world's foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution.)
The more I hear about God, consciousness, and free will from biologists, physicists the more I understand they all are absolutely clueless as anyone else. Just shooting arrows in the dark as theories. But I do really appreciate their efforts to unravel the mysteries of life and the universe.
Clueless is a little harsh, I'm convinced some have experiential evidence of ' god'. Some of the esoteric teachings from the east have a long lineage of proclaimed Realisation.
I agree with what you say but I would correct your wording because there’s an important distinction in science between “Theory” and what I believe you mean to say, “Hypothesis”. In overly simplified terms, a hypothesis is a shot in the dark. A theory has been proven over and over again before it’s become a scientific theory. It bugs me when conspiracy theorists throw the word theory around as if it’s just a thought experiment. In science, it’s not.
It's a bit reductive and egoistic to say they are just as clueless (not to mention easy). I think many of the people who have the most to offer up on these categories tend to be biologists and physicists. I do find it curious that the more education one receives the less likely they are to be religious.
"If you can't say something in the most confusing way, it's not worth saying at all"
~ Lee Cronin
He was quite confusing
I’m sure that the author of confusion is satan but Jesus is the truth the way and the life. The word of Δod is all we need to know how to perceive the life we live
God certainly is not the author of confusion! ...
youre not confused, youre simply waiting for someone to tell you yes or no. Your UI needs an update.
@@Elijah_367nonsense
i don't think it's fair to say selection is the force of creation and thus dismiss the creative force Lex was asking about. In my opinion, selection is a mechanism of God not a substitution for belief in God.
As someone who is not religious, I would argue that as much as scientists will argue that there was no creative force that caused / causes the universe to operate the way it does, there is simply too much complexity in a universe where randomness requires extreme luck every strip of the way against all other possible odds for us to exist. What are the chances of a Big Bang coming from randomness, and then the formation of particles to exist, then the functionalities of those particles working in tandem to form and maintain stable macroscopic structures, and also consciousness / sentience emerging from natural chemical processes that evolve to eventually become humans? Not saying there is definitively an explanation for what “God “ would be, but the evidence we call existence is by and large and sign of intelligent design unless somehow everything we know got lucky in different stages of randomness
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a god or gods do not exist, but the fact that the universe exists gives more evidence of a god than not a god. If there was nothing, which doesn't exist, then you could argue that a god or gods do not exist, but you wouldn't exist either to make that argument. So the logical assumption considering the evidence is that it's more probably that a god or gods exist.
It’s not the logical assumption at all. Just because us humans, with our current level of understanding cannot provide an answer to questions relating to why the universe exists or how the first self replicating molecules came to be doesn’t mean the logical explanation is a supernatural power.
@@serdavosseaworth6115 We have answers, we have expansion theory and science has debunked atheist's steady state universe and mutliverse theory. We just don't believe the atheists supernatural explanations of eternal universes, or universes from 'nothing' that have been debunked entirely by science and theism.
So if God didn't create the universe can you tell me as an atheist how an atheist universe came about, as science seems to be pointing more and more to creation of a universe, rather than the atheist belief that the universe has always existed.
@@serdavosseaworth6115 I'm saying I don't believe in the atheist supernatural explanations that eternity and magic or nothing created our universe. Can you explain the atheist universe without gods without invoking 'nothing' as creator, magic as a creator or eternity as a creator of an atheist universe. Thanks.
@@ministryofarguments5257 No, of course I can’t, but I’m content with that. Think about what we have learned as a species in just the past 400 years, our current level of understanding of the universe would be entirely un fathomable to someone living in the 17th century. An atheist is free to admit that there is much about the universe we don’t understand, it’s obvious that we don’t understand, but it’s even more obvious that our current understanding isn’t even close to being reflected in any religious text. Ultimately, I believe it’s preferable to have no knowledge than to embrace something unsupported by any metrics we’ve used to guide our progress thus far.
@@serdavosseaworth6115You sound like you are a member of the online atheist culture. Theists worked out that a god created our universe thousands of years before science, and science now tells us that the universe had a beginning like theists said and atheists said it didn't have a beginning it was eternal, but this has been disproven with Big Bang inflation theory.
Let me ask you, if the universe didn't exist, that would be good evidence for atheism that gods do not exist right?
But you have a choice.
Our universe exists though I hope you agree as an atheist. ergo:
1. A god created our universe.
2. A god did not create our universe
What do you choose as an atheist? If so how to you explain how our universe came to be without invoking the debunked steady state theory, multiverse theory, magic, nothingness, or eternity?
If you don't understand cosmology then just say so, and not preach atheism, I have studied atheism for 20 years and know all the made up dogma and the atheist thought that atheists these days reject and not talk about anymore. But I'm asking you a fundamental question about human existence in our universe and our ability as humans to process the existential thoughts, and our place in the universe.
People dont want God to exist, simple as that. If God doesnt exist, we can do what we want as long as we can get away with it. There is no higher authority. We are all our own God in our head.
Only if you are a psycopath.
Not really, you have created your own moral system, and so do the other 8 billion people. They have each made up their own where they are judge and jury
Not really, you have created your own moral system, and so do the other 8 billion people. They have each made up their own where they are judge and jury
Not really, you have created your own moral system, and so do the other 8 billion people. They have each made up their own where they are judge and jury
Not really, you have created your own moral system, and so do the other 8 billion people. They have each made up their own where they are judge and jury
I love Lex's facial expressions when he is pondering a concept of something perplexing that he is trying to wrap his mind around.
he’s such a funny dude, he defo has a character
Humans create the concept of God with their minds (or the concept manifests itself in human minds without their creative direction) -- but whatever thing or process created human minds is essentially God (even if you call it something else). The word "God" is optional. If it throws you off, use different terms. At the end of the day all honest people are left to admit that our ultimate origin is a mystery (even if we have some seemingly credible ideas and beliefs about it). Regardless, that mystery is, in effect, God (call it whatever you want).
I loved your reasoning here! Thanks for putting it out, made me think about it
@@Alvaro1ization Thank you for your kind reply!
Where did the energy come from? And why was a space for the energy to be in?
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how exceptional Lex is at teasing out specifics based on the language Lee is using. Lex is an absolute master at appearing humble and speaking in a relaxed way, only to quickly hone in on a component of what someone said and demonstrate this deep critical ability. Such an inspiration to watch.
Lex naive
He's OK.
Everything he said is incoherent. I’m open to hear ideas about the universe, but his argument was the most unconvincing I’ve ever heard.
Agreed
In what sense was it incoherent?
@@imitationgame2328 I felt as if he couldn’t string any of his ideas together and tripped up over simple questions from Lex.
@@915tarponlegend To me there seemed to be at least some coherence. He has this model, which in some sense explains the coherence of external reality and then he connects that to the idea of selection (he could have offered more examples here to show why it follows that we might have reason to suspect the same thing for god) and then offers an explanation why god is "expected" under his/this framework of ideas.
It does get a bit wishy washy from there on tbh, as he now starts to offer an account of what the transcendent might be in his model, but it still seems alr, at least not in some obvious way incoherent.
Sure, Lex asked him more about the creative force and his answers get more mixed up as he throws all kind of topics in, but in his model the mainanswer is pretty alr it seems. (He obv lacks on giving reason at some points for it)
To me seems more unstructured than incoherent tbh
@@imitationgame2328 you might think incoherent is a strong choice of words, but unstructured is pretty similar to unclear, which could be used as a substitute for incoherent.
That is seriously the best description/ definition of “free will” I have heard so far. And I am not convinced we have it mind you. It has to do with time. Very interesting.
well, freedom is a very very tricky concept. just like time. and it is not an accident that there is this similarity between them, since they are fundamentally related. time is about causality (which is the most fundamental footprint of consistency), while freedom is about the circumvention of this causality in a consistent way.
I am pretty sure that the trick that allows this is encoded by self-referentiality. we, as subjects in the object (cosmos), have the ability to understand reality (i.e. the object). so it means that we are internal actors of the system. this internal existence causes the difficulty for us to understand reality. just think it over. because of this internal existence perception exists. and what is perception? well, the dual counterpart of conception. perception is the blurred lens through which we sense reality. but this is fundamentally, inherently, therefore also necessarily imperfect. this is why conception is difficult, i.e. non-trivial, so temporally generated (and not degenerated) as a process. however, this difficulty is paired with potential. it is hard to achieve high level of understanding of reality, but when we achieve it, we gain some freedom. so the internal existence encodes both freedom and its difficulty.
self-referentiality is hidden everywhere. in every scientific discipline and area, in almost every fundamental limits (Godel, Turing, Russel etc.). this is what Douglas Hofstadter wrote his books about (which contain rudimentary insights about this topic). life, consciousness, evolution, dialectic and almost every important concept has a self-referential nature and/or structure.
freedom is probably also a manifestation of self-reference. if we knew every logical, mathematical and natural law, those models would still be open-ended. why? because those models would map a world in which we subjects exists. and we are the element through which this self-referential nature enters every model (i.e. our models should include ourselves, our decisions, our thoughts, so even the models themselves and our relations to them etc.). this is like non-linearity in the study of dynamical systems (and even quantum systems). the necessary (but not sufficient) condition of classical chaos is this non-linearity. because non-linearity (one form of self-reference, the other is recursion) has the ability to introduce the concept of infinity and complexity into the model.
so chaos and freedom have a similar source, but in the former the object carries the source by itself alone, while in the latter we subjects form the essential channel of this feedback. because we subjects are the unique construct of the cosmos that connect the two worlds: the physical and the conceptual.
Great take on the topic!
Mind-blown!
What a thought.. everything in the past was deterministic, big but here, the present time (only present time), there's a component of free will that makes the future not determined
I wish I would still have the confidence that science leads us into a golden future. But maybe it is leading us just to build better arms, better surveillance technics and better torture technics. As a theist who was not that happy with Lees claims in the James Tours debate I still wish that Lee is able to retain that optimism - and that he keeps his mind open. Because the future causing the past even indirectly - that is not something that should be possible under reductiv physicalism. That he is able to see that is odd is a good sign.
To all atheists, the answer to the question of "Is there a god?", at the very least, is "I have no idea." That's it. You have no idea. Period.
When atheists argue against God, they are necessarily relying on God. Not the "God" they imagine (and reject). but the one pointed to by the great mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Because when atheists argue against God - more precisely against what they imagine as "God" - they implicitly rely on the spaceless and timeless, that is, immaterial and eternal laws of logic.
It is precisely in this way that they necessarily recognize, with Leibniz, these laws as universal and unconditionally valid eternal truth.
What is actually the case and can be seen, for example, in the fact that mathematical theorems, such as the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra, cannot be thought of in any other way than being valid in, before and independently of every conceivable world. Already that alone shows that they exist in some kind of intangible, immaterial manner.
Indeed, if one admits that there exist spaceless and timeless and thus immaterial and eternal truths, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, then one must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this ‘something’ is God. The Logos God [cf. Jn 1-1] is the realm of eternal truths. Leibniz in his “Monadology“: "The understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and the ideas, on which they depend ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction."
Every theistic, but also every atheistic, argument relies necessarily on logic. In this way both testify to the Logos God, the first consistently, the second obviously not 😉
God is human collective consciousness embedded in the subconscious of the individual brain
Note - This explains why when you spend a lot of time with someone, you begin to think the same thoughts. Because everyone’s subconscious is the same. The only thing that’s different and a part of you uniquely, is your conscious brain which holds all your EGO and the idea that you’re an individual entity in your body.
It’s bs. Were all the same life force or entity split into billions of separate life forms.
But we can forgive ourselves for not being a hive mind. It’s not our fault we strayed from our path.. it’s the concept of Money we should blame
And other tree of life forms of consciousness?
Orangutan to ants eg.
@@Madasin_Painepotentially. I think all life has the same consciousness and it’s our subconscious mind that is the same force that controls the likes of ants and all other creatures.
Maybe it explains why we have the “instinct that there’s something watching us and then we see another human looking or an animal watching us because we’re actually watching ourselves yknow. So we know we’re being watched because the subconscious is the same. If that makes sense
What if it happens because in the long run it permits us to persist.
Watching nature shows and tells.
Bird watching.
Watching the leaves fall .
Having kids .
Being there when family and friends die.
Name a creature or plant or microbe that's not conscious of your presence 100%!
Viruses share some essential fundamentals of our operating system like perpetual defense and reproduction.
They communicate.
Bacteria can remember.
Fungi have networks and sponges use Vitamin D and sun damage matters to their descendants, too .
Millions of years of consequences creates intentions.
I’ve never experienced sitting in a room with someone and thinking the same thoughts.
Can we both be shaped by shared language and experiences? Sure! Does that demonstrate anything you wrote? I don’t think so.
He talked about objects in assembly theory, and how the objects build into and onto each other through the production phase. Is it a stretch to believe that the original objects were made, and the way in which they vie for success was also made, by the creator? And the thoughts of their existence were part of the program/ design?
In our proclaimed wisdom, because we refuse to be subject to the Designer, we contrive foolish explanations to dismiss the natural order and design.
This guy literally said that selection is the “creator”
Because it is
Are you a National Socialist? you sound like monster, really.@@ProfessorDrock
Omnipotence is a human concept and can be easily taken apart with logic and thought experiment.
However, the universe is so finely balanced, so minutely detailed, that changing anything by a billion billion billionth of a percent results in no universe at all - as if the ingredients were carefully controlled and cooked.
Our interpretation of a god is clearly incorrect.
But something put this whole show together.
Wouldn't that require the supernatural? Could it be possible that the something that put this whole show together was natural processes?
@@ThePorkchop1787 natural processes stemming from what, you need something to create the mechanism behind these natural processes.
@@jchneo26 Natural processes stemming from the Cosmos and it's laws of physics. Have you heard of the infinite regress fallacy? With your own logic, your God would also need a creator, but in your world view you would say that god has always just existed without the need of a creator. I would then be justified in asserting the cosmos could have always just existed in some form or another without the need of a creator
@@ThePorkchop1787and where did the laws of physics stem from. you seem to want to deliberately delude your self
@@MohamedAli-hl8kzThe laws of physics were created during the formation of the universe. I could also just as easily ask where did your god stem from? You seem to want to deliberately delude yourself with fallacy's. I already mentioned the infinite regress fallacy and here you are using that fallacy. If your God does not require a creator than I am justified in saying the cosmos does not require a creator. You see how you deluded yourself with that dumb question?
1. Anything that begins to form; There is a reason. 2. The universe has begun to form.
These are very interesting times, universe is becoming much more complex with every new discovery, each of which is crazy and too abstract for most of the people to understand, that a concept of existence of god doesnt seem so far fetched when compared with some of these discoveries.
Think about the fact that for 10 billion years, there wheren't any eyes to see the univers or an intelligence to wonder about the existence of god. If god exists..lets call it a creative force, its not interested about humans in particular. We are just complex arranged matter, we are here because it was possible to be here and here we are, it happend after billions of years...the question is what other complex arrangements of matter can be possible out there?
very interesting point, thank you.
That’s assuming life didn’t evolve elsewhere in the universe at an earlier time.
@@serdavosseaworth6115 yes
We don't have to exist to comprehend God in order for God to exist. God exists objectively without needing us to study him.
Example, if humans didn't exist, the planet earth could still exist without us needing to witness it. Mathematics, physics etc. could all still exist. We didn't invent any of these things, God did. We just discovered them.
@@RobLewis3 I said the same thing..
“We are Spirit bound to this flesh”
Yes! TOOL lyrics are just something else
This sounds like stoner college conversation :D
The concept of "GOD" helps explain many of the thing that man have no answers to. There is an intelligence behind many of the things that we see touch and try to understand that the best mind can't determine it's origin..... like where do atoms come from?
The idea that god/God needs to be an actual thinking being is a very narrow definition....
Which God? Does he mean gods? There are many of them but of course some folks are fortunate to have been born in a time and region that supports their particular god.
3:48 "Free will occurs at the boundary between the past and the future."... "The universe is able to do what it can in the present. In the future there are other things that could be possible. We can imagine lots of things. But they don't all happen"... "What exists is a convolution of the past with the present + the free will going into the future."... "Our imaginations can actually change the future in a tangible way, which the initial conditions of physics can not predict. Your imagination has a causal consequence in the future."
life and freedom are both some forms (at different levels) and manifestations of the same thing, which is synergy.
synergy, transcendence and emergence are closely related concepts. their most fundamental, shared aspect (their core) is what we can call as the "causality dilemma". i.e. something can be created from nothing (or at least new properties can emerge). synergy is when a whole formed by parts is more than the sum of the parts (quantitative aspect), while emergence is when a whole formed by parts has new property than the sum of the parts (qualitative aspect). so when they are talking about "novelty", they are actually (implicitly and perhaps unknowingly) talking about these.
the real question here is this: how can the cosmos circumvent this "causality dilemma". if we find an answer for that, we find answer for almost everything. because the magic behind emergence, synergy and even the origin of consciousness, life and the whole cosmos are hidden behind this dilemma.
and this magical self-generating process is so universal that, as I have already said, life and freedom are different forms (at different levels) and manifestations of the same thing.
At some point, scientists should not blush or be ashamed with such a theological question. Perhaps, many are still stuck in old views of a Deity - personally I think that humans misunderstand the nature of religion/God or whatever you want to call it, they look in archaic ways.
IMO, science should not be opposed to the notion of a Deity and religion should not be opposed to the notion of science. If there is a Deity, then he must have science properties.
@5:10 how can he suggest that imagination breaks the laws of Physics when thinking requires energy, and right after using the expression "creative FORCE"? I've been less loopy on Cali weed 😂
Remember is not thee who is speaking? Remember the COMFORTER dwelling within thee the CREATOR. Speaking through Thee!
In our proclaimed wisdom, because we refuse to be subject to the Designer, we contrive foolish explanations to dismiss the natural order and design.
Why does Lex always have such different studios? Does he travel to see his guests?
Yea those are hotel rooms
People need to get over the imposed sanctity of free will.
God is merciful and created Paradise for those humble people who believe in Him. Paradise is not like ancient universities, only those who think they are scholars can enter.
Just admit, we don't have intelligence to determine if there is a God but we are aware there are forces that we only feel, they are teachable but still we are not capable of identifying those forces.
It is hope. By nature we all need to give ourselves an explanation of our existence and in absence of better explanation we are hoping that that force is God.
It's good to believe in God but it's terribly dangerous that some powerful people believe they are GOD.
Not really, when you think about it long enough it all becomes quite clear.
There are only two things in the world that the scientific method can't explain - how did the universe begin, and how did your consciousness begin. It is not even a problem of the scientific method, but of limits of language, even if you try and hypothesize any type of an explanation it falls apart. Therefore, any force, rule or system that has been the reason we have this universe can be called God, cause any other name would just be unfair. To me, if the universe is perpetual and spawn itself, the universe is God, and laws of physics are the Bible. If it was spawned by something of a higher dimension, what spawned the spawner, and we loop on ourselves back to the incomprehensiveness. It is impossible for an eye to see itself without some kind of a mirror.
Maybe it's just a random dude we don't ever think of. @@riveteye93
@@GodPredator-ev5se bruh, "god" is an answer to all of the questions, a "random dude" implies so many new questions it doesn't answer shit. Why a dude, why this, why that. There is reason to project human qualities onto the "source" of everything, since we are a part of everything and are a child of this world, but we are not the end all, be all.
Aliens too‽
Can it also be proven to most Hindus many gods dont exist but One?
Does that mean that everyone shall has is Hindu or Buddhists etc and everyone else NOT one, mythically founded‽ monotheistic cult, or another, and going to hell BECAUSE?
What in Creation WHY so destructive and cruel?!
THEY watch on in 100 places NOT essentially different than Gaza Ukraine or Sudan.
Or Argentina.
Or California and Texas.
It's like The Devil's Advocate Part 2.
PHarma Law INC
+
MIC
+Media
+Accounting
+ Mining
+Ag
BUT any news than about these peaks of REAL power.
Fairy tales and BS.Hie csn people be so arrogant about souls creation or the will of G*d or such methods yet be so infantile in their understanding thus justifying any behavior no matter how sinful!
3000 years offers more than enough evidence.
What is it NOT?
After all that should he discarded
what remains?
EVERYTHING
you know is BS
excuses.
Doubt
Defame
Delay
Drain
Distance
Dispatch
The prophet gods theories have gaping holes and finding fair argument is too challenging to many .
Meet evidence with evidence.
Don't be an ∆ * Hole about it.
Just let the most meritorious ideas bubble to the surface freely like eternal springs .
That's I T online purpose too.
if someone knows they have the Christ consciousness in them and that they will do like Christ why would they be violent or reactive or doubtful? Defensive to death?
if Satan wanted to mess with God and humanity would be tricking people one God only exists. Then throw out a theory that 9nengod is basically Satan or Lou Cipher.
Why didn't Jesus take out Satan when he had the chance and why didn't he set the record straight with Roman leadership.
Put the fear of or LOVE for G*d in them enough?
Why all the destruction and desecrations of creations and humanity too?
Prive around the world in each countries court what Ttuth looks like and when any 12nangey people from one country can be persuaded and like the other 190, why, there is your Truth.
Or any workable version you needed.
People are unlike any form of life in being uniquely disadvantaged in how to actually live like their species is born for .
Only people play these most grace stupid games with LIFE.
Helluva thing
to do to G*d .
Any - Ism ir distraction story or indolence will do.
Intel. in
Service of
Madness
(HIS Majesty, Malignant Megalomanic
- In Chief)
Fools at like infants when they don't get what they want or get caught red handed
Fool & mis®uled by IdIots reading and ad libing bad lines.
±
IMHO.
No excuses.
DO better daily until you stop breathing. Like all other creatures,
and more.
Be nice.
😘 🌐 🌛 ⚫
v$
😘 🌎 🌛 ⚫
If god existed nature would look like a Disney movie. Lions, crocodiles and zebras living together in peace. We'd see all these beautiful animals living together harmoniously and the only violence in the universe would be us with our free will. Instead, nature is animals (sentient beings) eating each other alive. And they don't have a choice either -- They have no free will. Obligate carnivores literally will starve to death if they don't eat meat.
The ONLY species in the half billion year history of our planet that's been able to live in abject safety is us... Humans.
Imma go out on a limb and say that a good god is a logical impossibility in a universe where sentient beings are literally food. Sounds infinitely more likely to me that we're the lucky ones that escaped nature.
Here’s the thing, I’m a theist, but if I were not, and Cronin convinced me that Assembly Theory was real, THAT would convince me of God being real.
The universe is a brain and we are nothing but sparks in the matter of imagination ❤
it make sense in a way
The universe is probabilistic within its deterministic nature. dualism is always the key. the laws of thermal dynamics could be an example of the deterministic nature of our 3 dimensional reality but when you get into the quantum levels of reality and into 5 dimensions and more, that is where the probabilistic nature of the universe resides?
Recognising degrees of freedom via constraints give the sense of free will.
There is only God. It is the belief in free-will that made Hell.
Interesting! ACIM?
Man, we need philosophers back ASAP.
I agree, such as the brilliant Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ...
When atheists argue against God, they are necessarily relying on God. Not the "God" they imagine (and reject), but the one pointed to by the great mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Because when atheists argue against God - more precisely against what they imagine as "God" - they implicitly rely on the spaceless and timeless, that is, immaterial and eternal laws of logic.
It is precisely in this way that they necessarily recognize, with Leibniz, these laws as universal and unconditionally valid eternal truth.
What is actually the case and can be seen, for example, in the fact that mathematical theorems, such as the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra, cannot be thought of in any other way than being valid in, before and independently of every conceivable world. Already that alone shows that they exist in some kind of intangible, immaterial manner.
Indeed, if one admits that there exist spaceless and timeless and thus immaterial and eternal truths, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, then one must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this ‘something’ is God. The Logos God [cf. Jn 1-1] is the realm of eternal truths. Leibniz in his “Monadology“: "The understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and the ideas, on which they depend ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction."
Every theistic, but also every atheistic, argument relies necessarily on logic. In this way both testify to the Logos God, the first consistently, the second obviously not ... 😆
Do you really believe we just live in our minds? He exists in our minds and you pray to him. And your prayer is answered how you feel that how it happens. just in my mind.
The future is created by imagination, it's amazing - and most parents are quick to try take away their childrens imagination.
there has to be a first mover - Aristotle
brahman is everything that is was are will be
everything is sentient
humans are not the only sentient beings
In other words, this scientist does not know.
Lee is likely brilliant in his own right. Just not on this topic. I don't think he's truly thought this one deeply enough. Respect nonetheless for putting his opinion and thoughts out there.
Accurate. Lee never addressed the beginning of this “selective” process. Lee deals mostly in the present. Not the beginning of things. Paraphrasing Thomas Aquinas about God: There must be a first mover existing above all - and this we call God.
„There must be a first mover existing above all - and this we call God.„
Travel to the northpole and tell a person living there „there must be a direction north“
@@Defort-jd8xeWith this comment, you confine God to material dimensions. The nature of God is mysterious indeed. Only God the almighty could be capable of being further north than the north pole.
@@RobLewis3 Thats between you and your imaginary friend.
@@Defort-jd8xe So you are saying you have the authority to confine God to physical directions on a compass?
3:03 - now it’s his Wittgenstein talking 😅 I love this guy!
if god is a concept of our mind. then god doesnt exist is a concept of your mind.
But the mind is all that is. We're immersed in it.
You know this how? I could just as easily say that God is all that is, and within God, your mind exists, as does mine. It is this complexity that makes me believe in God.
Find out who you are because you don’t know. You will put forward some ideas in answering that but you are not an idea, you are real here and now.
Find out what consciousness is because you don’t know
Find out what life is, not a concept of life but found out what life is. You are life. Find out who you are and you will know what consciousness and life is. Not as some stupid concept, a drawing on the wall but as reality here and now.
Then you will be able to answer questions about god
Lee and Robert Sapolsky now need to talk on Free Will. Haha.
Me personally I believed in God and heaven but sometimes I felt like you still didn't have to die on earth and where if we created immortality some people would suicide anyway in search of the real heaven and say that ours was not authentic
If life span is infinite, every possible thing will happen in that life including death.
anything that is eternal is meaningless. I think time is what makes life meaningfull. Same for heaven I think, eternity there could become like hell
@@rebeccasmith4182except you have no idea what it means to be in heaven
Very unimpressive. I didn't think it possible to find someone more of a pseud than Lex but here we are.
God, mans oldest creation. No i didnt say that backwords.
God is real he has provided guidance. It's not a coincidence that we are here, and the good written by our ancestors leads us to a better world.
"It would be quite boring " self describes
We didn’t just randomly appear here…
On existence and non-existence, zero means non-existence. Other numbers come from existence. Because of existence, we become acquainted with non-existence. Non-existence is one number, but existence is infinite. Just as there is nothing without Allah Nothing will exist
God = Life
At the end of the day.. there is absolutely zero proof of any kind for the existence of a god. End of story.
Zero? Look up William Lane Craig.
@@RobLewis3 Zero proof.
If you have any, go on.
@@Defort-jd8xe You can make an argument beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. If you're looking for an absolute mathematical or scientific proof, then I don't think I can help. But I will say this, how can mathematics or science have enough order to exist without God putting said order in place to begin with?
(I was an Atheist for 15 years BTW)
@@RobLewis3 The modern human is 300000 years old. Science is roughly 400 years old.
The universe is ATLEAST 13700000000 years old.
Us not knowing why mathematics or science exists is NOT proof for a god. Its just that we dont know it.. yet.
You're just a modern version of somebody saying "look, its raining.. it has to be the god of rain, you cant explain rain otherwise, cant you?" thousands of years ago.. or in other words, you're a fool.
I thought was Lee was Lee Sizemore from West World
You guys are close
The universe is trying to continue existing, just like us.
Yes
So you believe in a God, natural laws, or chaos. Or some combination.
He bases his beliefs on a set of ideas that can't really be proven, just like people who believe in religions do.
Btw, the mind is emergent property, just like the notion of free will :)
Depends on what your definition of God is.
Thank you. All the triumphant arguments against an orbiting teapot/spaghetti monster get boring.
Anyone that has taken lsd already knows this.
The creative force in the Universe is consciousness. Our consciousness is all derived from the same place - You could call this God. You are welcome.
can you show any kind of evidence for your claims about consciousness?
The idea that consciousness is Universal has gained much traction in recent years with theories like Pansychism.
Rather than just ignore 'the problem of consciousness' Materialist just need to adapt their World view. .
Old joke. A guy named Joe once wrote on a washroom wall that god is dead. Few days later someone wrote that Joe is dead: Signed god.
Kissinger > 99
No joke.
@@Madasin_Paine I have no idea what you mean pertaining to the joke.
Joe died once
God died a thousand death with a thousand dead civilizations whose god is no longer worshipped or even remembered
Joe wins this hands down
Cue the religious fundamentalist who can’t think of anything outside the scope of their holy books.
As for religious fundamentalists, you are undoubtedly right. The same goes for materialist fundamentalists. It is obvious that people like Newton and Leibniz, whose view goes beyond empirical reality, have the broader horizon.
When atheists argue against God, they are necessarily relying on God. Not the "God" they imagine (and reject). but the one pointed to by the great mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Because when atheists argue against God - more precisely against what they imagine as "God" - they implicitly rely on the spaceless and timeless, that is, immaterial and eternal laws of logic.
It is precisely in this way that they necessarily recognize, with Leibniz, these laws as universal and unconditionally valid eternal truth.
What is actually the case and can be seen, for example, in the fact that mathematical theorems, such as the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra, cannot be thought of in any other way than being valid in, before and independently of every conceivable world. Already that alone shows that they exist in some kind of intangible, immaterial manner.
Indeed, if one admits that there exist spaceless and timeless and thus immaterial and eternal truths, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, then one must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this ‘something’ is God. The Logos God [cf. Jn 1-1] is the realm of eternal truths. Leibniz in his “Monadology“: "The understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and the ideas, on which they depend ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction."
Every theistic, but also every atheistic, argument relies necessarily on logic. In this way both testify to the Logos God, the first consistently, the second obviously not ... 😆
*I ONLY WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER IF GOD EXISTS OR NOT NOT BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO KNOW IF HE EXISTS OR NOT BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER HE CAN GIVE A GORGEOUS BEAUTIFUL THICK CURVY GIRL TO BANG OR NOT*
I have no idea what this dude is talking about.
This guy had no idea what he was talking about either
Yes.
You keep using God as a blanket term….. which God are you speaking of?
Does Santa Claus exist?
The power of the secret
I don't think that was the point
To me that was silly. There is far more evidence of God existing than whatever this guy was trying to come up with on the spot. Not to be rude, but the idea of God is much more realistic to me than these ethereal theories with nothing really backing them.
There is definitely more evidence for god than that, but it did not seem to be as if he was even trying to give evidence (and I do not mean that in a negative way). It seems to me as if he was merely trying to express his model/idea of reality and it is very odd to me, that after saying that there is so much more evidence for god, you then say "nothing backing them up", which just seems to me as if you did not try to understand his model of reality that he was presenting there. (Just to give some idea what backs this model up: He has a simple explanation for a phenomenon to the extent where it does not seem unexpected, that is a good step. In the end in his model he probably has way less ontological commitments. He can explain all his and everyone elses experiences of the world with the model, that is good as well. Don't get me wrong, did he offer the best justification for that, did he for example give some strong reason to assume that god is what he says it is? Nope. But maybe just be a little more charitable and understanding, as there is definitely some thought behind his idea)
There is btw nothing against you saying that god is far more realistic than such a theory might be to you. That is fully reasonable.
I predict a riot... Kaiser Cheifs
It’s astounding how ridiculous his explanations are. They would never survive cross examination.
Hey, where'd you get that guy? You play the new universe. But you don't believe in god really wow, I said I can say.
I don't know if God exists, but I do know that if we have free will, then we must certainly have something supernatural about us, a soul perhaps.
Of course there's God
Obviously there is no God and the universe would be significantly less interesting if there was one :)
@@timperman9883 no reason to say that
@@timperman9883 ok so we magically came here the world magically works perfect cop on ✝️🇮🇪
no there isn't my friend
@@hideokojima6106 there's more proof there is than there isn't now I'm an Irish man the greatest people in the world Ur an American yee have now brain
A personal God, no.
No.
IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN GOD , no explanation is possible… if you DO BELIEVE IN THE LORD , no explanation is necessary.
If G*d exists all is permitted.
IF G*d DOESN'T EXIST ∆££ IS permitted.
And if you don't know and don't claim to...
It’s better to have no explanation than one that is unprovable, especially if you base your whole life around it.
That's a fancy way of saying "I believe in God without any good reason to."
@@TheDanielLivingston … other than the Lord saved my life
The second I saw this geek in his stupid blazer I already knew he'd have the wrong answer lol
there's no such thing as a non-angry atheist.
There's no such thing as a rational xtian
lots of words, not much meaning
TIL you can be an intelligent fool.
Yes god exist
Lex, do a simple experiment. Hug a cyborg and hug a real human child. Do it with the intension to experience, to feel the difference between the two. Then reflect on how those experiences affect your person. The very breath that you breathe is not mere oxygen but the Spirit of God in you that keeps you alive.
Sorry this guy is full of it just say you have no idea thats ok
How well that some it up😂 Wow we know where you're not going when you leave this world LOL😂😂😂
sure! god exists.