Frank Wilczek - What Can Science Say About God?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- Most scientists believe that science can say nothing about God other than to show that there is no need for such a being. Scientists claim that science is quite capable of providing most explanations today and virtually all explanations in the future.
Click here to watch more interviews on science and God bit.ly/2BVtafC
Click here to watch more interviews with Frank Wilczek bit.ly/1pRyCoS
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
With apologies, Mr Wilczek. When I see around social media, I don’t see much intelligence progression...
He is not talking about something that you would see in your lifetime.
Frank Wilczek is one of the greatest living minds. Just the fact that he takes time for public appearances in such videos is amazing. What he says is brilliantly clear and well thought out. The interviewer should be proud for that.
No. He is not.
@@jedi4049 i cant find your name as theoretical physicist.
@@ManiBalajiC Sure, idolize his advanced degree. But his arrogance when it comes to a higher power is laughable.
@@jedi4049 That's a poor argument. You don't know if there is a higher power anymore or less than anyone else.
The doctrine of any particular religion, is completely irrelevant to the questions posed. Science education often has the effect of rendering its subjects philosophically confused in regards to any other area of thought.
The way scientific inquiry it set up currently, God is excluded a priori, which makes looking for signs of divinity impossible.
How can being more intelligent solve the “yearning for transcendence”?
Well, we can argue that we are our personality, thoughts, ideas, and principles more than our body itself. Today these entities reside in our body, but they don't need to. Combination of genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, extremely advance technology, and extremely advance understanding of the fundamental laws of nature can make us very VERY powerful and immortal (in the sense I explained before). Especially if we had a lor of energy available. We are using only an extremely tiny amount of the energy that our sun yields, and all of the energy that our sun yields is nothing compared with the energy in our galaxy. It is impossible to predict what an immortal, super powerful mind could do. Maybe the future we will be able to create universes at will, something like saying "let there be light".
I fully appreciate that you have not the faintest idea, but define "intelligence"
You cannot? - No surprises there, for no more can any, It Being a Blurb(Undefinable or unfocusable word/idea/image)- You can no more define "intelligence" than you can define "mean" or "exist, or "physical", and that you are about to demonstrate by signally failing to do so, And NB, you do not define a word/idea/image by resort to or reference to cognates and synonyms or substituting for one undefined term another undefined term or circular definitions, Thus you will demonstrate that you cannot define intelligence without reference to those things
@@vhawk1951kl Can you define anything at all in your terms? Define, I don't know, table?, without reference to cognates and synonyms or circularity. Define define. Define any of the words you used in your previous comment. Are you going to do an infinite regression or use "axiom" undefined words?
@@adb012 we can & he certainly should define his ego
this guys personality is great. he handles these questions with such warmth, frankness, and clarity.
Like your comment. He makes me feel hopeful.
Julian you must be a boring person. This guy has the personality of an infant; his answers are also juvenile. He misapplies Occam's razor for one thing. Occam's razor only applies when you have a list of explanations and you "shave off" the more superfluous ones. We have no explanation for the beginning of things so you can't use it to "shave off" anything in this case. His laugh wreaks of a sort of silly arrogance. I'm sure he has an extraordinary IQ but he's a stiff.
Frank is quite frank.
im not sure where you got the "real" definition from but yours is fine enough. It's more often put as: the simplest explanation should be preferred, but whatever way you slice it one must be considering a "list" of variants of one or different explanations for some phenomenon or event inorder to apply it. im not going to watch the video here again but if I remember correctly his logic went something like this:
Person 1: Event A is explained by explanation B.
Person 2: Occam's razor!
That makes no sense. You would need to give a simpler explanation or point out superfluous assumptions.
@Unknown I'm not here to argue for the existence god let me make that clear. I'm here to say Frank is a stiff who lacks what it takes to take a stab at this sort of topic. I'm not watching this video again to analyze his response any further. But to what you have written: I take it the question is where does the universe come from? Then God is an answer. The answer that it comes from nowhere is to throw the question away. That's fine if you would like to do that. Or you can say the god answer sucks but I don't know but you can't claim the razor in that case.
That was an amazing note to end that segment on.
WOW! LISTENING TO THIS WAS GREAT? THE LAST LINE HE SAID GAVE ME THE CHILLS...
Those that abuse capital letters emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuserThey might as well say "I am a loony
Those that abuse capital letters emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser who declare to all the world that the the lunatic and cannot control his emotional function when he abuses capital letters - effectively the abuser says: " I am a lunatic", which is a little odd because most lunatics are unaware that they are lunatics, Which is a little odd because most lunatics are unaware that they are lunatics,but in the case of those that abuse capital letters they may be unaware that their CapsLock key is stuck but if it pleases them to tell world that they are as mad as hatters and hysterical, that is entirely their affair, poor creatures.
He says science offers us transcendence of something that lasts but really if you look around everything eventually dies or crumbles or decays. I wouldn't call that eternal life.
Why there is no automatic translation please add it
Intelligence we see is complicated when he explains it as "brains, circuits' and lots of componants. But the definition of God is not as a compilation of physical componants but a simple Spirit without matter
Such thing exist? Can there be intelligence withou a brain, not computer intelligence, since computers are developed by brains. But intelligence without matter. I don't think so, since intelligence are constructed along the time and experience.
@@Alwaysdoubt100 Not sure what your saying sir.
But to quote Bill Gates "DNA is more advanced than any software ever created"
Yet, you believe its reasonable to say DNA arose without any mind behind it. Yet Computers could not have arisen without a Brain.
I think as long as we only observe life and intelligence arising from other life and intelligence it's perfectly reasonable and logical to say Life (DNA, consciousness etc) arose from a life and intelligence and not randomly or from non-life.
The question may be what is that life and intelligence. But if it is the source of the universe it can't be the universe and so I would say it is immaterial. The computer doesn't create itself. It's intelligence comes from outside itself.
Really, do please set out your definition of (whatever you mean by) God, which probably means as many different things as there are different men (human beings), there being no one fixed once- and- for -all definition save your own, But on one definition a man's God or God is that which is more important than anything else to any particular man any given moment, by which definition the Sun fits that bill perfectly.
@@vhawk1951kl Not sure there are as many definitions as there are people. I'd say half the worlds population follow one of the four main religious concepts. And then maybe a 10th have no concept 'other than 'there isn't a God'
For someone who's familiar with various religions you will find most are variations some kind.
God is creation or God is outside creation.
But in general my concept is as an immaterial and personal God who created all material.
@@justinshadrach829 Obviously I have no way of determining what takes place in the associative apparatuses creatures similar to myself or apparently similar to myself; I rather suppose that the associations attached to whatever triggers associations and if they are triggered by the word God or any word, they will be different because they all have different experiences which give rise to different associations.There is the simply no way of determining what associations are triggered by particular words unless you ask a particular being, even then he will tell you has no idea what associations take place behind that word.
I have no idea to what is relevant how many people are attached to various different what are called religions which are merely sets of related unquestioned beliefs assumption presumptions and norms there being no necessary element of or reference to God for any number of different religions or sets of related unquestioned beliefs assumption presumptions and norms, thus the idea of God is neither sufficient nor necessary for a set of related unquestioned beliefs assumption presumptions and norms to qualify as a religion.
Take for example what is plainly a religion socialism and another example of what is plainly a religion namely that nonsensical mumbo-jumbo that is global warming/climate change_ism, in fact men (human beings seem to invent religions almost by the hour, and very few of them even mentioned the word God, most of them being concerned with that mumbo-jumbo and cause of almost unlimited trouble that men call morals or ethics, and is that latter normative aspect which makes religion religion - in relation my respectful submission - the God fantasy is neither sufficient nor necessary for a set of related unquestioned beliefs assumptions and norms to qualify as religion
how many people subscribe to one or another religion is. utterly irrelevant or certainly I cannot think of anything to which it is relevant, can you?
I am a layman so I avoid making any comments. I like science, I think it is a solid ground for reasonable people to stand.A part of me is realistic, just because I don't like lies but the truth even if it hurts. I also like scientists, I think they are the people who with their very hard work, through the centuries, uplifted humanity, so that our generation can live a better life than our ancestors. I also like the universe it is so strange and astonishing and has its own magic! But at the end, we have to admit that "nothing" is "something", whatever that means, an energy that always existed.I also like a part of religion, not the dogmatic part, but the humane part of religion, the part of selfless and all-inclusive love.And I think that the meaning of life is love, love is a strong part of the subconscious of nature which makes life thrive, we are the matter and energy that started to comprehend and love life, thus itself.
“What is water?” says the little fish in the ocean.
Science works in lab-box. Mysticism is an experience of the beyond. To express it,, from there it becomes art. Or contemplation in action.
Frank is saying all the things I like to hear.
Say it again Frank !
"I think the systematic enhancement of intelligence is just beginning". Ok, Frank, if you'll just wait for the rest of us to catch up...
Frank is very polite in trying to answer these ridiculous questions about gods. I wish he had laboured the things wrong about ideas of a god or gods. If he had then it would have cut short the continued labouring of questions that Frank did not give the answers that the interviewer sought.
Faith is the willing suspension of our critical faculties or our willingness to believe in what is not true. That said, our need to believe as spiritual animals overwhelms our need for fact, science or evidence. Though throughout history there have always been pockets of resistance and dissent. Like the Archaeopteryx example, are we as a species transitioning or taking flight away from our more primitive irrational nature to a more evolved state of reason?
Ah the typical popular tactic of redefining a word and then attacking that self created definition. Faith comes from Latin Fides which simply means "to trust" in something or someone. BLIND faith is believing with no evidence or good reason.
@3:57 "...don't have a notion or that the universe could bee enormously large much less that it can contain extravagant numbers of dimensions in quantum mechanics..." I guess Frank hasn't read any of the ancient texts... If he had read them carefuly, he'd notice that they talk about an infinite number of dimensions, or infinity, which the science he so worships can't reconcile...
I know right 💜
Are you perhaps associating about the proposition: "in my father's house there are many mansions"?
The trouble is the creatures that bleat about something that they call "the universe", is that they have absolutely no clear idea whatsoever what they mean by "the universe" - it being no more than a vague woolly generalisation, and if you actually ask anyone to define or say what they mean by "universe", all you will get is a lot of generalised rambling and nothing remotely specific, Because the universe" Is a Blurb - a word/idea/image that is incapable of definition or particularity, or it is an unfocused - and unfocusable, word/image/idea-no more than a blur.
Your brilliant mind gives us the most brilliant answer! The question about the existence of God is what limits our capacity of finding answers, keeps us questioning and in our right place of limited power. And, unfortunately, for the bad effects in life, this interrogation is used as a certified answer
Excellent discussion. Thanks
First time viewer to this channel, liked and subscribed. :^)
4:45,
Try reading book of Psalms. It describes "God" quite well with respect to what we now know scientifically.
Really, which chapter and verse?
Proverbs, which has some quite good stuff in it, at one point declares: "Lest thou shouldest ponder the paths of life, her ways are hidden that you that you may not know them". One interpretation of that could seek to convey: "Don't go poking your nose into what is none of your business". Self-evidently only individuals I or you(If either you or I were able to develop my/your reason to be capable of individuality) can "know (which means directly immediately personally experienced as directly immediately and personally as pain) anything.
Thus "we know" is a nonsense, and as much of a nonsense as "we" has a headache.
I often wonder from where you creatures get this "we" fantasy, and I also noticed that some seem afraid of using the perpendicular pronoun or "I" so they hide behind some fantasy "we". Quite why they do that is a mystery, but it may have some to do with their conditioning or programming or what they call "education" which can almost guarantee that its results will be passive believers and/or dreamers
@@vhawk1951kl start with the stars being more numerous than the grains of sand on earth. My question is: How in the HELL could the authors have known that, since it was a couple of thousand years before Galileo and his invention of the telescope?
And then Elijah was taken into the sky and shown the sphere of the earth.
Again, how? I hate to say it, but the Ancient Astronaut idea is really the only way, whether they were from here, long ago; or from elsewhere...also long ago...lol.
Idk. And I think we won't ever know, at least not without finding some sort of technology or monument that was left ... somewhere we can find it; ie, our moon, Mars, or something like that.
But who really knows? God, I guess, or whatever a person chooses to call it...The Force, or the Prime Mover ir the Grand Architect, or something like that.
But this stuff is and always has been interesting to me.
love the video and the argument thank you
If according to hardcore physics and materialism there is literally nothing else other than matter, then that means that the fundamental substance that forms our thoughts and dreams is simply an inward extension of the same fundamental substance that forms the stars and planets.
Now looking at that from the possibility of Berkeleyanism being true, wherein the entire universe is simply the mind of God,...
...we are thus led to the logical conclusion that if humans (within the inner context of our own minds) can willfully grasp the substance that forms the stars and planets and transform it into anything we wish (just by “thinking it” into existence), then why couldn’t God do the same thing with respect to the universe?
And what that ultimately means is that as we stand on the earth and look out into the universe, we are witnessing the extent to which the “thinking it into existence” process can be taken by a higher Being who is in possession of eternal life.
Frank Wilczek seems well accepting of the idea that our present state of life and consciousness is capable of evolving into unimaginable heights in the future.
However, he seems to be oblivious of the idea that life and consciousness may have already existed for an eternity prior to the manifestation of our little universe - a mere 13.8 billion years ago.
And the point is that consciousness could have had literally FOREVER to evolve to a level where a living entity is able to create a universe out of the living mental fabric of its very own being.
_______
We as humans know almost nothing about our own origins, not to mention the universe itself. Anything is possible. I keep an open mind to all possibilities until there is hard proof one way or the other .
Keeping an open mind is good. But pondering the likelihood of different possibilities too. If not, I have a Ming-dynasty china teapot orbiting Saturn to sell you. While we can keep an open mind, we cannot afford to treat as possible all things that are just not absolutely impossible.
I still find two things very strange. First: Why does time pass? Is there only mathematics before time, that is, before the singularity of the universe? What are those aircrafts unidentifiable? Why do they have such powerful technology? Is it really high-level aliens? Is it really a product of the wisdom of high-dimensional creatures? can we understand it?
I wish I could hit like more than once. This is fabulous
The explanation that gods are human self-projections is the most convincing to me.
I’m curious to know the “rare exceptions” to which he refers. Likewise, why would it incumbent upon the authors of ancient texts to postulate a catalogue of physical laws if such law are developed from our inquiry into how physics works?
Ancient texts? Sure, you are right. Texts that reflect the word of God? Maybe God didn't want to tell us the laws of physics, ok, But from there to being 100% wrong? (like plants existing on Earth before there was a sun). Why was God lying to us?
If only you could define "law", but you are about to demonstrate that you cannot, without reference to cognates and synonyms, or circularity. It appears that there are two kinds of law - descriptive and prescriptive, but it is such a vague generalised woolly unfocused idea/word/image, that it probably cannot be defined or focused.
@@vhawk1951kl .. Can you define anything at all in your terms? Define, I don't know, table?, without reference to cognates and synonyms or circularity. Define define. Define any of the words you used in your previous comment. Are you going to do an infinite regression or use "axiom" undefined words?
@@adb012 That is just a tantrumish confession that you cannot define your terms.
Why not just say that you cannot define your terms and have no idea what you mean by the words you use.
I can simply show you a table and say that as a table or I can tell you that it is the construction made of those materials for the purpose of putting things upon it or more simply I could show you a table, Nothing circular about that and no psychological algebra involved in that.
You don't have a degree, do you?
@@vhawk1951kl "I can simply show you a table and say that as a table or I can tell you that it is the construction made of those materials for the purpose of putting things upon it"
I am not so sure you can do that. I don't recognize the terms "show", "tell", "construction", "materials" and "on", Can you please define those terms for me, without reference to cognates and synonyms, or circularity?
And by the way, pointing to ONE table can't define "table", and "the purpose of putting things on it" can define non-tables, like a shelf.
I do admit I cannot define the words I am using in a way that meets your criteria. But you don't admit that neither can you.
Right on, Frank! 😹
_The word ‘God’ is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions._ -Albert Einstein, in letter written to Jewish philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 1954 (a year before Einstein's death)
_I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws._ -Carl Sagan in _Broca’s Brain,_ 330
You say: " I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point". As a Christian, nor do I.
Being an Igtheist, i love this guy's take
seems possible that what he predicts us to become in the future may have already happened in the past ..14 billion years is a long time..in such a large universe, why do we have to be 1st and isn't that statistically improbable..
Creation narrative in Genesis is composed of two strands: one describes the process of creation starting with "Let there be light...", (scientists call this the big bang), accompanying this creation narrative is the second narrative which culminates in Seventh Day Shabbat rest, these two narratives are intertwined together as is melody and rhythm in a piece of music.
The repetitive "And it was evening and morning..." is the rhythm section, its purpose is to introduce the 7th day Shabbat, this does not impose earthly 24hr time on the creation narrative.
It is unnecessary for Christians to insist on 6 x 24hr creation, but we are to maintain that creation emerges perfectly formed from the moment of its appearance.
Fossil evidence confirms that creation appeared perfectly formed, there is no evidence of evolution from so called lower forms, there is adaptation, but there is no species transition.
Hebrew word for "day" does not necessarily mean 24 hr earthly time, the meaning allows for very long earthly time, consistent with scientific observation.
Crucial point to defend for Christians is that creation is "very good" from the get go, and does not evolve across species boundaries.
Regarding nature of Man: Man is the embodied breath of Life, this breath of Life is our mind. Man consists of: physical body, the mind, and language. The physical body is me, the mind is me, the word is me, a triune unity.
Did Ludwig Wittegenstein had a sense of humor ??
Or did he over looked something in the Tractatus ?
Thanks
the only issue with this philosophically, is the belief is a monistic materialist ontological structure is as big a leap of faith as a theistic structure. particularly when that system is clearly incomplete. ie we still don't most of the things we'd most like to know. math and science describe/explain/predict processes. to say that everything is a just process seems to me a rather incomplete, dogmatic ontology. anything that falls outside the range of a still largely mysterious process isn't a valid question. what happened before the big bang, not valid. what s the primary cause? not valid. what is time? not valid. this is a closed system of belief. if physics describes everything why doesn't describe what's going on inside black holes or the beginning of the universe or before the beginning? even given the possibility that it will (which is just another leap of faith), i personally dont see myself as a process. i think outside of dogmatic thinking most people don't see themselves or the world around them as only a process. process encapsulates part of a whole. what am i as a living organism in time? what is anything beyond the process of its makeup and behavior? physics works, math works, but it is giving an incomplete picture of what is going on. its not saying what anything actually is. i think, i feel pain, genocide is wrong. yes there are chemicals and electrical currents in my brain which correspond to these thoughts and emotions, there are evolutionary explanations for this process, but this is only the process. not what i actually am. not what the thought is. or what anyone or anything is. a tree is a tree. it is not a process. what is that thing that is tree? what is that thing which is me?
The options are something from nothing, perpetual motion or an organizing principle like intelligent design.
your options are ceaser, waldorf and potato salad
Rick D: Exactly right. And all are counterintuitive and unattractive in my opinion!
I prefer a fourth option. Unintelligent design. Non-sentient, powerful. How intelligent is an ant? How powerful is the "concept" of courage? How courageous an ant in battle, or a man's struggle to survive.
Does courage exist within this universe? Or just an illusion, it's not real, never happened. If I snap my fingers within this space, in a trillion years, did it not happen? Love, not real. Hope, cowardice, generosity. Never happened. Does the ant create this courage by it's existence or manifest a pre-existing power? The concepts themselves are powerful? Do they pre-exist thought? Courage, love, fear, cowardice. Are they real? Powerful? Enough to affect the course of history? Are they made of atoms? You can't place them on a table, point and say, oh! That is the form that courage takes! You can't measure them, weigh them or split their atoms. They are real within this space yet they are formless? Or else they don't exist at all, just an illusion. Could we entertain the possibility that there are very real things of two categories? That which is made of atoms and that which is formless. Why is one more believable than the other? Without creating mythologies to explain anything could we look at what is right before our eyes? Start with what is here now. Within this space.
One day when we are all old and gray. Somewhere in between this life and the next. In that moment of transition is where we will find "God" as to what name or other identifying features that you have in your Pantheon of Religious beliefs and/or Dogmas of past literatures and non-specific texts as well as any oral histories past down through the Centuries that have found there way to your heart and soul. Will surely be remembered and recognized by the sublime and brilliance of that quiet whisper that beckoned to you in that deep dark slumber. Where it whispered you're true name and called you into the light of this World. But I must digress and disagree simply because it will come pass when "God" is discovered for all the world to see. It will be shown to all of us at once how "All This" works. To be honest I don't think I would want to know. Something that binds us altogether but yet keeps us separate. Something that speaks to all of us and tells us that we are loved but then there is all that is wrong with this World and we scream and shout (Name) when Something effects us in a bad or tragic way. Something that watches over You, Me, the next door Neighbor. Something that puts the right "People" in the right spot at the right time to save someone. Something that makes the little hairs on the back of your neck stand up when you sense approaching danger or are being put in harm's way. Something that tells all of us right from wrong when faced with a decision as to whether we should act or not. Something not of this World but made manifest by us so we can cast our burdens as well as our Sin upon this Being. Something that makes us question our own existence in a double-blind study where we don't know who gets the real stuff or the placebo. Something that is checking off names in the great book of life with all it's characters and plot twists. Than saying Wow! I can't believe this is a really good page turner but it is really thick. Something that propels us ever foward on the path of this life with all it dangers, dreams, nightmares and sublime hopes. Than has the audacity to not showup anywhere or anytime.
I don't believe Science will ever come close to any answer that awaits us in far far future of our evolution. But I do have Faith in the Human Spirit that we will break through this plateau of "Whatever the Hell this World is going through." Because it is strange times we are going through. All of us.
Everyone stay safe out there! My thoughts and prayers are with yall.
Peace.
Is there a God? Not yet.
I'm sorry, I'm finding this discussion shallow. Since we are at the 'top' of a proven very long evolutionary chain starting with atoms and ending with consciousness, the question if a cosmic intelligence once triggered this by fine-tuning the forces doesn't make sense any more with the claimings of any religion. If the programmer exists and we are part of the program, we are on a looped circle, otherwise on a straight line. That's the only - and very important of course - difference.
Proven and to whom how, and to what standard?
Are you telling me that you buy that religious mumbo-jumbo about some fantasy called evolution?
If we only would admit the place of our supositions and not mix them with what we believe is a real fact of life!
Dr Wiczek can you explain how physics becomes chemistry becomes biology, that is how atoms that you study assemble into the complexity of chemistry and life, any theories?
Read a biochemistry textbook. It's hardly something that can be explained in a 10 minute video.
God=energy
@@johnyoutube6746 Life is a gift, a package full of miracles, a package the size of the universe, much too heavy for Man to lift, attached to this package is an invoice, this invoice we can read and it will explain what is in the package, it is the Bible.
@@henryfirus6856
Life is not a gift but its a cursed
Our body is cursed to old and die
@@johnyoutube6746 A but John Life is not to blame for unhappiness regardless of age, unhappiness is caused by deficiency of wisdom and Love.
Life can become happy, let us never loose faith hope and Love.
Faith Hope and Love are happy emotions, knowing that we are the embodied breath of Life, created to live eternally in a family relationship with our Creator restores the dignity to our human nature.
Read the invoice to the package of Life, there is no other way to truth.
I don't know why some think Wilczek is great. He didn't answer anything, just dismissing everything as not acceptable.
Did you hear the absurd and childish questions? "Mister Wilczek, what can Science say about the possibility of Thanos be real"??
ya he also comes across as super smug and dismissive.
@@tom3fitzgerald That is what I see when he speaks. Smug asshat.
Spot on
He was asked for his opinions. He gave them. You'd rather he were dishonest?
If nothing is eternal, then one day our universe will cease to exist including us.
In the moment that there is intelligence in the universe, technology can change the fate of the cosmos, if we survive millions of years.
Nah, the whole caboodle is eternal - in one form or another. We have always been a part of it - in one form or another. We will always be a part of it - in one form or another. You're 100% free to disagree.
I thought the whole point of science or knowledge was that it obviated the need for, or the occurrence of, that great weakness passive acceptance without question or belief, and if that be right, "scientists believe" is an oxymoron, because knowledge is the exact opposite of passive acceptance without question or belief, so it is bit like saying fish bicycle or cycle; if the idea is to know - directly immediately personally experience as directly immediately and personally as pain, then belief or passive acceptance without question is an obstacle to that, or it is impossible to distinguish direct immediate personal experience as direct immediate and personal as pain from passive acceptance without question or separate the wheat from the tares. If men are incapable of distinguishing passive acceptance without question or belief from knowledge or direct immediate personal experience as direct immediate and personal as pain, then they will always remain passive or asleep - no more than dreamers, So the test is whether it is active or passive, and plainly knowledge or direct immediate personal experience as direct immediate personal and pain is active, while passive acceptance without question or belief is - by definition, passive, or sleepy/dreamy, but I suppose that depends on one's aim; One's aim is to reach, arrive at the kingdom of heaven or awakening, then anything that makes that more difficult or impossible is a disadvantage or what some people call "bad"
Ps: Even Scientists need a mass of Passives to believe them without having carried out the science themselves. Have Faith in the science....s
@@justinshadrach829 I'm not sure that they*need*passive believers, but there is certainly no shortage those that passively believe or just the generally passive dozy and credulous.
I'm not altogether convinced the soi-disant scientists themselves ever actually carried out any experiments but certainly those that sheep-like swallow anything prefaced with "scientists say", as if they were the high priests of some religion for the sheep to passively accept everything that they are told without question - certainly without verifying anything for themselves, and of course if you want to make these things up, you know for a certainty that the sheep will never in 1 million years seek to verify anything, bah bah bah atoms bah bah bah electoral bah bah bah gravitational waves - the fact that all those are pure fantasy and then simply been invented never crosses their poor sheep like minds.
Apparently some chap called Democritus dreamed that the idea of atoms, and I wonder what others said when he strolled into the angora or whatever it was and said whatever he said about atoms - presumably whence did you get that daft idea?
Tell the sheep that you doubt atoms and it is like telling a devout goddist that you doubt God; the former is heresy or iconoclasm thus scientism is a religion - they really do*believe*all that guff about atoms although they have never verified anything about it whatsoever ever bah bah bah atoms they say and if you ask them if they've ever seen or experienced an atom, it is like asking a devout goddist whether he has ever seen or experienced God - hysterics and horror!- But nobody doubts atoms all the other sheep are convinced that all the other sheep are convinced that all the other sheep are convinced there are atoms although they have absolutely no experience or direct personal immediate evidence of them whatsoever. If you want to turn otherwise normally sceptical rational human beings into credulous imbecile children the trick of it is to what is called "educate" them or as the Jesuits say give me a child until he is seven and I have got him for life, talk about state for religion or religions of the state!
As we all know, God is outside time and space, invisible to all our senses and instruments.
In other words, non-existent. But people in their millions talk to him every day !
The only thing science can do with God is study the mental state of those people.
Neil Turock taught that the extremes of quantum mechanics and cosmology are astonishingly simple. Please look up and read Joseph Smith’s 12th° of flosis of the Egyptian alphabet and tell me if that’s accurate or not please. he describes perfectly our position in the galaxy the veil of dust obscuring the heavens and the 15 governing bodies 100 years before it was even known that we were in a galaxy. which I commented on in your last interview with Mr Wilczeck
"What Can Science Say About God?" That he only exists in the mind of the fools and ignorants...
I always enjoy listening physicists on God, but most of them just deny the existence of a higher being. I want to become a theist with science but... It seems i can't.
failed to answer at 5.30, the logic of need of smth explaining the God is naive.
Very smart and articulate, but struggling to stay awake when he speaks 😂
Don't be so hard on yourself, it is not your fault that you have the attention span and wits of a goldfish, or perhaps garden furniture- Not everyone gets dealt a good hand in that bridge or poker game that some call the conditions in which they find themselves or life; very often these things are inherited or what is called genetic, and if your causes or parents were halfwits it will follow as the night the day that so will you be, and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about that, so it could not possibly be your fault that you have the wits and attention span of garden furniture. No amount of wishing it were otherwise can turn passive interactive; if you were born, or for some reason cannot help being, passive, then no amount of wishing it were otherwise can alter that, just as no amount of wishing it were otherwise can enable you to stand on your own shoulders, but it is foolish to make a virtue a weakness, but foolishness comes from passivity, as do hope belief which are self-evidently passive; every magnet has two ends or poles positive and negative, or active and passive, and the magnet is not responsible for either
Or he’s just boring sounding no matter what, sorry if you have a crush on him.
Carl Sagan would say that it "God" is an extraordinary claim.
until god telepathically says im here believe n me and my beloved son fast pray be your most loving self
God is not a Good Theory (Sean Carroll)
very disappointing. how 'bout a question on freewill? how 'bout why is there something instead of nothing? if the question who made god is a knock out blow, then why isn't where did matter come from a knockout blow?
@zempath if god prefers vanilla over strawberry, does that mean vanilla is a better flavor? or is god allowed to have an opinion?
@zempath why, you have quesitons?
Doubt is a place where hope dies ,Hope is a place where doubt dies .Science does not explain the supernatural, The conscious spirit ,Questions of morality must be answered with our heart not our minds there lies hope in God, and that path is with Christ
God could just be super advanced aliens that make universes in their spare time.
but they would have to be eternal--how does this differ from GOD? We know the universe had a cause(big bang) so there has to be an unmoved mover. It all had to come from somewhere. Aliens,God or whatever had to be the first thing and that has to be eternal.
@@Gatorbeaux god is eternal and he is the first uncreated being
@@dvdbox360 agree 100%
To play devil's advocate, assuming that there are only two options: 1. An independent being created the world, or 2. The world created itself from nothing. Both may be hard to swallow, but neither has been proven, "scientifically," one way. No one has proven that there is scientific evidence that God does not exist, and no one has proven that the world did not create itself from nothing. Always be careful of personal bias when making, "scientific," claims. Just because an idea fits your world view does not mean it is true.
Some suggest that the concept of God is nothing more than a coping skill that derrived with the help of evolution (people need meaning and safety to function well, so our minds invented the concept to satisfy this need). On the other hand you can argue the same for people who have a need to deny the conept of God may rely on scientific (or science sounding concepts) to meet their need for order and control. Anyone who states or implies that they have this figured out lacks credibility, as their is bias in their system.
The man that says God is dead then the man dies and God says that man is dead. I don't think God has the last laugh, but no one can beat the creator or God himself.
What can science say about god?
It is not good for man to be alone.
Hence why it is said not that god is god but instead that...
god is LOVE
I like how Frank Wilczek is the first interviewee to heartily laugh at the ridiculousness of a RLK question. The answer is obvious. When RLK asks is it possible God created the laws of physics then the next question would be "Who created God?". So RLK says what if God is self-existing and can prevent the infinite regress "causation"? Then Mr. Wilczek laughs and says how could we possibly understand the properties of a creator? I think RLK is a learned man but when he takes philosophical agruments and subjects them to the scrutiny of intelligent scientists, I think most of them as politely as possible tell RLK that he's mostly making irrational logical leaps and asking pointless questions.
Not sure how to feel about your question lol.
The questions he asked are legit, and he doesn't seem to be able(or just isn't) to think about God apart from science. Now Frank did ask what can science say about God, which I think is bizarre.
@Michael Ellingsworth This to me sounds like the words of a human mind trying to explain ideas that could easily be wrong, but defining them and rationalizing other ideas that could be (and in fact are most likely) wrong. I have no problem with RLK and others asking whatever questions they like. It should be obvious by now those questions cannot be answered by science. Furthermore, it annoys me that RLK seem to speak with confidence on these questions that are IMO pointlessly vague. If your brain requires answers to these questions that’s fine. But if I offer an opinion, and you don’t like it. I don’t care because the philosopher’s arguments are on as thin of ice as the theologians. Personally I’m indifferent to these questions because they take minimal and uncertain scientific ideas and twist them into something that is their bias. Nothing more. Not discovery but preaching in both cases.
@Michael Ellingsworth I think I touched a nerve. Theses questions you have for me. They speak more loudly about your bias than anything. If you can’t think one vague argument, statement or assumption that RLK makes in this or any of his videos, then you are clearly not arguing in good faith and have lost.
@Michael Ellingsworth Closer to Truth (by RLK) titles:
Why did our universe begin?
***Why according to whom? Motivation why or is his question how did our universe begin?
Did it have a beginning or just exist in another state?
( I won't belabor the point regarding vagueness)
How do human brains function? (another CTT video)
*** Is he asking about the biology of the brain, neurons, neurotransmitters...
Is he asking about consciousness?
What is Ultimate reality? (CCT video)
***What does he mean by Ultimate Reality?
What properties does ultimate reality have?
Can a human mind even comprehend human reality?
Frank Wilczek just makes more politely the points that I bring up about RLK's thought process. I'm guessing you are a philosopher or have studied philosophy at some point. Is argument the best way to understand and explain the natural universe? Or is scientific experiment a better way to explain it? I don't know what scientism is but please explain it to me and tell me how it is inferior to philosophy? And please explain how Wilczek's smug eviseration of RLK is wrong? Seems to me RLK is not seeking to get closer to truth but rather he attempts to undermine science and in many cases RLK gets crushed. Science and exist and progress without philosophy, but philosophy cannot exist without science.
closertotruth.com/series/why-not-nothing-part-1#video-2461
god was a dream of good governmnet
Truth,Beauty and Goodness is what Einstein always looked for in his life. His understanding of this world ie. relativity and so on was not an interpretation of some ancient text or from education. When it came time to die Albert graciously left without any intervention from modern medicine which could have prolonged his life. Somewhere along his road he found the grace of leaving this world graciously finding what he was looking for. Something made him feel good. :-) Nikola Tesla knew he was connected to the divine mind and he said what is physics to one man is god to another. AC current over 300 US patents and a Christian who said all truth is written in the bible. Frank himself speaks of ancient texts without understanding. He himself writes books and books but nothing really of substance is received from them, in essence things that will eventually fall down around him with the weight of this matter. I myself follow the path of truth, beauty and goodness because it moves me forward and frees my thoughts of living.
Think this guy is missing the point in the arguments mentioned about. In fairness I don't Frank gave good defenses nor did he state them correctly
occam for the win. shave it away, it is superfluous and unnecessary.
Occam tells us the most likely route to get to the truth quickest. It says nothing whatsoever about what the actual truth is, despite what many people think. Just look at how we currently think the Universe works - it's hardly the simplest possibility. But to get there we had to use Occam, otherwise our investigations would have been waylaid with endless wild goose chases.
i think you misunderstand the relevance of occam here. the maxim is to "not needlessly multiply entities." in terms of explaining the laws of physics, postulating a conscious entity with qualities never observed, like being all powerful, eternal, invisible, non-biological etc as their cause may well be an intuitively convincing idea (as with the earth being flat and at the center of the universe, and humans being completely unrelated to other animals, and there being immaterial souls etc) but it is on the same level as postulating that maybe aliens zapped a kid's homework into another dimension, when they fail to produce it.
since we have no evidence for aliens existing, we tend to default to the dog eating the homework being more likely, and the kid not having done the homework at all as being most likely. could aliens have zapped his homework into another dimension? sure, but the likelihood is incredibly, incredibly small....
i think of the intersection of occam, critical thinking in general, and bayesian reasoning, as they relate to scientific method, as a sound way of considering what is more or less likely about what we don't know, based on what we do know. any kind of deity as an answer to what we don't know about physics simply fits with none of the evidence we have so far about the universe -it is as likely a hypothesis as a unicorn fart causing the big bang, or the aliens zapping away the homework. the many reasons why god as a gap filler on our current knowledge is untenable have been well argued for a long time.... though i know your temperament and level of religious sympathies/indoctrination make it unlikely those arguments will penetrate.
Julian Walker: Afterthought: I should probably try to be helpful rather than scornful. If you want some proper, decent arguments against the God of the Abrahamic traditions, try here:
czcams.com/channels/Qa6mPLOE2yuMCrDjRio_nA.html
you assume i am unfamiliar with arguments against andy and all gods (including yahweh) -wrong again, and in the comment you seem to have deleted you pretend i didn't say that occam was a way of assessing the likelihood of various hypotheses.
I've not deleted any comment. Occam is indeed "a way of assessing the likelihood of various hypotheses.", I was obviously confused by your reply to my original "Occam tells us the most likely route to get to the truth quickest. It says nothing whatsoever about what the actual truth". Your reply was "i think you misunderstand the relevance of occam here". If you had actually agreed with me I'd not have expected that reply.
Instead, I got and a post claiming things like Occam helping in deciding whether aliens zapped homework or the existence of immaterial souls. Hence my subsequent posts, because In fact Occam tell us absolutely nothing about the likelihood of either being true, despite what many people mistakenly think.
You do Frank, in Islam.
so youre telling that god a flying spaghetti monster?! ok i ll believe that :)
Very complicated things? Consciousness is literally the most complicated thing known to man. Science as an art is losing it's edge. It's approaching the end of it's arc. Science has powered individual thinking. Is there God? What god? Thee God? I often wonder what it would be like to talk like I was closer to truth. What does that phrase even mean?
Challenge for Frank: try to proove that Jedi Force doesnt exist.
Extraordinary claim, it's up to you to prove that is does.
This conversation is entangled with universe with no covid. Trump was president and Tesla was supposed to go bankrupt. Your timing consumed a lot of universe's hidden variables. If God exist it is irrelevant. If God is a word only than you have annihilated few fine universes. Good job, Jabba.
I have to agree with everything this guys said.
my neme jef
Simply, GOD IS CREATED BY HUMAN MIND.
That seems reasonable, sense God created us then we should create Him.
Palitha Wickramasekara were did humans learn the concept of God ?
@@pauldance7387 they will eventually believe
Religion is essentially selfish.
The believers think their activities and/or beliefs will be rewarded by eternal bliss in a nice place.
I have decided to sacrifice my eternal bliss and give it to the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9)
Such a brilliant answer to this nonsensical question. His laugh explains so much. :)
let me tell , there's no god . it's just the laws of physics. physics beyond the basic understanding of the today's perception of the reality
what can anyone say about god, everything buy nothing concrete. and we all just beleive. so its business as usual for all the religions. else, how common people can have money movements among themselves.
a "god" designed the universe so the universe could be comprehended? is this really what religious "thinkers" were arguing just 5 years ago? making crazy assertions about the INTENTIONS of a "god" when the mere idea itself hasn't even escaped the realm of fantasy?
Simply put no such thing of transcendence. We live, die and rot.
Hum. Material came from somewhere.
The power of the human brain given the vast expense is not explained by current evolutionary theory. Why did we need all that mental horsepower to reach Quantum Mechanics again?
So far we have let Ben Franklin down on gravity. I would say the moral structures necessary to direct our innovation to the Good - as well.
Startlingly limited reasoning. I would say Frank's reasoning can only end in our extinction. Borg comes to mind.
Nailed it Frank...
Mankind doesn't know its own
fate.
How can a man or a scientist having minute amount of knowledge of creation neglect the one who has created it.
Basit Mir
How do know God created anything..you are simply not listening!
@@rationalsceptic7634 universe had begin from big bang of infinitely dense mass what we called singularity then it blow up and universe came into existence.
1. But what was before big bang.
2. How some thing can come from nothing.
3. Who put this singularity of infinitely dense mass there and made it to bang.
Basit Mir
The Big Bang didn't cause the Universe..it is just a moment of expansion!
Singularities are like Infinities...you dont actually meet them!
According to Cosmology,there could be many expansions in a cyclic Multiverse!
Below the Planck Limit..we are ignorant of any cause..so asking what was "before" has no meaning!
Just because Causality seems to be a big part of our Universe..it allows Science..it doesn't follow the Universe needs a cause:
If I only had Red bricks,you could deduce,my Wall is red but if I had said I had only small Bricks,there is no way we could deduce any Wall I build is small or large!
So we don't know if the Universe needs a cause:
czcams.com/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/video.html
czcams.com/video/8CChnwOsg9I/video.html
czcams.com/video/79LciHWV4Qs/video.html
@@rationalsceptic7634 what u are saying are just theories their is no evidence of it.
But universe came into existence by big bang there is no doubt into it and has been confirmed by COBE.
so what u r saying we are here on this planet earth by chance.
Our existence on this planet is just a lucky chance that we got to live and too without reason.
Basit Mir
It isn't Theory...people have won Nobel Prizes to confirm it!
The Expansion began but we don't know below the Planck limit,so you are merely making Theistic Claims not grounded in reality!
What is Chance?
We exist because the Universe does!
I think this interview seems very smug! Not knowing is what it is, having a rational conversation about the writings of the past about the universe comes from a place of ignorance to enlightenment on the part of scientic views.
To be so flippant about God, in whatever form it may or may not turn out to be is rash at best.
Dr. Kuhn takes to approach that i beleive will ultimately conclude with the last sentence. "Not yet".
Not because there is or isn't a God, but because beleiving either way is true for everyone. We are at it simplest levels creators ourselves. In the image of God or God of our image. Is there any difference?
May you both be blessed and thank you so much Dr. Kuhn for this lifetime quest for truth and knowlege!!!
Great interview, Frank Wilczek got everything right up to the last 20 seconds where he answered the question "is there a God" by saying "Not yet". God is the ground of all being, the reason there is something rather than nothing, the source of all ultimate truth as in the true creator, orchestrator, evolver, guider, sustainer & supreme ruler of the cosmos. God = the laws of nature that calibrate reality and the forces of physics that achieve all reality corresponding to the laws of nature.
and he hates the gays
And he likes to design unintelligent like that narrow birthcanal in women forcing humans to come up with a medical procedure called c section...he also likes genetic diseases and empty space.
Good luck with that
@@junglebunny5673
What religion teaches that?
@@CedanyTheAlaskan All.
ending is cringey. little do you know
explaining something simple? lol Hi, Daniel Dennett.
@3:40 "...another thing you
learn from science is that the ancient texts which are the basis of most of the traditional religions don't do justice to what we know about the universe now they with rare exceptions..." Rare exceptions??? What could those be? Could it be that the ancient texts had revealed that the universe had a beginning thousands years before arrogant scientists like Wilczek found some evidence for it?
It is hardly a great revelation that the universe, at least the universe bubble we are in, had a beginnin. Either it did or it didn't, so just flip a coin and you will be right half the time. The trick is to say how and when it begun, and ancient texts are wildly wrong about that.
God=energy
@@johnyoutube6746 energy=matter, God=matter
@@elementelement8304
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed
It means there are no creator
There are no true God
Even though God is not real
People need a God father or a leader to follow and guidance and discipline and educate people from good and evil
It's all for the betterness of the humanity
I'm curious. What makes believing in multiple universes and dimensions we cant see any different from believing in a God? Isnt that science's God perse'?
Because they're not just believing in them, they're being pulled towards those ideas by evidence, and they're looking for new evidence to prove or disprove those ideas. That's very different from just believing in something
@@aroncox That's fair but, all evidences arent equal. There are intuition and feelings too. My evidence and everyone's evidences can be different. Not everything is physical.
@@robertjkuklajr3175 There I have to beg to differ, I, and science in general, don't call feelings and intuition evidence, in fact far from it. They are used to push the search for actual evidence in a direction, but have been proven to be wrong so many times they are not something to be taken too seriously. People feel and inutit all kinds of weird things, many of which are just not actually true when tested.
@@aroncox Then we differ. I'm not pushing any agenda. I know what I know personally. To each there own way. If more accurate verifiable proof comes along then I'll always keep my mind open to possibilities.
what can mathematics tell us about santa?! what can computer programming tell us about video game characters from other worlds?!
"what can mathematics tell us about santa"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAD_Tracks_Santa
Materialist atheism is based on the assumption that MATTER is primordial, whereas theism assumes that MIND is primordial. Wilczek gives reasoned answers and objections that make sense from a materialist perspective (though he doesn’t really address the question of where the laws of Physics come from), but seem simplistic if you assume an Idealist/theistic perspective. Religious belief I believe is about a fundamental shift in perspective.
the debate between materialism and idealism is very outdated and quaint. the reason science doesn't support theism or idealis, or mind/body dualism, or any perspective that mind is primary to matter is a simple one: it doesn't fit with any of the evidence we have discovered so far. beyond the outdated "debate" are ideas like emergentism that try to give an account for how mind emerges out of neurobiology to give rise to the capacity for conscious experience, mental abstraction and indeed imaginative fictions like religion.
Julian Walker LOL! I think it is you who are quaintly out of date if you think materialism is unproblematic! The “Hard Problem” is as far from a solution as ever, and the more neuroscience discovers, the more “mind” resists reduction to a physical explanation. Emergentism lacks any hint of a physical mechanism, while Panpsychism/Neutral Monism and the like -theories like Integrated Information Theory, are gaining ground.
So, far from being out of date, the question of the relationship between mental and physical aka the “Mind/Body Problem” is very much a hot topic. Science is based on an assumption of “methodological materialism”, but you should not confuse that with “ontological materialism”! For Science to “prove” materialism would be a circular argument.
If you think it’s dumb to believe that mind could precede matter, ask yourself where the Laws of Physics and rules of Mathematics existed that governed the original quantum fluctuation that created matter/energy/space/time etc. or look into the “Simulation Hypothesis”, which is not a million miles from the ideas of religion!
only true if you are pushing the dualist/idealist agenda, which hardly anyone in academic philosophy or neuroscience is these days. chalmers (who coined the "hard problem") is one rare exception. people like you (when you're being honest) use a consciousness version of the god of the gaps argument to make it seem as if supernaturalism/dualism/theism/idealism/panpsychism etc are plausible ways to plug the gaps of what we don't yet (and may never) fully understand about the unique and mind-blowing phenomenon of consciousness -but that is precisely why it is a fallacy: an absence of knowledge in any given area does not count as evidence for an implausible explanation that does not fit at all with everything we actually do know! when folks like you are being dishonest you pretend not to be theists or idealists, but merely world weary radical epistemological skeptics who make straw men out of dreaded scientific materialists, who are painted as being dogmatic atheists...... but the truth is you're clutching at straws with academic vocabulary. consciousness is an emergent property of biological evolution. the more complex the neural net, the more complex the consciousness and what it can do. period. we don't need to make up immaterial souls, gods, or disembodied consciousness to account for something that is a feature of the natural world and is altered, damaged, limited or disappears the moment damage, disease, injury or death occur to the neurobiology that gives rise to it. in fact all of those make believe constructs that have zero supporting evidence have precisely nothing to do with the topic, except in the minds of those (and you are indeed in the majority) conditioned to still take supernatural fairy tales seriously as adults.
Uremove: When you say theism assumes mind is primordial do you just mean in the sense that the theistic god exists before the Universe?
Julian Walker Julian Walker Are you surprised you are “painted as dogmatic atheists” when you dismiss any other possibility as “believing in fairy tales”?
Chalmers is far from alone in championing Panpsychism: Galen Strawson, Thomas Nagel, Gregg Rosenberg, Timothy Sprigge and Kristof Koch, to name but a few among the mainstream. None of them, as far as I’m aware, have any prior religious affiliation or motivations. Nor do I.
What worries me with statements like: “..the more complex the neural net, the more complex the consciousness and what it can do. PERIOD.” Is, it’s a question stopper. That prior dogmatic commitment to a materialist atheist worldview is as blinding as any religious dogma that stops you asking questions, or entertaining possibilities, and portrays other views as “dishonest”. Sadly it seems very common among New Atheists, yet is an anathema to questioning curiosity or unbiased scientific objectivity.
I therefore welcome the opening up to questioning curiosity by neuroscientists like Andrew Newberg and Tony Jacks investigating the nature of eg. religious experiences. It is very much NOT about recreating a god of the gaps, but being curious about religion, how transpersonal states of mind and brain interrelate, and the philosophical implications for a wider Ontology.
Therefore in saying that ‘materialist atheism is based on the assumption that matter is primordial, whereas theism assumes that mind is primordial’, I make no commitment to either - it is meant as a statement of fact. However, I do think taking a meta-perspective could enable dialogue and greater mutual understanding, rather than the creation of yet more entrenched straw man arguments based on (often deliberate) mutual misunderstandings. Science and Religion are not necessarily opposed, except in the minds of the dogmatic fundamentalists in both camps.
Such a calm lad. I would just tell mister Kuhn to fucking grow up. An ADULT repeating those childish fairy tale points its disturbing.
What the hell is he saying what made the intelligence.well the intelligence is the everlasting being.there are no such things as who made the intelligence,otherwise it won't be god
This guy(Frank Wilczek) made a self contradiction without realizing it.
Robert said "God is the first uncause cause" and Frank Wilczek replied "but that doesn't explain nothing" but a few minutes later Frank Wilczek asked "and who created that Intelligence?", that is, the answer that Robert had given and that he said did not explain anything "the first uncause cause" is the explanation for the question that Frank Wilczek asked.
If God is eternal, he is self existent, uncreated, he is a necessary being, the first uncause cause of everything, so the question "who created God" is totally meaningless, that question is nonsense when you understand the right concept of God.
God is a logical conclusion when you look to the natural World, to science, I think science points clearly to an Intelligence that created and sustains all things in existence, God gives being to everything at every moment, not only when Big Bang happened. The Big Bang was just the begginning of the process of creation. We are being created right now, creation is always happening. Evolution itself is a form of criation. God have many ways to create, criation ex-nihilo(from nothing) and continuous criation(maintenance of the Universe, evolution, renewal of all things).
I don't see any contradiction between science and religion, quite the opposite.
I think it's people who create contradictions where they don't exist.
"if God is eternal, he is self existent, uncreated, he is a necessary being, the first uncause cause of everything,"
God=energy
There is a contradiction, science works religion does not. Science is based on truth while religion is a lie all together. A bronze age mythology is contradictory to itself and science as well.
:Why didnt he go to sallys house? prob cause he believes.
Simple answers to complex realities. He too will look like ancient texts in future. Disappointed at his shallow, dismissive, arrogant, attitude.
archaeopteryx watched insects fly,,, flight wasn't new at that time.
So it had enough intelligence to adapt or did the pressure of natural selection and genetic mutations allow it to eventually fly...or both.
Or magic sky wizard used magic?
Could God be existence, consciousness, infinitesimal?
Approximately 90% of everyone in the world believe in some sort of spirit/god which is essentially a mind without a brain. This is largely due to our sense that minds and brains are separate entities because we experience them differently. We have the capacity to envision another person's mind when we interact with them which gives us the sense that we can experience other minds. This is the basis of the idea that the laws of physics and chemistry preceded the existence of matter and exist independent of matter. We should recognize that the laws of nature are simply a description of how matter acts and is an integral aspect of matter,and that minds are an integral aspect of brains. Thinking that intelligence is needed to create intelligence refutes itself when the creator intelligence doesn't need a creator.
So man is the process of becomming a god. Wow!! Then why cant there be a fullly fledged god before man is evolved into the current version? Honestly speaking no one seems to be knowledgable enough to be able to say abt the existence of god.
so, the intense, semi-sentient, almost infinitely complex organization, with defined orbitals and suborbitals, of the humblest atom, with even hydrogen having almost infinite electron energy levels, and the laws which govern each aspect, came from randomness?
where there is intense organization, there is an Ordering Intelligence.
i remember when i was a kid,it was trendy to wear your watch like he is. #theirisagod
Before I watch: the right answer should be "nothing".
God=energy