I try to be cool with religious minded people. And just let it go when they go off the deep end. But I've never heard one rational argument from a religious person for why they think an obvious fairytale is anything but.
Can you explain why God permitted the era of the dinosaurs to last for 150 million years and then sent an asteroid to destroy them all? Did he find their antics boring?? Also, why did he wait for another 150 million years before he put man on the Earth?
“You can explain the major tenants of any religion-major doctrines of any religion-in less than half an hour. It takes a bit longer to study physics” slam dunk homie
What If , the knowledge of God has not yet been shown to you clearly enough, and that's why you look for affirmity in athiesm, maybe because you fear the judgement of a creator you seek this...I know because that's why I'm here lol. No seriously I do believe there is a God.
Maybe it's not clear because there is nothing to see. No evidence and no data or anything supernatural has ever been demonstrated. That for which there is no evidence or data cannot rationally be the cause of anything. Every cause we've ever learned for anything has been natural. There have been no exceptions.
Grayling is a weapons grade moron. He accused Boris Johnson of doing more damage to Britain than the blitz; an absolute insult to the thousands who were blown to pieces, burnt to death or crushed as a consequence if Nazi bombs. When it comes to atheism, he is a moral coward who only takes on one religion, without the courage to tackle certain other belief systems.
The blitz strengthened the UK's resolve. Brexit is dismantling it from the inside... Still... do not think a bit of hyperbole out of context is a bigger deal than it is.
I don't use the term "supernatural" referring to God because atheists mean "impossible" or " not real". God is reality. God is necessary for existence because it is impossible the existence of the creation without the creator therefore a reality that transcends the finitude of the universe of an infinite nature exists. Incredibly enough if you ask atheists to define God they would not answer correctly "the creator of the creation", and they believe they already won the debate with the most emblematic nonsensical remark of atheism "who created god?"!. Atheists don't understand if an encyclopedia was written explaining the obvious why asking "who created what is not created?" doesn't make sense!. Incredibly enough if you ask atheists to define "creation" they would not answer correctly "what has a beginning of existence or is not eternal, like for example yourself", and they are ignorant of the theological arguments like the kalam cosmological argument that says everything with a beginning of existence has a cause, because it is impossible the existence of infinite causes and effects a first uncaused cause that is the origin of the creation must exist, God. Didn't i explain enough why atheism is a cult inmune to arguments that harms innocent and vulnerable children that wants you ignorant? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The atheist fallacy would test your IQ and the error in reasoning is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy needs to be news.
You're just defining God into existence. Creation therefore Creator Design therefore Designer Contingency therefore Necessity ... The world may very well be made of both temporary and permanent things, but the permanent stuff isn't automatically a god. The permanent stuff (if it exists) only becomes a god when the animals (humans in this case) tell themselves a human-centric story about the permanent stuff in order to bring meaning and hope and importance to their lives.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Would you listen to me because I may know something that you don't? Would you change your mind because you claim to be rational, open minded, understanding and seek the truth? Would you memorize and understand a logical fallacy that is censored to preserve knowledge and not lie to innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheists commit the atheist fallacy always, everytime they open their mouths, because they believe God is sky daddy and don't believe God exists. If God is unarguably the most important and talked about idea that forms all our psychology, behavior and understanding of reality and after fortunes of public money squandered on education atheists don't know God is the creator of the universe is because the cult deceived you manipulating the information with disastrous consequences. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. And you tell them and they don't care.
@@donaldmcronald8989 I am a psychologist and if you don't understand what "to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news" means you need a good psychologist. A great psychologist. The best. What do you understand by "to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news"? I am joking? I am serious? An innocent and vulnerable kid would jump to the opportunity to end the war in Ukraine just by being news knowledge that should not be censored in the first place. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I have lived long enough to know Nobel Prizes are given to friends and family and humanity would not say the truth under torture to save oneself, let alone their own innocent and vulnerable children, and when they are told they don't care. Could I know something that you don't? Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong not knowing God is the creator of the universe?
This talk was very thorough, but seemed rather long-winded. I think that I got the message before the halfway point, but he went on and on. It amazes me that none of these lecturers, theists, etc. has read even one book by Idries Shah on Sufism. Of course, there are many false gurus in this world. But it must be admitted as a well-known fact that there have been many saints in the world who need no proof of the truth of anything. But no mention of them or their achievements are mentioned. I do believe that there are many and they are men of knowledge. You cannot prove that there is no spiritual world when you cannot sense it, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Perhaps when you die, you will find that it does, but it will be too late. Science cannot explain many things, e.g. why the speed of expansion of the universe is accelerating, etc. Another thing: does it matter if there is a god or not? I think that people do what they think is right for many different reasons, whether they believe in a god or not.
Worrying about the afterlife is the problem. Some religions endorse and encourage the individuals to create an ego by blaming it and praising it for its actions. Those egos then go on to fear their death and fight for an afterlife full of pleasure. Other religions are more active in ensuring that you NEVER create an ego in the first place... and so you never begin to feel as though you own yourself or created yourself. There is no separation. There is only Being.
Krauss has been obliterated and exposed as a substandard physicist in the NY Times article of March 23 2012 by Columbia University Professor of Philosophy David Albert; ph.D in theoretical physics (Professor Albert has also written a textbook on Quantum Mechanics).Never has a book by a physicist been so annihilated in a NY Times article for at least 2 decades. Krauss says some of the dumbest comments imaginable and can hardly state he is a qualified physicist because he is not.David Albert is 1000 times a superior physicist and philosopher.
Nothingness is not a state from out of which things can pop. Whatever it is that exists instead of nothingness, it either explains itself (internally) or is ultimately just there, and we'll never have the language to talk about why. That goes for gods and universes.
Of course cell phones don't just pop into existence. They are created by an invisible genie for which there is no evidence. How could you possibly argue with that?
The only way to explain the beginnings of the universe AND life is with INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Whether you choose to describe it as a "sky" God, or a Biblical "God" is a separate argument.
No.There are many hypotheses but no scientists claim to know. That would be irrational... only creationists know because they have some bronze age stories. The universe itself could just be a brute fact. The idea that it must be created is just assuming everything works the way humans do. It doesn't.
that`s a strawman gimmick;but I will upset you this cozy vision,you have put the cart before the horse;yes,the design is discernible,but the intelligence "behind" is not outside of it;this is the intelligence the process ,no a designer.
So because something can't come from nothing it was "obviously" created by something that came from nothing. Just make up a creator and your creation is explained. No. There's no validity to an argument where you can't prove the premises. It's an intellectually stupid argument. Because we don't know the answer does not imply anything but our ignorance.
I love how the guy runs around handing the microphone, not without considerable effort, to each person with a question. Shame it wasn't turned on. However, I don't really like not hearing the question.
Atheists need no arguments to not accept a story. Do you need an argument to not accept that there are trolls? No. It's just a lack of evidence. Theists need evidence to expect us to believe their claim. There is none... so far at least. Not a speck of evidence or data.
The creation vs evolution debate was done to the death years ago. Evolution lost, it's protagonists could not propose any argument that the information contained in DNA could come about by mutant genes and natural selection.
It's not Creation vs Evolution. It's Creation vs Abiogenesis. This shows how ignorant Creationists are. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Even if there is no evolution, that doesn't mean there is a god. Evolution is a fact, can be shown. I don't get why some theists still try to argue against it. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life or if there is a god or not.
@@Jingleschmiede Evolution is seen as their enemy because they want to believe a Supernatural Sky-God made the Universe 6000 years ago. It's really all about the vainglorious hope of an Afterlife. They want to believe they are "special" and "won't die" - surrendering to a soothing fantasy to salve an overwhelming fear of death is an offer too good for them to refuse. Apparently.
That's just nonsense. Evolution is the basis of ALL biology and has been for a century. It is completely uncontroversial except to creationists who tend to not know or to ignore actual science.
Professor Grayling admitted that all science can be updated by new evidence, and therefore nothing is 100% certain, but different beliefs have very different probabilities of being 'true.' The word 'true' means 'corresponding to reality, so that if we base our behavior on their correctness, our actions will have the outcomes that we expect. The reason that people are reluctant to abandon belief in a god, is not merely because it is institutionalized, but because believing in god is likely to modify the believer's behavior in the direction of altruism within that culture. If we behave more altruistically, all others will tend to be more altruistic in return, and therefore our lives will be more successful. Thus, in societies where most people adopt a religion, all believers may obtain a biological advantage in conforming, which is quite independent of the fact that god is scientifically, only a metaphor for good behavior.
A leading scientist ...very powerful experiment...agreed scientific position by all leading researchers in the field....what more truth did Newton want?
Animals fight for resources. Humans continued to evolve. When the concept of money came along, that fight for resources became all about the accumulation of wealth. *The rich had to exploit the poor further so they developed religion.* The starving poor didn't pay for the 'places of worship'. The illiterate poor didn't codify religion. Capitalists could whitewash their exploitation of the poor by throwing a little dough the church's way. God / heaven / hell are all obviously illogical / impossible. Capitalists wanted cannon fodder (for war), big market places and vast labour pools. To maximise profits. Hence religion soon pushed misogyny and procreation. Now, what's that _Occam's Razor_ thing all about? #ZenAndTheArtOfSavingLifeOnEarth
"God / heaven / hell are all obviously illogical / impossible." Wow. Hey tiny brain, how did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Can't listen to the waffling on. How would he explain the incorruptible Nun, Sr. Wilhelmina, who was found this way in Missouri recently. She died in 2019. She was not embalmed. And explain all the other incorruptible people. You can't, apart from a miracle.
Yeah, sure. The very Creator of the Universe popped-down to planet Earth and saved a dead nun from rotting. He didn't save any children from cancer, or feed the starving millions while he was visiting - too busy saving a dead nun from rotting (!?).
@@donthesitatebegin9283 "The very Creator of the Universe...." Are you aware of how creation happened on its own? Do share your great wisdom and how you defeated well-established science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block When I want advice from a simple-minded buffoon with significant mental-health issues and a Narcissistic-Grandiose Personality Disorder, I'll ask you. In the meantime, keep insulting people with your projections - and don't forget to copy/paste your comical "proof" that your Supernatural Sky-God must be "the correct one" - for the millionth time.
@@donthesitatebegin9283Narcissism ✅️ Delusion ✅️ Bully tactics ✅️ Zero self-awareness ✅️ Prone to belief in fantasy ✅️ Is actually Gepetto from Pinocchio ✅️ Unable to defend resurrection ✅️✅️✅️ He's the total package 😂
Since he doesn't follow science, he likes to make up whatever he wants. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Maybe that's the only way they can make a point since they can't do it by evidence. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
If the species of apes called "humans" would not have come into existence some two hundred thousand years ago, the concept "god" would not have come into existence neither! All religions are man-made but there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator!
What there is no evidence of is that you think and know much. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@daviddeida ?????the fact that you sent me a reply undermines your own statement! Logic, you know! But because you and I DO exist, I can wish you a pleasant day!
@@rudysimoens570 No it does'nt undermine the statement.No doubt a body wrote the comment,as neuroscience has proven what you call you did'nt decide to write a comment,it happened inspite of you.What you call you then says I will write a comment and claim authorship.This is the materialistic view,you are nothing but a mere thought void of any personal doership or authority.A meat puppet.
@@karlschmied6218 OK, you were being ironic. So get serious now and show how smart you are in how the universe created itself. How can that be? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block What do you have against the laws of thermodynamics? Do not lecture me, I am an old physicist ;-) Physics today stands for some things we "know". By "know" I mean that we can "handle" things that we couldn't before. We have some consistent mathematical models. This does not mean that physics will not evolve, nor does it mean that it will one day be "perfect". Does that mean that "a god" and, from your point of view, your god of all things, has to come along to fill the probably eternal gaps in human knowledge? Not at all, in my opinion. Why should our limits of "understanding" be a proof for "your" "God"? I don't see our inability to fully comprehend a garage as evidence for your or any "god". Gods are human figments to calm the fear of loss of control and death. A certain idea of death leads to this fear and to a religious fantasy as an antidote. In my view, this is a kind of belief in a super Easter bunny for "adults." There are many groups with incompatible such religious ideas.
@@karlschmied6218 "What do you have against the laws of thermodynamics?" I gave them in a brief fashion. I have nothing against them. Don''t blame me for your horrible reading skills, not to mention, your tiny brain. In all your blah blah, NOTHING got around what I gave! At least realize you have NOTHING but a tiny brain.
41:00 - Atheist is a theist word - it is "someone outside of our belief ststem" - like in a stamp collectors circle, they may refer to an uninterested person as a "non-stamp collector" - or in a certain world view, they refer to Trump haters! (Count me as one!)
You tiny brains are going in the direction of doom. Thinking is not part of you. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@DB-qw6xq And you're really sure, are you, that Jesus wasn't born because of an 'interaction' with Joseph? Read the beginning of Matthew - Mat1:1 The book of the generation of *Jesus Christ,* the son of David, the son of Abraham. Note that - the generation of who? Matthew goes through a long list of who begat whom, from Abraham all the way down to ... Mat1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Now explain to me how that is the generation of Jesus Christ if Joseph was unrelated to Jesus! Why look to the supernatural when there's a perfectly simple, natural explanation that we can all relate to?
@@DownhillAllTheWay wow, you're a bit slow there, fella. It was too much for you to read.....verses 17 to 25 which it explained it CLEARLY that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, God was. How you missed that should be embarrassing to you. "Now explain to me how that is the generation of Jesus Christ if Joseph was unrelated to Jesus!" Joseph was the stepfather. Nothing was difficult in understanding that but somehow it was to you.
@@2fast2block OK - so "Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, God was". Having spent 6 years in a catholic boarding school, being indoctrinated with this stuff day in, day out, I knew that anyway - but you agree then that Matthew sets out to prove the lineage of Christ, and winds up proving the lineage of somebody who wasn't related to Christ. He did a really good job there! It's a shame we can't take the DNA of Jesus - we'd find out stuff about the holy ghost! But as I said before, why turn to the supernatural, for which there has *never* been any proof of *anything,* when there is a natural explanation for which there is as much evidence as anybody could desire? Most guys these days don't wait till antwhere near the first night of marriage, but we are to believ that Joseph married Mary, was travelling with him for the census, presumably sleeping with her - and she was still a virgin? What are the chances? I don't know anything about you (apart from your being very gullible), but imagine that you had a teenaged daughter, who comes home one evening and says "Guess what, Dad - I'm pregnant - but don't worry, I'm still a virgin." I guess you'd throw up your hands and say "Praise be to God - it's a miracle!" ........ No, I didn't think you would. I'm sure women getting pregnant was not unknown 2023 years ago either - and after all - they were married. So why was it important that she was a virgin? Well, Matthew's gospel wasn't written at the time of Mary's pregnancy - it was written in about the year 85 CE, long after the death of Jesus, when his name had become famous as a demigod. So he had to be given the attributes of a demigod - half man, half god. The "man" half has to come from his mother - because she is easily identified - so the divine (god) part must come from the father. Then all the stuff in verses 17-15 were simply an eleboration of the story, long after it happened, to make it credible to a gullible population of followers who *_wanted_* to believe it. I'm sure that virgin births were not the norm at the time, they were by no means unknown. Alexander the Great, Hercules, Dionysus, and Perseus, Plato, Romulus, the first Roman emperor Augustus - in short, the concept of a virgin birth was in people's minds, so when one was declared, it would not be rejected out of hand. it seemed like a possibility. Now, however, we know it's *not.* If you're interested (probably, you're not, because you don't want anything to challenge your deeply held beliefs) have a look at www.rivalnations.org/many-virgin-births/ (about a page and a half) and listen (less that a minute) to ua-cam.com/users/shortsyTA4nDhq7SU If you refute what I have said here, please state the specific points you disagre with, and give links to your sources, as I have.
Gas lighting "scientific truth" and gobbledygookto appeal to lazy minds. That God exists is continually demonstrated to humans - but most humans are more interested in their own egos (and listening to bollocks like this) that God passes them by.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 look at anything, therefore God. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
AC has trouble with basic science and can't see what an embarrassment he truly is. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
This awful man appeals to the like minded. He is not Plato and is unlikely to be. He should study with an unbiased mind the works of Carl Jung. Their ideas are to be realised not just read. To understand the niceness of orange juice, you need to experience it, not just read about it.
Great, but faith is not subject to rationality. The bible even tells people to ignore rationality. Well, it has to. Right? I thought it was an excellent talk but while he made a good case that atheism is rational there was no proof of anything. It's still that there is no evidence that God does exists... not proof that it doesn't exist.
"The bible even tells people to ignore rationality. Well, it has to. Right?" No, God says to prove all things. What you clueless beings do is take a verse like Hebrews 11:1 and think that's the whole meaning of faith when in that context it was talking about a future event not seen yet. It's too much for your slow mind to follow context though. Now, atheistic types go by BLIND faith. Like the universe coming about on its own with NO evidence that can be. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@BubbaF0wpend got it, this is how creation of the universe happened on its own and got around the laws I gave... "Ignorino/Gepetto; why do you believe the resurrection happened?" What other mindless replies do you have about creation?
@@2fast2blockIgnorino/Gepetto! I've never seen anyone so keen to dodge defending the core proposition of their whole worldview! It's honestly fascinating! Seems that your belief in the resurrection is just a result of indoctrination + Texas echo chamber. Amazing one can get to 70 and still never have even questioned why they think a man resurrected 2000 years ago! Obviously it hasn't been seriously considered, otherwise you'd have taken the many opportunities I've given to give a real answer defending it. But... nothing. At. All. jesus would be sorely disappointed (if he existed today, which, obviously, he doesn't).
@@2fast2block : Something had to happen on it's own, why not a universe? It doesn't have to be constructed in some human fashion like a bicycle. The fact is that no one knows how the universe began. Creationists just make up a genie and POOF all their questions are satisfied... but that just kicks the can down the road and explains nothing of substance. Scientists are not satisfied so they examine the facts we know and try to find out.
I hear ya, his tiny brain hidden by his hair can't help him either. BASIC science shows he does not follow science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Thinking people know and that's NOT you. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@Jørgen Storm yu are totally entitled to yur opinion but if that is so would you please tell me Einstein why is it that loads of scientists cannot and never ever ever could tell us exactly how and when the world began etc etc most scientists are atheists yet they have absolutely no idea to most basic questions which are put to them
@Jørgen Storm we have a tiny brain like Miller right here that gave this as evidence that the universe did create itself and got around the laws I gave by... "Believing in invisible skydaddies is totally stupid." See, when I say they have tiny brains, they really make it obvious.
I am a Christian and I really admire these discussions. I do not go to church anymore because I have found that the typical sermon is just an emotional attempt to affirm people's beliefs. What I really admire about this is how he explained the freedom in science, how there is not fear of truth or discovery in the way religion has tried to suppress other forms of thinking, but rather encourages it. The act of suppression of other forms of thinking is really an indication of one's own insecurity in their beliefs. But so far science and the study of other faiths has confirmed what I believe
I don't go to church either but I'm not gullible like you with your silly..."What I really admire about this is how he explained the freedom in science" as if this tiny brain actually follows science. You are one weak 'Christian.' The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@andrewbuswell6010 Well similar to the watchmaker argument, discovering the intricacies of a watch gives you a lot of admiration for the maker, so science has discovered the incredible systems in nature. As far as the resurrection, that doesn't have to do with science, more so philosophy and why death is a just punishment for sin, and why the judge can forgive us and still be just, instead of a corrupt judge that lets a murder walk free without consequence
@@patrickodea6500 The scientific angle is that there is insufficient evidence to believe that the resurrection happened which is the central claim of Christianity.
@@andrewbuswell6010 I am not arguing against that. The evidence that I have though is the reality of sin: how it has both destroyed my life and how my sin has destroyed other people's lives. The movie the butterfly effect provides a really good explanation for the cross, after taking the life of the baby, he goes through every possible scenario to prevent it and comes to the conclusion that he has to take his own life at birth. His death brings justice and redemption
His counter to the ontological argument is flawed. The devil is not imperfect, he is perfect at being imperfect. Or perfect at being evil. If light is bright, you wouldn't call darkness not-bright. It's dark matter, which scientists believe exists.
And the sound this tiny brain makes is blah blah with NO evidence. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Believing is an act of blind faith, and therefore it is not a Popperian search for a truth. It's closer to a gut "feeling". One cannot prove or disprove a feeling. Feelings are so subjective and thus hard to analyze objectively. Second, there are up to 10 thousands religions, depending on how strictly we define religion. Let's accept 10,000. All believing humans believe in just one religion and reject the other 9,999 religions. Atheists reject all 10,000. That is, the difference is just 1 in 10,000. There has rarely been a closer relation between a thesis and its antithesis. There you have it, the much desired four nines (9999). Or in words, belief is lazy statistics 😂 Third, atheists are by far more numerous than any one religion. And their numbers are rising fast. Also, atheism strongly correlates with the degree of how successful a society is. Specifically, atheism correlates very closely with better education and higher wealth. The glaring counter example is the USA. Last, if believers truly believe in an afterlife, then we would see a lot less fear of death, less grief when we lose a loved one, and much higher rates of suicide!!! Our actual behavior sharply contradicts our declared beliefs.
Part of being a good or nice or a gentle parent is to have clear memories of your own childhood for empathy, to know the struggles of hard fought personal improvements in a complicated world. God the almighty creator one did not get his own childhood story like you or me. A mysterious god does not at all mean a helpful god so why bother asking for any extra toppings just for yourself this one time ?
God gave him a brain too but AC does not like to use it. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block The idea that you are fit to criticise AC is hilarious! He is a highly respected genius - you are a highly disturbed religious fanatic who substitutes ad hominems and wild assertions for arguments and has no shame.
The analogy of the steel rod is not testing the steel rod. It is testing the batch of rods that have all been produced at the same time. Inotherwords, it is an induction which takes as certain that if one rod is good the whole batch is good. Exactly what you don't believe about induction!. Also read the Book of Job to find out that it is not due to Science that people have a problem with the evil world and a good God. A very fine lecturer.
How is it fine when he will still conclude we got all this naturally? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
re plural gods...The Old Testament accepts a plurality of gods - for each cultural group (Jews are admonished not to worship false gods (any alternative gods put forward within the tribe of Israel) or the gods of others. It never says the gods of other cultures are false - just not suitable for Judaism. Most god-botherers don't read their own book - and tend to miss that bit.
Stop pretending you know the bible. There is one true God, the God that created all this. The gods of other cultures are gods to them but that does not make them the true God. That is so easy to figure out reading the bible but your tiny brain somehow can't catch such things. Did you ever make it past verse one about the one true God creating? Do you know of another way it happened? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Great, now can you or AC tell me how we got the universe on its own? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block : Not knowing how something happened is proof of nothing but our ignorance. Not knowing a natural process does not even suggest a supernatural one. You're too eager to accept the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
@@lrvogt1257 you simply ignored well-known science I gave then since you can't deal with it....your excuse is we don't know even though we do know. The gap is....between your ears. BIG gap there, you tiny brain, you.
@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt : I don't have any idea what that is supposed to mean. It makes no sense to me. There are anti-theists and simple non-believers and agnostics and there is no criteria or dogma whatsoever so we each don't believe in our own way just like you don't believe in the giant spaghetti monster (I assume). Since atheists used to be killed for non-belief and are still insulted and vilified by alleged Christians, and since Christians so often want to promote their religion with our tax money, some object more strongly on those grounds. Just don't try to legislate religion to force conformity or use our taxes and I have nothing bad to say.
"Moral and Natural Evil in the world..." is a supernatural observation, for Nature knows no "evil", affirms, justifies, calculates, nor defines such nonsense. Is Gravity evil or good? The speed of light? Any of the four forces? Do the Laws of Thermodynamics establish why Genocide is naughty, but preaching his "truth" is nice, particularly when it harms, causes fear and sorrow in others? How very odd he'd reject gnomes and sprites, but affirm "Evil".
@@vincentcarroll471 There you go... Subjective Morality; what I think at any given moment does me benefit is Good, and what doesn't is Evil. Any means to obstruct Subjective Evil is Good, even if it, itself is Objectively Evil, just as means to gain Subjective Good is Good... This constitutes the Morality of the Totalitarian, Authoritarian "Liberals" in the west, from Academia to Government. Lying, cheating, stealing, brutality, corruption, extortion... all perfectly legitimate means to accomplish their Subjective Morality. At bottom, No God = No Morality but for one's own subjective assessment of personal Benefit and Harm, and this is the best Atheism has to offer; Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, BLM, Antifa, Critical Race, Legal Theory...
Do tell how we got all this on its own. Supply the humor. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
His brain is fried. He can only pretend to other people with tiny brains that he's smart. Could he explain how we got all this on its own? Of course not. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
If God does not exist, how did we get all this that does exist? Show something that you thought this through. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Or maybe we live in a simulation. Or maybe the supernatural is some alien life form. More importantly, you don’t know. So don’t jump to any conclusions.
@@traderzone1 there is NO maybe that you can't deal with evidence. Your tiny brain does not like the evidence so it makes any lame excuse to ignore it. You showed that rather clearly.
Atheist: While there may very well be some objective Thing-in-itself at the centre of the Universe, I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God. wulphstein: That is absurd reasoning!
@@donthesitatebegin9283 no, you are absurd and you have shallow reasoning. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block I have "shallow reasoning"!? That's just too rich coming from you. You're incapable of understanding what I wrote so in your bewilderment you immediately turn to insults, as usual. When you're not insulting people to combat your feelings of inadequacy you reason like a gullible child and only have blind, dogmatic assertions and unfettered arrogance in your quiver: "The Universe didn't create itself, therefore it requires a Supernatural origin, what is this Supernatural origin? The Supernatural Sky-God of the Bible". So funny ...
Atheist: While there may very well be some objective Thing-in-itself at the centre of the Universe, I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God. Therefore, applying Occam's Razor, a Sky-God is superfluous to requirements. wulphstein: Argh! You just can't have a logical conversation with these theorists!
@@donthesitatebegin9283 your blah blah shows your tiny brain. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Hilarious! You didn't understand what I wrote so to cope you called it "blah blah" and threw-out another insult in lieu of an argument. So funny ...
@@donthesitatebegin9283 You, " I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God." You see no reason for a supernatural God. Using a mocking term did nothing for you. So, you can't deal with the evidence I gave to show a supernatural God had to create the universe so you blah blah again to just simply ignore it. It's all your tiny brain can do.
Interesting lecture. Awful audio. They should fire their audio engineer.
I try to be cool with religious minded people. And just let it go when they go off the deep end. But I've never heard one rational argument from a religious person for why they think an obvious fairytale is anything but.
Can you explain why God permitted the era of the dinosaurs to last for 150 million years and then sent an asteroid to destroy them all? Did he find their antics boring?? Also, why did he wait for another 150 million years before he put man on the Earth?
“You can explain the major tenants of any religion-major doctrines of any religion-in less than half an hour. It takes a bit longer to study physics” slam dunk homie
What If , the knowledge of God has not yet been shown to you clearly enough, and that's why you look for affirmity in athiesm, maybe because you fear the judgement of a creator you seek this...I know because that's why I'm here lol. No seriously I do believe there is a God.
Maybe it's not clear because there is nothing to see. No evidence and no data or anything supernatural has ever been demonstrated. That for which there is no evidence or data cannot rationally be the cause of anything. Every cause we've ever learned for anything has been natural. There have been no exceptions.
"There is much more empirical evidence for the Tooth Fairy than for God." Grayling; from another lecture
Grayling is a weapons grade moron. He accused Boris Johnson of doing more damage to Britain than the blitz; an absolute insult to the thousands who were blown to pieces, burnt to death or crushed as a consequence if Nazi bombs. When it comes to atheism, he is a moral coward who only takes on one religion, without the courage to tackle certain other belief systems.
The blitz strengthened the UK's resolve. Brexit is dismantling it from the inside... Still... do not think a bit of hyperbole out of context is a bigger deal than it is.
I don't use the term "supernatural" referring to God because atheists mean "impossible" or " not real". God is reality. God is necessary for existence because it is impossible the existence of the creation without the creator therefore a reality that transcends the finitude of the universe of an infinite nature exists. Incredibly enough if you ask atheists to define God they would not answer correctly "the creator of the creation", and they believe they already won the debate with the most emblematic nonsensical remark of atheism "who created god?"!. Atheists don't understand if an encyclopedia was written explaining the obvious why asking "who created what is not created?" doesn't make sense!. Incredibly enough if you ask atheists to define "creation" they would not answer correctly "what has a beginning of existence or is not eternal, like for example yourself", and they are ignorant of the theological arguments like the kalam cosmological argument that says everything with a beginning of existence has a cause, because it is impossible the existence of infinite causes and effects a first uncaused cause that is the origin of the creation must exist, God. Didn't i explain enough why atheism is a cult inmune to arguments that harms innocent and vulnerable children that wants you ignorant? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The atheist fallacy would test your IQ and the error in reasoning is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy needs to be news.
You're just defining God into existence. Creation therefore Creator Design therefore Designer Contingency therefore Necessity ... The world may very well be made of both temporary and permanent things, but the permanent stuff isn't automatically a god. The permanent stuff (if it exists) only becomes a god when the animals (humans in this case) tell themselves a human-centric story about the permanent stuff in order to bring meaning and hope and importance to their lives.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Would you listen to me because I may know something that you don't? Would you change your mind because you claim to be rational, open minded, understanding and seek the truth? Would you memorize and understand a logical fallacy that is censored to preserve knowledge and not lie to innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheists commit the atheist fallacy always, everytime they open their mouths, because they believe God is sky daddy and don't believe God exists. If God is unarguably the most important and talked about idea that forms all our psychology, behavior and understanding of reality and after fortunes of public money squandered on education atheists don't know God is the creator of the universe is because the cult deceived you manipulating the information with disastrous consequences. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. And you tell them and they don't care.
Man has created many gods. I don't have a problem with the gods we haven't created yet.
@@donaldmcronald8989 I am a psychologist and if you don't understand what "to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news" means you need a good psychologist. A great psychologist. The best. What do you understand by "to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news"? I am joking? I am serious? An innocent and vulnerable kid would jump to the opportunity to end the war in Ukraine just by being news knowledge that should not be censored in the first place. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I have lived long enough to know Nobel Prizes are given to friends and family and humanity would not say the truth under torture to save oneself, let alone their own innocent and vulnerable children, and when they are told they don't care. Could I know something that you don't? Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong not knowing God is the creator of the universe?
@@michelangelope830 Don't know what you're smoking bro. But I don't want any. Thanks.
This talk was very thorough, but seemed rather long-winded. I think that I got the message before the halfway point, but he went on and on. It amazes me that none of these lecturers, theists, etc. has read even one book by Idries Shah on Sufism. Of course, there are many false gurus in this world. But it must be admitted as a well-known fact that there have been many saints in the world who need no proof of the truth of anything. But no mention of them or their achievements are mentioned. I do believe that there are many and they are men of knowledge. You cannot prove that there is no spiritual world when you cannot sense it, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Perhaps when you die, you will find that it does, but it will be too late. Science cannot explain many things, e.g. why the speed of expansion of the universe is accelerating, etc. Another thing: does it matter if there is a god or not? I think that people do what they think is right for many different reasons, whether they believe in a god or not.
Worrying about the afterlife is the problem. Some religions endorse and encourage the individuals to create an ego by blaming it and praising it for its actions. Those egos then go on to fear their death and fight for an afterlife full of pleasure. Other religions are more active in ensuring that you NEVER create an ego in the first place... and so you never begin to feel as though you own yourself or created yourself. There is no separation. There is only Being.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Ego? God? I agree that our egos are the problem.
@@cynic150 There's no need for God if you have undifferentiated Being. Religion is reduced to man-made self-help. Applicable to this world ONLY.
Krauss has been obliterated and exposed as a substandard physicist in the NY Times article of March 23 2012 by Columbia University Professor of Philosophy David Albert; ph.D in theoretical physics (Professor Albert has also written a textbook on Quantum Mechanics).Never has a book by a physicist been so annihilated in a NY Times article for at least 2 decades. Krauss says some of the dumbest comments imaginable and can hardly state he is a qualified physicist because he is not.David Albert is 1000 times a superior physicist and philosopher.
Agreed,not to mention numerous allocations of sexually harassment and defending his friend and cash cow Epstein.
He sounds as unintelligent as Lawrence Krauss.
Proof is very important, although I cannot prove it.
Reasoning with atheists is impossible. It's like arguing with someone who thinks that cell phones just pop into existence.
Nothingness is not a state from out of which things can pop. Whatever it is that exists instead of nothingness, it either explains itself (internally) or is ultimately just there, and we'll never have the language to talk about why. That goes for gods and universes.
Of course cell phones don't just pop into existence. They are created by an invisible genie for which there is no evidence. How could you possibly argue with that?
@@donaldmcronald8989 : Apparently gods can. Maybe the universe is ultimately just there. Why not? What's the difference?
I think the universe is just there. But if it can't provide purpose, most people will reject it. @@lrvogt1257
Cell phones don't just pop into existence. An invisible cell phone genie alters the laws of nature to create them.
The only way to explain the beginnings of the universe AND life is with INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Whether you choose to describe it as a "sky" God, or a Biblical "God" is a separate argument.
Mankind not being able to explain something does not make the default position "god did it". I don't know what happened. But then, neither do you.
No.There are many hypotheses but no scientists claim to know. That would be irrational... only creationists know because they have some bronze age stories. The universe itself could just be a brute fact. The idea that it must be created is just assuming everything works the way humans do. It doesn't.
that`s a strawman gimmick;but I will upset you this cozy vision,you have put the cart before the horse;yes,the design is discernible,but the intelligence "behind" is not outside of it;this is the intelligence the process ,no a designer.
So because something can't come from nothing it was "obviously" created by something that came from nothing. Just make up a creator and your creation is explained. No. There's no validity to an argument where you can't prove the premises. It's an intellectually stupid argument. Because we don't know the answer does not imply anything but our ignorance.
I love how the guy runs around handing the microphone, not without considerable effort, to each person with a question. Shame it wasn't turned on. However, I don't really like not hearing the question.
Tired and worn out atheist arguments backed up by the usual celebrity religious bashers and narrow minded academics!
Atheists need no arguments to not accept a story. Do you need an argument to not accept that there are trolls? No. It's just a lack of evidence. Theists need evidence to expect us to believe their claim. There is none... so far at least. Not a speck of evidence or data.
The creation vs evolution debate was done to the death years ago. Evolution lost, it's protagonists could not propose any argument that the information contained in DNA could come about by mutant genes and natural selection.
It's not Creation vs Evolution. It's Creation vs Abiogenesis. This shows how ignorant Creationists are. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Even if there is no evolution, that doesn't mean there is a god. Evolution is a fact, can be shown. I don't get why some theists still try to argue against it. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life or if there is a god or not.
@@Jingleschmiede Evolution is seen as their enemy because they want to believe a Supernatural Sky-God made the Universe 6000 years ago. It's really all about the vainglorious hope of an Afterlife. They want to believe they are "special" and "won't die" - surrendering to a soothing fantasy to salve an overwhelming fear of death is an offer too good for them to refuse. Apparently.
That's just nonsense. Evolution is the basis of ALL biology and has been for a century. It is completely uncontroversial except to creationists who tend to not know or to ignore actual science.
Professor Grayling admitted that all science can be updated by new evidence, and therefore nothing is 100% certain, but different beliefs have very different probabilities of being 'true.' The word 'true' means 'corresponding to reality, so that if we base our behavior on their correctness, our actions will have the outcomes that we expect. The reason that people are reluctant to abandon belief in a god, is not merely because it is institutionalized, but because believing in god is likely to modify the believer's behavior in the direction of altruism within that culture. If we behave more altruistically, all others will tend to be more altruistic in return, and therefore our lives will be more successful. Thus, in societies where most people adopt a religion, all believers may obtain a biological advantage in conforming, which is quite independent of the fact that god is scientifically, only a metaphor for good behavior.
1+1 is always 2 and never 11. "11" in binary is not eleven, it is 3. In a base system where "11" is two, it is still 2, not eleven.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who know binary and those who don't.
A leading scientist ...very powerful experiment...agreed scientific position by all leading researchers in the field....what more truth did Newton want?
Animals fight for resources. Humans continued to evolve. When the concept of money came along, that fight for resources became all about the accumulation of wealth. *The rich had to exploit the poor further so they developed religion.* The starving poor didn't pay for the 'places of worship'. The illiterate poor didn't codify religion. Capitalists could whitewash their exploitation of the poor by throwing a little dough the church's way. God / heaven / hell are all obviously illogical / impossible. Capitalists wanted cannon fodder (for war), big market places and vast labour pools. To maximise profits. Hence religion soon pushed misogyny and procreation. Now, what's that _Occam's Razor_ thing all about? #ZenAndTheArtOfSavingLifeOnEarth
"God / heaven / hell are all obviously illogical / impossible." Wow. Hey tiny brain, how did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2blockIgnorino/Gepetto! Why do you believe the resurrection happened? Why won't you defend jesus? He's so mad at you right now 😅
Can't listen to the waffling on. How would he explain the incorruptible Nun, Sr. Wilhelmina, who was found this way in Missouri recently. She died in 2019. She was not embalmed. And explain all the other incorruptible people. You can't, apart from a miracle.
Yeah, sure. The very Creator of the Universe popped-down to planet Earth and saved a dead nun from rotting. He didn't save any children from cancer, or feed the starving millions while he was visiting - too busy saving a dead nun from rotting (!?).
@@donthesitatebegin9283 "The very Creator of the Universe...." Are you aware of how creation happened on its own? Do share your great wisdom and how you defeated well-established science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block When I want advice from a simple-minded buffoon with significant mental-health issues and a Narcissistic-Grandiose Personality Disorder, I'll ask you. In the meantime, keep insulting people with your projections - and don't forget to copy/paste your comical "proof" that your Supernatural Sky-God must be "the correct one" - for the millionth time.
@@donthesitatebegin9283Narcissism ✅️ Delusion ✅️ Bully tactics ✅️ Zero self-awareness ✅️ Prone to belief in fantasy ✅️ Is actually Gepetto from Pinocchio ✅️ Unable to defend resurrection ✅️✅️✅️ He's the total package 😂
Fiction.
5:48 Did he just coin _mathemalogic_ ? What a wonderful word.
Since he doesn't follow science, he likes to make up whatever he wants. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt no, God is spirit that created energy. Energy is natural, nature can't create nature, it had to be done supernaturally.
Why is the logo of the atheist union a triangle? Coincidence?
Maybe that's the only way they can make a point since they can't do it by evidence. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
If the species of apes called "humans" would not have come into existence some two hundred thousand years ago, the concept "god" would not have come into existence neither! All religions are man-made but there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator!
What there is no evidence of is that you think and know much. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
There is not a shred of evidence that what you call you exists either !
@daviddeida ?????the fact that you sent me a reply undermines your own statement! Logic, you know! But because you and I DO exist, I can wish you a pleasant day!
@@rudysimoens570 No it does'nt undermine the statement.No doubt a body wrote the comment,as neuroscience has proven what you call you did'nt decide to write a comment,it happened inspite of you.What you call you then says I will write a comment and claim authorship.This is the materialistic view,you are nothing but a mere thought void of any personal doership or authority.A meat puppet.
God started his business in a garage.
So you believe in God then?
@@2fast2block Yes, I believe in the God of the garage in the heads of those who do not understand irony.
@@karlschmied6218 OK, you were being ironic. So get serious now and show how smart you are in how the universe created itself. How can that be? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block What do you have against the laws of thermodynamics? Do not lecture me, I am an old physicist ;-) Physics today stands for some things we "know". By "know" I mean that we can "handle" things that we couldn't before. We have some consistent mathematical models. This does not mean that physics will not evolve, nor does it mean that it will one day be "perfect". Does that mean that "a god" and, from your point of view, your god of all things, has to come along to fill the probably eternal gaps in human knowledge? Not at all, in my opinion. Why should our limits of "understanding" be a proof for "your" "God"? I don't see our inability to fully comprehend a garage as evidence for your or any "god". Gods are human figments to calm the fear of loss of control and death. A certain idea of death leads to this fear and to a religious fantasy as an antidote. In my view, this is a kind of belief in a super Easter bunny for "adults." There are many groups with incompatible such religious ideas.
@@karlschmied6218 "What do you have against the laws of thermodynamics?" I gave them in a brief fashion. I have nothing against them. Don''t blame me for your horrible reading skills, not to mention, your tiny brain. In all your blah blah, NOTHING got around what I gave! At least realize you have NOTHING but a tiny brain.
41:00 - Atheist is a theist word - it is "someone outside of our belief ststem" - like in a stamp collectors circle, they may refer to an uninterested person as a "non-stamp collector" - or in a certain world view, they refer to Trump haters! (Count me as one!)
38:00 - "Originally there were gods everywhere, then there were 12 of them, then only one" - so we're going in the right direction!
You tiny brains are going in the direction of doom. Thinking is not part of you. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
There's one because God became Man and showed the way to Truth!
@@DB-qw6xq And you're really sure, are you, that Jesus wasn't born because of an 'interaction' with Joseph? Read the beginning of Matthew - Mat1:1 The book of the generation of *Jesus Christ,* the son of David, the son of Abraham. Note that - the generation of who? Matthew goes through a long list of who begat whom, from Abraham all the way down to ... Mat1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Now explain to me how that is the generation of Jesus Christ if Joseph was unrelated to Jesus! Why look to the supernatural when there's a perfectly simple, natural explanation that we can all relate to?
@@DownhillAllTheWay wow, you're a bit slow there, fella. It was too much for you to read.....verses 17 to 25 which it explained it CLEARLY that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, God was. How you missed that should be embarrassing to you. "Now explain to me how that is the generation of Jesus Christ if Joseph was unrelated to Jesus!" Joseph was the stepfather. Nothing was difficult in understanding that but somehow it was to you.
@@2fast2block OK - so "Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, God was". Having spent 6 years in a catholic boarding school, being indoctrinated with this stuff day in, day out, I knew that anyway - but you agree then that Matthew sets out to prove the lineage of Christ, and winds up proving the lineage of somebody who wasn't related to Christ. He did a really good job there! It's a shame we can't take the DNA of Jesus - we'd find out stuff about the holy ghost! But as I said before, why turn to the supernatural, for which there has *never* been any proof of *anything,* when there is a natural explanation for which there is as much evidence as anybody could desire? Most guys these days don't wait till antwhere near the first night of marriage, but we are to believ that Joseph married Mary, was travelling with him for the census, presumably sleeping with her - and she was still a virgin? What are the chances? I don't know anything about you (apart from your being very gullible), but imagine that you had a teenaged daughter, who comes home one evening and says "Guess what, Dad - I'm pregnant - but don't worry, I'm still a virgin." I guess you'd throw up your hands and say "Praise be to God - it's a miracle!" ........ No, I didn't think you would. I'm sure women getting pregnant was not unknown 2023 years ago either - and after all - they were married. So why was it important that she was a virgin? Well, Matthew's gospel wasn't written at the time of Mary's pregnancy - it was written in about the year 85 CE, long after the death of Jesus, when his name had become famous as a demigod. So he had to be given the attributes of a demigod - half man, half god. The "man" half has to come from his mother - because she is easily identified - so the divine (god) part must come from the father. Then all the stuff in verses 17-15 were simply an eleboration of the story, long after it happened, to make it credible to a gullible population of followers who *_wanted_* to believe it. I'm sure that virgin births were not the norm at the time, they were by no means unknown. Alexander the Great, Hercules, Dionysus, and Perseus, Plato, Romulus, the first Roman emperor Augustus - in short, the concept of a virgin birth was in people's minds, so when one was declared, it would not be rejected out of hand. it seemed like a possibility. Now, however, we know it's *not.* If you're interested (probably, you're not, because you don't want anything to challenge your deeply held beliefs) have a look at www.rivalnations.org/many-virgin-births/ (about a page and a half) and listen (less that a minute) to ua-cam.com/users/shortsyTA4nDhq7SU If you refute what I have said here, please state the specific points you disagre with, and give links to your sources, as I have.
Gas lighting "scientific truth" and gobbledygookto appeal to lazy minds. That God exists is continually demonstrated to humans - but most humans are more interested in their own egos (and listening to bollocks like this) that God passes them by.
Look at the trees: therefore "God".
@@donthesitatebegin9283 look at anything, therefore God. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
How utterly ridiculous! A total waste of time - he has 'proven' nothing at all. In fact, I don't believe he exists - this is just an AI creation...
AC has trouble with basic science and can't see what an embarrassment he truly is. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
This awful man appeals to the like minded. He is not Plato and is unlikely to be. He should study with an unbiased mind the works of Carl Jung. Their ideas are to be realised not just read. To understand the niceness of orange juice, you need to experience it, not just read about it.
Great, but faith is not subject to rationality. The bible even tells people to ignore rationality. Well, it has to. Right? I thought it was an excellent talk but while he made a good case that atheism is rational there was no proof of anything. It's still that there is no evidence that God does exists... not proof that it doesn't exist.
"The bible even tells people to ignore rationality. Well, it has to. Right?" No, God says to prove all things. What you clueless beings do is take a verse like Hebrews 11:1 and think that's the whole meaning of faith when in that context it was talking about a future event not seen yet. It's too much for your slow mind to follow context though. Now, atheistic types go by BLIND faith. Like the universe coming about on its own with NO evidence that can be. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2blockIgnorino/Gepetto; why do you believe the resurrection happened?
@@BubbaF0wpend got it, this is how creation of the universe happened on its own and got around the laws I gave... "Ignorino/Gepetto; why do you believe the resurrection happened?" What other mindless replies do you have about creation?
@@2fast2blockIgnorino/Gepetto! I've never seen anyone so keen to dodge defending the core proposition of their whole worldview! It's honestly fascinating! Seems that your belief in the resurrection is just a result of indoctrination + Texas echo chamber. Amazing one can get to 70 and still never have even questioned why they think a man resurrected 2000 years ago! Obviously it hasn't been seriously considered, otherwise you'd have taken the many opportunities I've given to give a real answer defending it. But... nothing. At. All. jesus would be sorely disappointed (if he existed today, which, obviously, he doesn't).
@@2fast2block : Something had to happen on it's own, why not a universe? It doesn't have to be constructed in some human fashion like a bicycle. The fact is that no one knows how the universe began. Creationists just make up a genie and POOF all their questions are satisfied... but that just kicks the can down the road and explains nothing of substance. Scientists are not satisfied so they examine the facts we know and try to find out.
I thought this was John McLaughlin!
I didn't. But now that you mention it the resemblance is uncanny.
Another Materalist that talks of "proof", yet likewise cannot prove very much either, yet seem to somehow know all the answers ??
I hear ya, his tiny brain hidden by his hair can't help him either. BASIC science shows he does not follow science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Nobody knows for sure either way and it is total stupidity and insanity to try and prove either way ie nobody will ever ever know
Thinking people know and that's NOT you. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@Jørgen Storm yu are totally entitled to yur opinion but if that is so would you please tell me Einstein why is it that loads of scientists cannot and never ever ever could tell us exactly how and when the world began etc etc most scientists are atheists yet they have absolutely no idea to most basic questions which are put to them
@Jørgen Storm we have a tiny brain like Miller right here that gave this as evidence that the universe did create itself and got around the laws I gave by... "Believing in invisible skydaddies is totally stupid." See, when I say they have tiny brains, they really make it obvious.
I am a Christian and I really admire these discussions. I do not go to church anymore because I have found that the typical sermon is just an emotional attempt to affirm people's beliefs. What I really admire about this is how he explained the freedom in science, how there is not fear of truth or discovery in the way religion has tried to suppress other forms of thinking, but rather encourages it. The act of suppression of other forms of thinking is really an indication of one's own insecurity in their beliefs. But so far science and the study of other faiths has confirmed what I believe
I don't go to church either but I'm not gullible like you with your silly..."What I really admire about this is how he explained the freedom in science" as if this tiny brain actually follows science. You are one weak 'Christian.' The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Wondering how science tallies with a belief in the resurrection?
@@andrewbuswell6010 Well similar to the watchmaker argument, discovering the intricacies of a watch gives you a lot of admiration for the maker, so science has discovered the incredible systems in nature. As far as the resurrection, that doesn't have to do with science, more so philosophy and why death is a just punishment for sin, and why the judge can forgive us and still be just, instead of a corrupt judge that lets a murder walk free without consequence
@@patrickodea6500 The scientific angle is that there is insufficient evidence to believe that the resurrection happened which is the central claim of Christianity.
@@andrewbuswell6010 I am not arguing against that. The evidence that I have though is the reality of sin: how it has both destroyed my life and how my sin has destroyed other people's lives. The movie the butterfly effect provides a really good explanation for the cross, after taking the life of the baby, he goes through every possible scenario to prevent it and comes to the conclusion that he has to take his own life at birth. His death brings justice and redemption
His counter to the ontological argument is flawed. The devil is not imperfect, he is perfect at being imperfect. Or perfect at being evil. If light is bright, you wouldn't call darkness not-bright. It's dark matter, which scientists believe exists.
@Jørgen Storm But you can't explain why it's nonsense
I liked the quote: The sound of tyranny is silence and the sound of democracy is noise.
And the sound this tiny brain makes is blah blah with NO evidence. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Yes, it's one of those snippets you try desperately to remember so you can use it yourself in the future.
@@pierceyy as I showed, AC has a tiny brain and you tiny brains cling to his silly words.
Believing is an act of blind faith, and therefore it is not a Popperian search for a truth. It's closer to a gut "feeling". One cannot prove or disprove a feeling. Feelings are so subjective and thus hard to analyze objectively. Second, there are up to 10 thousands religions, depending on how strictly we define religion. Let's accept 10,000. All believing humans believe in just one religion and reject the other 9,999 religions. Atheists reject all 10,000. That is, the difference is just 1 in 10,000. There has rarely been a closer relation between a thesis and its antithesis. There you have it, the much desired four nines (9999). Or in words, belief is lazy statistics 😂 Third, atheists are by far more numerous than any one religion. And their numbers are rising fast. Also, atheism strongly correlates with the degree of how successful a society is. Specifically, atheism correlates very closely with better education and higher wealth. The glaring counter example is the USA. Last, if believers truly believe in an afterlife, then we would see a lot less fear of death, less grief when we lose a loved one, and much higher rates of suicide!!! Our actual behavior sharply contradicts our declared beliefs.
Part of being a good or nice or a gentle parent is to have clear memories of your own childhood for empathy, to know the struggles of hard fought personal improvements in a complicated world. God the almighty creator one did not get his own childhood story like you or me. A mysterious god does not at all mean a helpful god so why bother asking for any extra toppings just for yourself this one time ?
God gave the man an uncommonly good head of hair.
God gave him a brain too but AC does not like to use it. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block The idea that you are fit to criticise AC is hilarious! He is a highly respected genius - you are a highly disturbed religious fanatic who substitutes ad hominems and wild assertions for arguments and has no shame.
Genetics and a good conditioner were responsible.
The analogy of the steel rod is not testing the steel rod. It is testing the batch of rods that have all been produced at the same time. Inotherwords, it is an induction which takes as certain that if one rod is good the whole batch is good. Exactly what you don't believe about induction!. Also read the Book of Job to find out that it is not due to Science that people have a problem with the evil world and a good God. A very fine lecturer.
How is it fine when he will still conclude we got all this naturally? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
re plural gods...The Old Testament accepts a plurality of gods - for each cultural group (Jews are admonished not to worship false gods (any alternative gods put forward within the tribe of Israel) or the gods of others. It never says the gods of other cultures are false - just not suitable for Judaism. Most god-botherers don't read their own book - and tend to miss that bit.
Stop pretending you know the bible. There is one true God, the God that created all this. The gods of other cultures are gods to them but that does not make them the true God. That is so easy to figure out reading the bible but your tiny brain somehow can't catch such things. Did you ever make it past verse one about the one true God creating? Do you know of another way it happened? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Excellent speaker and clearly persuasive.
Great, now can you or AC tell me how we got the universe on its own? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block : Not knowing how something happened is proof of nothing but our ignorance. Not knowing a natural process does not even suggest a supernatural one. You're too eager to accept the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
@@lrvogt1257 you simply ignored well-known science I gave then since you can't deal with it....your excuse is we don't know even though we do know. The gap is....between your ears. BIG gap there, you tiny brain, you.
@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt : I don't have any idea what that is supposed to mean. It makes no sense to me. There are anti-theists and simple non-believers and agnostics and there is no criteria or dogma whatsoever so we each don't believe in our own way just like you don't believe in the giant spaghetti monster (I assume). Since atheists used to be killed for non-belief and are still insulted and vilified by alleged Christians, and since Christians so often want to promote their religion with our tax money, some object more strongly on those grounds. Just don't try to legislate religion to force conformity or use our taxes and I have nothing bad to say.
"Moral and Natural Evil in the world..." is a supernatural observation, for Nature knows no "evil", affirms, justifies, calculates, nor defines such nonsense. Is Gravity evil or good? The speed of light? Any of the four forces? Do the Laws of Thermodynamics establish why Genocide is naughty, but preaching his "truth" is nice, particularly when it harms, causes fear and sorrow in others? How very odd he'd reject gnomes and sprites, but affirm "Evil".
@@vincentcarroll471 There you go... Subjective Morality; what I think at any given moment does me benefit is Good, and what doesn't is Evil. Any means to obstruct Subjective Evil is Good, even if it, itself is Objectively Evil, just as means to gain Subjective Good is Good... This constitutes the Morality of the Totalitarian, Authoritarian "Liberals" in the west, from Academia to Government. Lying, cheating, stealing, brutality, corruption, extortion... all perfectly legitimate means to accomplish their Subjective Morality. At bottom, No God = No Morality but for one's own subjective assessment of personal Benefit and Harm, and this is the best Atheism has to offer; Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, BLM, Antifa, Critical Race, Legal Theory...
Like Richard Dawkins, Anthony Grayling's understanding of theism is too narrow, and therefore it is still not possible to prove a negative.
Do tell how we got all this on its own. Supply the humor. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I dont see how is any of that proving atheism.
His brain is fried. He can only pretend to other people with tiny brains that he's smart. Could he explain how we got all this on its own? Of course not. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I have reservations about anyone taking one hour to explain something that doesn’t exist?
If God does not exist, how did we get all this that does exist? Show something that you thought this through. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Or maybe we live in a simulation. Or maybe the supernatural is some alien life form. More importantly, you don’t know. So don’t jump to any conclusions.
@@traderzone1 there is NO maybe that you can't deal with evidence. Your tiny brain does not like the evidence so it makes any lame excuse to ignore it. You showed that rather clearly.
Atheism is absurd reasoning.
Atheist: While there may very well be some objective Thing-in-itself at the centre of the Universe, I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God. wulphstein: That is absurd reasoning!
@@donthesitatebegin9283 no, you are absurd and you have shallow reasoning. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block I have "shallow reasoning"!? That's just too rich coming from you. You're incapable of understanding what I wrote so in your bewilderment you immediately turn to insults, as usual. When you're not insulting people to combat your feelings of inadequacy you reason like a gullible child and only have blind, dogmatic assertions and unfettered arrogance in your quiver: "The Universe didn't create itself, therefore it requires a Supernatural origin, what is this Supernatural origin? The Supernatural Sky-God of the Bible". So funny ...
@@donthesitatebegin9283 Intelligent Design is the only option.
This all sounds like sophistry which makes it impossible to have a logical Occam's razor conversation with theorists.
Atheist: While there may very well be some objective Thing-in-itself at the centre of the Universe, I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God. Therefore, applying Occam's Razor, a Sky-God is superfluous to requirements. wulphstein: Argh! You just can't have a logical conversation with these theorists!
@@donthesitatebegin9283 your blah blah shows your tiny brain. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Hilarious! You didn't understand what I wrote so to cope you called it "blah blah" and threw-out another insult in lieu of an argument. So funny ...
@@donthesitatebegin9283 You, " I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God." You see no reason for a supernatural God. Using a mocking term did nothing for you. So, you can't deal with the evidence I gave to show a supernatural God had to create the universe so you blah blah again to just simply ignore it. It's all your tiny brain can do.
@@2fast2block Hilarious!