Go to piavpn.com/alex to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free. For early, ad-free access to videos, and to support the channel, subscribe to my Substack at www.alexoconnor.com
I'm 2 minutes in and I've already seen the most impressive thing ever: Piers listens carefully to Stephen Meyer's argument, without interrupting once...
He lets his guests talk as much as they want when he agrees with them. Meyers believes in god, Dawkins doesn't. I wonder who will get a chance to speak.
That's probably because Meyer is on Piers' side on this question and therefore Piers wanted to absorb whatever argument was presented in that instance to then uncritically spit it up later, as he did.
Strangely enough I think Piers Morgan is well educated, talented, and a very clever person. It's just unfortunate that all that talent and cleverness was wasted on Piers Morgan.
It's his job as a journalist to ask challenging questions and create discussion. People get offended too easily and just resort to personal attacks, and often mask them as jokes too.
Exactly, another example that not all effects need a cause to initiate. Usually talent (cause) is needed to become successful (effect), whereas Piers has seemed to have skipped the first step.
For the big bang to support theism 1. We have to prove causality applies before the big bang 2. We have to prove something outside the universe can affect/ cause the universe (or affect it after its started) 3. We have to assert the special pleading fallacy to this entity or else we've actually answered nothing because we don't know what caused this being 4. Once you've met those criteria, you have to prove your version of this entity is actually the one that caused it Bringing up "the universe needs a cause" is merely admitting you worship the god of the gaps in your understanding
Unless you're a physicist who rules out "before" and tell people with out evidence how you can get something from nothing. In terms of theory of origin, scientists are as full of it as theists. Same goes in the first self-replicating cell argument except the theists (like Stephen Meyer) are really good at pointing out the absurdity of the primeval soup nonsense. Meyers assertion that that makes the Bible true is equally as absurd.
@@ethanlonchar No, "it" doesn't make sense. _We_ have evolved teh necessary apparatus to make sense of it. Within limits. We haven't yet made sense of the difference between the very large and very small, or what happens at a singularity. We may , we may not. the universe doesn't care
@@bestbehave no, the universe could have been a total mess, without rules, consistency, or predictability. But that’s not the case. The universe is governed by rules that we can make sense of. Sure we don’t understand everything but that’s not the point. The fact the universe makes ANY sense at all is astounding.
@ethanlonchar The universe having rules isn't really "astounding", because while the universe has no obligation to make sense, it also has no obligation to not make sense. It's impossible to say whether it's unusual for the universe to have consistent rules because we have no other universes to compare it to. Maybe there's a one in a trillion chance for a universe to be so consistent, or maybe it's guaranteed. Maybe the rules aren't consistent, and we just think they are. Perhaps the laws of physics change every billion years and we simply don't know about it. It's not really possible to argue about the chances of an orderly universe, because it's outside of our current means to even speculate about.
Major props to Dawkins for refusing to play his game, and telling him to talk to an actual expert. So many experts in one field think that makes them knowledgeable in everything else. Wish more people did that.
@@WeesloYT Clearly a comment who knows nothing of philosophy. Does it bother you that every time Dawkins calls up against a philosopher of theologian he always loses?
You've never read Dawkins, have you? "The God Delusion"? Go read that and tell ME how Dawkins doesn't pretend to know enough physics to answer Christian physicists. That he is "humble" to admit he doesn't have all of the answers! Like hell.
I find it comforting to believe in the existence of bread. That's not an argument for the non-existence of bread just because I didn't spell out an explicit argument for bread. I just stated my belief and how it makes me feel.
The example of the compass and the North is invalid. Anywhere other than the magnetic north pole, the compass needle will point to the magnetic north pole. When you are on the exact magnetic north pole, the compass needle should point vertically (straight down), but since it is limited by the compass itself (limited to being level), it will start to rotate. So, what is there to the North of the North? it is a valid question, and the logical answer is at the the North of the Magnetic North is the Magnetic North. The answer is valid, because since to ask what is to the North, is to ask for the geographical space that if we walk towards it brings us closer to the Magnetic North. Causality in our universe is defined by a material event A, which happens before the material event B and, which is the source of that event B. That is, event A triggers a succession, ordered in space/time, of material events that produce event B. That definition of causality requires the existence of space/time and, of course, matter. From the materialistic perspective, there is nothing beyond the material and everything is explained by causal relationships. But here it is, that now, science itself comes to the conclusion, that this is true, but not always, that the materialistic perspective is only valid from a "singularity point". At that "singularity point" the causal relationship ceases to be valid, because the matter and the space/time that are needed to define causality don't exist. That is, science postulates that there is an origin but that this origin is governed by a mysterious phenomenon that is not restricted by matter or space/time, since if it were, it could be explained by causality. That is, they arrive at the Magnetic North and the answer of what is there North of the Magnetic North is "I am".
@huveja9799 Not quite. Apparently, according to my understanding, the pre-inflation singularity held all the energy that would later become matter, however, the universe itself was already spatially infinite at that point and always was. Nb: Please don't make the mistake of conflating a universe that is spatially infinite, with a universe that consists of infinite possibilities. You've not said anything to make me think you'd make such a silly mistake, but you'd be surprised just how many people do! Because of that seeming human propensity, I like to include this caveat in any mentions I make of any dimensions of infinity.
You’ll find that most atheists are actually agnostic and hold the position that these things could be true, but that there is zero credible evidence to believe in them. You talk about hubris but seem to find no issue with people believing in random things for which there is no evidence. Atheists openly acknowledge that there are thousands of things we don’t understand. They just don’t believe in plugging those gaps in knowledge with feel good ideas without evidence.
By that measure, you just can’t give the answer god exists and believe in an afterlife just because you don’t understand something, that’s actually hubris.
Who said it is hard to accept that there might be things we don't understand? If we understood everything then we wouldn't need science at all now would we? But I'm not gonna start believing in fairies for that reason.
”It explains things that are otherwise inexplicable”. My 6 year old has no shortage of explanations for things he cannot understand and he blurts them out with 0 hesitation and with full confidence. It doesn’t make them true
Theist: “We don’t have an answer, and we don’t even know if we’re asking the right question. So we invented an answer that solves all the questions.” 😂😂
This is why you should believe in the Everything Explainer. The Everything Explainer does not hide behind ambiguous labels, it literally is the essence of its name and explains everything. There’s really no arguing against The Everything Explainer because, don’t you see, it explains everything *by definition* .
@@brianm2238Neither can someone say god exists. Atheists aren't the ones making the positive claim on the subject, Christians are. Despite Christianity existing for 2 thousand years, and judaism existing for a longer period of time, no one has ever definitively proven that god exists.
It's an incredibly lazy and cynical move to expect Dawkins to have all the answers when he displays humility at not knowing the answers to the biggest questions, whilst also just accepting without question Myers conclusions which he asserts with no evidence. Truly backwards.
Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. Calling Dawkins humble is crazy. We know that information comes from a mind. We have found vast amounts of information in DNA, so it is logical to assume DNA came from a mind.
Dawkins has NEVER been humble. He only appears humble now because he's lost the debate! For 30+ years he's been ridiculing Christian biologists, physicists, and philosophers, claiming they were using the concept of God to explain processes science hadn't yet explained. But one day it would! And then you'll be humiliated for thinking a Being beyond space and time created everything! Opps! If Dawkins were ever humble he would have said what atheists and agnostics USED to say: "We dont know what came before time/space/matter so we can't say with any certainty that there is no God. So we'll keep our mouths shut about God." That what atheists and agnostics USED to say. That is until Dawkins, Hitchins, Dennett, and Harris came along.
I love how piers morgan never fails to interrupt someone when they are on the verge of saying something profound. It feels like a conspiracy at this point
Yes, it is literally equivalent to nothing. It is both the absolute, and paradoxically, absolute void. We're made in God's image, or rather imagination, in that we are completely free, hence Morgan.
" Our conclusion is that the fundamental properties of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for Life" - physicists Lewis and Barnes ( A Fortunate Universe)
@@briansmith3791funny how those fundamental properties are so fine tuned for life that we have only been able to observe such life on one planet of billions times billions of planets orbiting billions upon billions of stars.
@@briansmith3791 'Fine tuning'/teleology is debunked by the waste in the universe - species that have come and gone, individuals of each species not being able to survive/pass on their genetic etc. If you are reading this whilst needing to wear clothes most of the time wherever you live then you need to reassess exactly how 'fine tuned' even just your local area is for your existence let alone places as climatically diverse as the Poles or regions along the Equator. Nature is observably based upon trial/error and adaptation which would be unnecessary with existence of an infallible design.
@aureum7479 except piers' reasoning is, "I cant fathom how there isn't a 'before the big bang' therefore, god must be real" Nice job coming in here with your "I actually know god exists, because I'm more enlightened and spiritual than you" pretentious bullshit though. This is why no one likes religious people lmfaooooo. Insufferable losers with imaginary friends thinking they're special
@aureum7479 except that's not his reasoning, that's your reasoning. And you don't actually understand, you just can't fathom how life could be meaningless, and this could all come from nothing. You have to ascribe more meaning to your life than just chaos and random chance, so you make up an imaginary creator being that loves you unconditionally but also might condemn you to eternal hellfire? It's weird nonsense bro, and you aren't more enlightened for believing it. You're just more afraid.
@@MrKipling420 As if it was only Christians, or believers in general, who believe that there is a "reason" for things. Alex seems to believe that there is no free-will, and he believes there's no objective moral values, but he doesn't behave that way. If you asked him whether something is "good" or "bad," he would most definitely answer with either choice. Plus, what is this argument even supposed to mean? That people wish to believe in what they think is right? It doesn't invalidate the reasoning; if I have good reasons to believe God exists, what difference does it make if I also have a preference to the same? So long as the reasoning is good, it changes nothing.
Because we as society allow such autism to thrive and exist. You have to also remember we have a high percentile of stupid and gullible folks who would listen to this bellnosh.
@@someguyfromnothingnesslmao I sometimes watch him to get pissed off and make amazing counter arguments. Honestly tho I only watch him if he is interview others that I watch.
Morgan challenges Dawkins on his assessment of the word "before" but would reject that word if someone asked what was "before" God. He would no doubt say that there was no "before".
That's because before God it was Morgan. Einstein said it. "Stupidity and God are eternal but i'm not so sure about God". Morgan is the practical proof that Einstein was right.
I grew up in an atheist family but I wanted to believe in something when I was a child. This is the first thing I tried to think about and quickly realized with or without god I had the same issue
Even if we play devils advocate and entertain the possibility that such an amorphus, immaterial, uncaused causer exists, then how do we jump from that "non-thing" to a hyper-social conservative and personal god who cares what fabrics you wear; or where, with whom, and why you mate; etc. Nor why such a god needed to send his son as a human sacrifice to himself to forgive the sins he himself decided were sins in the first place and could've just expunged.
That's why he chose to seek the MAGA cult as his primary audience! All his brain cells got drained out by Trump and it all just went to waste!!! Or there really wasn't any that Trump could have used?🤣🤣🤣
Richard Dawkins freely and honestly doesn’t claim to have the answers to astrophysics since he’s not an astrophysicist. But Piers Morgan, despite also not being an astrophysicist as the self importance to think “his god” did it, since it’s what comforts him, and the billions of other religious who want an afterlife and a supervising big brother to look over them.
"There's been nearly 3,000 gods so far but only yours actually exists. The others are silly made-up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real." - Ricky Gervais
There are arguably millions of copies of the Mona Lisa, but the one in the Louvre is the only "real" (authentic) one. I know Ricky Gervais means it sarcastically, but I can glean no sarcasm in his words.
That argument breaks down stupendously when you actually apply the probability theory it's invoking. Gervais mixes up individual probability with collective probability. And, I doubt he understands the difference between Bayesian and Frequentist. See, here's my question. Why is it bad for Piers, as a non-expert, to debate an expert (as many people in the comments say), but its ok--indeed even quotable--for an actor with an undergraduate philosophy degree to say something that requires a solid understanding in maths, probability theory, and philosophy?
@@xaviervelascosuarez Then why do you believe in a god that's not the original? Gods are like the Mona Lisa in that they are all artful fictions. You were born in a situation in which it was expected that you would believe in a particular art piece, but if all Gods are derived from the original, Christianity was created too late in the game to represent that one.
@@Wertbag99To advertise his books and tours. What good could they do if only the ones who agree with him know it? Dawkins was born religious, he knows reaching to the other side is a reasonable move. He already said Piers is a fool everywhere, doesn't mean he wouldn't rely on him on these occasion. A fool is still a fool, and books are still in need of advertising.
It doesn't even mean that everything popped up at the same time, the universe could have cycles or could have already existed with all the same matter and the big bang is just another phase
Well than ‘team - I don’t know’ is it reasonable to believe that nothing created the universe? Nothing doesn’t do anything yet how is it supposed to be responsible for the greatest miracle of all time? Also if nothing created the universe what’s stopping nothing from doing it again multiple times outside of the observable universe? What’s stopping nothing inside the observable universe from another big bang like event? If you don’t know how is that logical reasoning for the creator of the universe to be nothing instead of something or someone?
No, you don't. I'll assume that the argument discussed is the Kalam argument. In that argument, only things which BEGIN to exist need a cause. If the universe never BEGAN to exist, that is, if the universe has an infinite past, then it doesn't need a cause.
@@dariussparkes7080 Are you interest in making any interesting argument? Your comment seemed to be talking about the Kalam argument, and if that's not the case, then I have very little interest in debating on who misunderstood what;
Really clear points. As Richard Feynman (and countless others) pointed out… without a shared frame of reference, shared fundamental conceptual or practical building blocks…how can I explain a complex concept based on those, to you?
"So the pawn, the knight, the queen, and the king are each on a square of the chessboard. Which square is the chessboard on though?" "That question doesn't really make sense." "But it just HAS to! It's obviously a sensible question, I can just feel it!"
When low IQ ppl cant win a chess game: "God exists, hes controlling the chessboard. See? I turned the table. Now this is my rule. You have nothing on this board, I have God. I win😎" Religion vs science in a nutshell.
When I0w IQ cant wjn a chess game: "God controls this chessboard. See? God turned the table. Now its my rule. You have no legit piece on this board, its "metaphysical". I have God. I win😎" Religion vs science in a nutshell
Piers confusing "it makes no sense" (that nothing came before the big bang) with "i dont understand". But he fails to grasp how silly it is that an all powerful entity created everything. This proves that Piers needs things to be simple. He cant contemplate "nothing before something" so its easier if he imagines a magic man in the sky did it all
At the end of the day, you also cannot contemplate "nothing before something." None of us truly can. It's like a stick figure pondering the idea of a sphere. Impossible.
@@timherz86people can ponder on the idea of a non-contingent thing and a 2D stick figure can ponder on the idea of a sphere. im sure the above comment meant they will just never have the ability to understand it.
''How silly is that an all-powerful being created everything''? It's not silly in the least unless you're philosophically lazy. I'm not even a believer, but believing that everything came from nothing or, worse, in anything susceptible from an infinite regression does not make any smarter.
@@Barcelona_Fan_100, I wouldn’t suggest he is smart. He was jailed for the attempted murder of his father. Woods say he tried to kill his dad because he was an atheist and whilst in prison would challenge the prison priest and during these challenges he converted to Christianity. Woods normally deals with Islam topics and why Islam is false.
Piers really provides a great example of how a lot of anti-science attitudes work: I don't understand, it's not intuitive, therefore it's not true. When in reality tons of things are unintuitive while also true - the fact that everything falls at the same rate in a vacuum is unintuitive to me, but that doesn't make it untrue.
The north pole analogy for the big bang really nails it down. Piers unfortunately has no idea what he’s talking about but has the hubris to assume he must be correct because of his “common sense”. What part of General Relativity is common sense Piers?
Singularities are a defect of General relativity, they only exist mathematically with no physical mapping. It would take hubris to assume the nonsense of a successful physical theory debunks some timeless creating force. Yes, General relativity implies that the universe was a singularity, but general relativity also contradicts quantum field theory. Our physical theories are incomplete; we shouldn't be religious about them and accept their nonsense just because the theories successfully predict other distinct behaviours of the universe.
That's not as smart as you might think. That idea of nort of the north pole and that there is nothing and no time before the big bang, that's rejected by Roger Penrose. He says he used to believe that too, but hes changed his mind on it.
That is the question which I thought of in High School which led me to part with Religion. At the time I was thinking why nobody else have thought of that and shared it with me. I thought it was an original thought which I had and nobody came up with it before. I was the chosen one. 😂 I was just living in a bubble with a bunch of religious zombies.
The spacetime is restricted to a block, so time it is entirely contained in that surface; past, present and future were either created at once or it was always there. But outside the universe something can exist, as someone watching the screen of a pacman game
The two questions aren't comparable at all. The big bang is understood as a temporal event which marked the beginning of time and the universe while God has been traditionally conceived under a theistic framework as eternal, outside time and space without a beginning or an end so the concept of 'before' I would argue, is inapplicable to God, the same way it is for a temporal event in the past like the big bang.
Regardless of where you stand, we could all be intellectually honest enough to agree that the big bang had a definite start and is not eternal, hence the question 'what preceeded the big bang is logical even if we don't have an answer yet. In contrast, the question what came before God is flawed as God is understood as eternal, beyond time and casuality. Not the same at all.
Piers Morgan confronting Dawkins with creationist arguments had me about as dumbfounded as if Morgan started explaining how the earth is flat and it can't be a sphere because it's just inconceivable that the people wouldn't just fall off the bottom half of it
@@christopherneedham9584 Kitzmiller v. Dover ruled Intelligent Design (ID) as being unscientific and creationism in 2005. And yes, ID does state that a young earth is not part of their doctrine, but at the same time, Stephen C. Meyer himself has pointed out that his work is constrained to being consistent with young earth creationism. What these points tell me is that 1. he's officially (and also per definition) a creationist, and 2. he's part of the YEC grift.
@@kappasphere Kitzmiller v Dover did not rule that ID is unscientific or creationism. It was in the judges opinion. The ruled that it violated the teachers first amendment rights to be compelled to teach something. Stephen C. Meyer is not a YEC, and all of his positing on his theory of Intelligent Design is within the general accepted timeline of the universe in scientific literature. He also accepts evolution as the means by which the species that exist today have come about. YEC don't like Stephen Meyer generally because he does not agree that the earth is young. Idk where you get your information but if you read his book or listened to his interviews, he definitely is not a YEC, and his theory is not Creationism.
@@christopherneedham9584Check out Prof Daves systematic deconstruction of Meyer and all the Discovery Institute frauds , it's shocking how manipulative and dishonest these people are.
@@christopherneedham9584Watch Prof Daves systematic deconstruction of Meyer and his cronies at DI , manipulation and dishonesty is their field of expertise.
Haven't you listened to Piers Morgan's arguments? Clearly, quantum mechanics just isn't real when it's too complicated to understand for non-physicists. A much simpler explanation is that God sends angels to draw funny patterns on our instruments, and physicists just try to see patterns in the randomness. There's a reason why quantum physics uses a LIE algebra and not a TRUTH algebra.
@jonah9861 Cuz y'all need a book to keep y'all adults back from doing heinous stuff while using it to justify the heinous stuff huh 🤦🏽♀️ Also yh that's not an argument
As someone who is in the field of physics as a researcher and teacher, I love the introduction of modern (quantum) physics to students. I start by telling them that intuition is out the door (except if you have statistics 'intuition' you may have gathered). You know things like F=ma and p=mv are wrong in certain circumstances. In superconductors electrons attract each other. Hydrogen molecules stop rotating below 100 K. Helium never becomes a solid at ambient pressure as you approach absolute zero in temperature. Clocks move differently depending on how fast you travel. We still don't know what a majority of mass and energy are in the universe. I could go on. But to me, trying to figure out we don't know is exciting and not a place to insert a god to 'help' us fill in the gaps and make us feel comfortable. Like with evolution, science continues to fill in gaps of our understanding. Remember, in the grand scheme of things, Galileo was around only 400 years ago.
I feel all these enlightened self worshippers have stated their 'beliefs'...so what...the world, cosmos, has taken note...it stop spinning for a second.. the suffering, hungry, abandoned, war torn, helpless are better off?...so far only planet earth has life, glorious life, green trees, millions of super clever insects, marvellous animals, stunning flora, blue, green oceans with teeming fish and sea creatures and also little strutting man, who cannot make anything out of nothing, is still discovering fabulous things made by a master designer or it all just happened by chance? Fine...you worship your own intellect and live your fantastic life...while the rest find hope and purpose in their belief in an Eternal God, made real in Jesus Christ, and they call Him Father and are filled with God the Holy Spirit. Ordinary, illiterate fishermen standing up to the philosophers and intellectuals of their age with a commanding message...God made you and loves you, He gave His Son to die in your place as penalty for your inborn inclination to sin, repent and I AM will live in you as the Holy Spirit on earth and eternally... Yes there are many so called Christians, who have done atrocious things in the name of Christ just as there are millions of non believers who have done worse... hypocrites abound in all beliefs... Even if I find that Christianity is just a dream...and death is final...gone back to earth or ashes...no heaven, no hell...still I will not be sorry to have believed and with the Holy Spirit lived as far as possible a blessed Christian life... May God bless you all who are seeking the truth, Merle.
So interesting but unfortunately won’t be watching anymore Alex O’Connor vids due to the advertisement toward the start of the video. I already pay UA-cam to have the ad free version so why should I put up with in video advertising?
I see it as a lie to yourself in order to make you feel comfortable. Were you afraid before you were born? Was there something before you were born? NO. why think there is something different when you die?
I think that even if I tried with all my might and my imagination and my determination, I still would not be able to agree with you more....lol...bravo for saying it so very very well!!
A sign of intelligence / logic, which demonstrates Piers' has neither, is the ability/humility to admit there are things we dont understand, and even experts in that field dont understand...yet. And an intelligent & logical person doesn't need to fill that hole with the super natural.
@@martsangalang5781 What I hate most is people expressing an uninformed hunch and then calling that "logic". That's not what logic means, and logic doesn't dictate that studying a subject makes you less likely to understand it.
I never pass up an opportunity to share a Terry Pratchett qute: "'Y’know,’ he said, ‘it’s very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is.'"
That's a good quote that is also very fitting when talking about God. It would go something like, "It's very hard to talk about an infinite reality with a language originally designed to talk about limited beings. "
@@xaviervelascosuarez Except that's bullshit of course, since we invented God using language and every bit of God we've ever believed in has been a silly play on words like "omnipotent". God is made for and by human language. He's a linguistic fiction
@revlarmilion9574 Can you actually prove that? Because the funny thing is that Christians claim that, far from us creating God with our language, God created us using his language.
It always annoys me, that when there is an atheistic expert of a certain field talking with a theist, the theist always wants to examine the topic from any other view than the one that the atheist is an actual expert of. It’s dishonest, since both sound equally confused, while if you’d talk about creation with an evolutionary biologist or about the Big Bang with an astrophysicist, you’d get an actual intellectual discussion.
Yeah you are absolutely right! The respect should be more there. And what is a also dishonest is when it happens to a theist also who is expert in his field, but just the fact of mentionning God is like discrediting himself. That's intellectually dishonest also but never mentionned.
I may be wrong, but hasn't Dawkins written numerous books on atheism where he discusses and references and interprets science and other disciplines that are outside of his specific specialty? I guess I would question why he is allowed to do that, but someone isn't allowed to question him about subjects other than his particular specialty.
We pop into this world without any recollection of all that came before. Our lives are measured by our short time within a timeless universe. I agree with Richard Dawkins, it’s wonderful that there are people searching for answers. I love the wonder of it all.
If you do something just to upset someone else, are you really doing it for yourself? That's not to say you should necessarily do something *not* to upset people, but to do something *just* because it makes people angry who you don't like seems like a poor way to go through life. Imagine just enjoying making people mad to make them mad...
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the theory of the big bang does NOT claim that the universe came from nothing. With our current understanding of how the universe works (i.e. the combination of quantum physics and relativity) the theory of the big bang is able to explain how the universe was like back when it was as "old" as 10e-43 seconds and it had a size of 10e-33 centimeters (a Plank length). At that time, ALL the energy we detect and use today was already there. As the universe expanded, it cooled, and matter begin to form out of that energy. Of course the first intuition is to think that the universe was even smaller at an earlier time, given that there's overwhelming evidence the universe has been expanding since it was 10e-43 seconds old. However, we have no clue what happened (or how it happened) between "time zero" (if there's such thing) and the plank time. That's where scientists are evaluating other options like string theory and loop quantum gravity to try to explain and model those very early moments, assuming the universe was even smaller, down to a infinitesimally small singularity. But so far, we have no clue. And of course, it's perfectly feasible that the universe never got any smaller than the plank length! But that's the cool stuff about science. No problem to say "we don't know", and how exciting it is to continue learning new thing to discover those things that we don't know.
@@AnthonyArmour THANK YOU!! You made me look up other material that I had previously not considered. Indeed, it has been observed and measured that in completely empty space there is a constant soup of particles and anti-particles coming into existence and destroying themselves extremely quickly. Therefore we have observed and measured "something" coming out of "nothing". This indicates that the universe could have come from nothing. The second clue is that the net energy of the universe (also measured with high accuracy) is zero. We currently predict that the universe will continue to expand and matter will either rip itself apart or will fall inside black holes, and black holes eventually will dissipate to nothing. Essentially the universe will end in nothing, just like it began, thus keeping the "balance" at zero.
Correcting your last quote: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet, 1.5. 165-66). Spoken by Hamlet to his friend Horatio
So,theists say it is incomprehensible for us to explain nothingness, therefore they invoke God.But it is a hell of a lot harder to comprehend something exist without time and space.Isn't it counterintuitive?Can theists explain to me that.
@@angusmcculloch6653 Can theists explain to me how something can exist outside of time and space without counterintuitive implications. Piers argument is that we can't comprehend nothingness before big bang,therefore there must be a god who caused the universe to exist.But how can something exist outside of time and space?It is way more difficult to comprehend than nothingness. What I am saying is invoking a god doesn't solve the problem but increases the difficulties to explain significantly.
@@MDArifHossain-eh2hu I think most theists would simply say that Piers was making no sense, and would agree that it's not just because something is "counterintuitive" that this something is, therefore, wrong. I don't see how this changes anything about other arguments presented by theists.
@@victor_2216 Most theists do invoke God when faced with complexity particularly in situations where natural explanations seem insufficient.Philosophical arguments like Kalam cosmological argument, contingency argument, teleological argument these do indeed stem from the idea that certain features of the universe need explanation beyond natural world.If complexity requires an explanation, the solution is invoked to explain the complexity also requires an explanation and an omnipotent,all seeing,all hearing supernatural deity who exists outside of time and space is the most complex idea one could postulate.
It's mind blowing when you watch fact vs fiction go head to head. The one merely states that with multiple sources and a plethora of evidence, we can correctly assume a result, and it always has a tag attached: "Prove it wrong". The other has "Proof" which is always, yes, always hearsay. Always subjective without any tangible proof, unless emotions are proof. Notice that, the logical one speaks calm and respectfully, the other is always like a monkey on Ice. Love your stuff Sir. keep up the great work!
Then why does he claim god doesn’t exist, criticise theology and the bible when he has no background on it to ground his criticisms ?. He’s not Bart Ehrman.
@@aureum7479 Anyone can make a positive claim but then they have a burden of proof. To me, theology isn't sufficient to declare that a god does/doesn't exist, that's just the study of what ancient people believed. It would take a heck of a lot more than just reading and examining old books looking for in/consistencies.
@@aureum7479 For the same reason that you, presumably, claim that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. And, to head off the obvious follow-up, the reason that you only passively assert the non-existence of Santa and Dawkins actively asserts the non-existence of God is because there aren't Leprechaun-worshippers demanding that we stop teaching evolution in schools because all life was made by the noodley appendages of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever. If Unicorn-worshippers got to avoid paying taxes and built massive unicorn statues and had their druids abuse kids and get away with it and were given millions to spread their insane beliefs and tried to put you out of work and replace you with a horse with a paper-mache horn stuck on its head, I imagine you'd not sit idly by either...
Thankyou Alex. These will never get tiring for me to watch. You're so clearly respectful of the God issues, like a medical professional committed to the well being of the patient.
@@SeanF374 You can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Dawkins a very public figure who has written books on atheism in which he references and interprets the scholarly work of physicists? Since Dawkins works beyond his specialty, at least with regards to theism, it doesn't strike me as particularly unfair or bad faith to ask questions of Dawkins along those lines. It's not as if Morgan demanded that Dawkins produce peer-reviewed physics research. In my opinion, if there was bad faith, Dawkins came closest to it when he pleaded total ignorance, claiming he was "baffled" by what physicists told him. If he is so baffled by what physicists tell him, I don't understand how he could, with any authority, cite and interpret academic physics research in his works. Those two positions seem contradictory to me.
@@angusmcculloch6653 I do get what you are saying but, if Morgan genuinely wants an answer to a physics question, he should ask a physicist. He used this route to get Dawkins on the back foot. It was a tactic to try to win an argument, rather than trying to gain knowledge for himself or his viewers. Dawkins should have been better armed but anyone wanting to learn anything gets nothing from Morgan's approach, as usual.
@@SeanF374 If one presents themselves as having at least enough knowledge on a subject to cite and interpret work, I don't see asking them to show at least some proficiency in that area to show we can trust their interpretation as being *simply* a tactic to win. I think, perhaps, we did find some information, it's just uncomfortable: Dawkins, by his own admission, is not well-versed enough in physics to explain it in lay terms, which draws into question how accurate his interpretations of physics research are in his works. Another example, I recently posted a preprint of a paper that uses a specific type of quantitative method. Now, I'm not an expert in that method. I ran the experiment, looked at the outcome, found it surprising and publishable if accurate. I sent it around to people who are experts to review. It has undergone peer-review. When I present it at a conference, you can bet I will get questions about that method to see how well I actually understand the method. Even though I'm not an expert, do you agree those questions will be fair, since I've chosen to employ that method? Did I use the method correctly? Did I miscalculate something somewhere? Is there another method that gives a different answer that I don't know about or ignored? I think you would agree those questions are fair. Do I think Morgan was doing a bit of score settling for Dawkins' bad form of calling Morgan a fool behind his back on another program? Yeah, I'm sure that was part of it. But I don't see it as inherently unfair to ask Dawkins questions about physics as it pertains to theism when Dawkins himself is the one who employs physics. I just don't see how that can be the case. If we were to adopt that standard, it would seem to allow Dawkins to say whatever he wanted about any subject and then not have to face questions because it's not his specialty. And, again, lastly, I think we did find out some information, namely, Dawkins's weakness in understanding academic physics calls into question the accuracy of his use of physics research in his works.
If the explanation is logical, and the argument is sound, then what difference does it make? You might not like the arguments, but that doesn't make it a bad argument.
@@victor_2216 it is a bad argument because it fails to actually attempt to answer the question. It's the same reason many ancient civilizations had an innumerable amount of gods, they created a being the explained the things they didn't understand.
@@Aeivious What do you mean when you say it "fails to answer the question"? If I tell you God created the universe, and then you ask me who created God, those are two different questions; I did answer the first question, but then you made a different question.
It's like saying "There was a point in time when there was no time, and then at a later point in time, time came into existence." You can't apply the rules of something to the thing itself. You'd might as well ask "where" space was before space came into existence.
Piers is the typical religion follower. Has an unchanging dogmatic view and holds it as a criteria to rule out scientific explanations without even considering it or think why such great reasonable people should consider a "counterintuitive" explanation!! Knows nothings about scientific method! Only listening to answer. Here's a rule of thumb: if you're sure 100% that your point of view is not gonna change by a discussion, then don't have that discussion and don't waste another one's time! And if you know for sure that your view is not gonna change no matter what the other person is gonna bring up, know that you're called "dogmatic" by definition.
There is no scientific explanation, because it violates the laws of logic, that is the core of the conversation. Dawkins himself said our brain can't process it, which is the core of the matter. It is necessarily magic, and we will never be able to understand. The real question is not if it is magic, the question is if that magic is an entity related to us, or just something magical that happens by itself
You misunderstand entirely, much like Piers. There is a scientific explanation, and yes, people can understand it, just not you or I. Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it illogical. And no it’s not magic. There is no need for a supernatural explanation nor any evidence to suggest the supernatural can or does exist. So why would we consider the proposition of a supernatural start to the universe when there are plenty of scientific explanations to investigate first.
@@Captain101-x1o That is the problem with regular people, you don't understand that science is based on basic principles, and logic axioms are understandable by children. There is no axiom that allows something out of nothing, that is the core of the matter
@@Captain101-x1o “ you misunderstand entirely, much like Piers.” it seems that the poster is in agreement with Dawkins and is clearly on the side of science. Who are you directing your comment to then?
@@jarnalyrkar " The Big Bang did not come from Nothing. It came from a highly, highly ordered state of incredibly complex geometry, 1^10^10^124. This is an observable fact".- Penrose ( BBC Hardtalk).
@@briansmith3791 That is certainly a claim without any evidence that doesn't explain why we don't see any evidence for it either, which we should if it was actually correct. The cyclic universe hypothesis is pretty much dead in the water.
@@michaelmay5453 "Dead in the water"? Ah, that old ploy again! Any evidence? Funny, last we heard from Penrose, he said his published papers have not been challenged. You're challenging Penrose's mathematics? Let's hear it.
Every time we used God to explain something it has been the wrong answer, especially when people say "God made me do it." and even "The Devil made me do it.".
@@daviddeida Those are bad excuses too. Thinking that the body dictates your entire psychology. It certainly does have an influence on emotions and behavior aswell as even the decisions we make, but it does not dictate how you handle those influences. Like physical attraction is something you cannot help feeling, but it is something you can have control of from influencing your behavior or how you treat other people. We have parts of our brain designed specifically for that purpose, so we can dictate and have control over ourselves. It is called Executive Function.
@@daviddeida What? Look up Executive Function and learn more on Psychology. It will teach you alot. Infact it will put you ahead of most people that will never learn it unless they take it in college.
Something I don't really get about these 'debates' where the question is "what came before Big Bang" or "how did the Universe start" is how an answer can't just be currently unknown. In the past before Earth's surface was fully explored, we didn't know what the uncharted territories looked like (with some interpretations being just horror stories about monsters or whatever), in even more distant past we didn't know what planets were and worshipped the Sun, but we've come far since. We currently don't have an explanation or knowledge about everything as new things are constantly being invented or researched, so why can't it be also applied to "what came before big bang" instead of having to insist that it's "unexplainable, therefore God"?
My father accidentally blinded one eye and for decades when someone asks how much he can see with that eye he says “the same you can see with your toe. Nothing”
I remember a time when I was a Christian arguing with an atheist about what came before the Big Bang and he said exactly what Dawkins is saying here. So I said that’s crazy and goes against common sense. But since I became an atheist I started really trying to understand physics so that I can understand this question. I’m still no physicists, but after years of reading up of the theory of relativity it has come to make a lot more sense. It’s complicated, but it’s not crazy. Time is relative and varies depending on how objects of varying masses fold spacetime. Spacetime metrically expands ever since the Big Bang and everything in the fabric of spacetime moves apart with it, in some cases moving apart faster than light, but not moving through spacetime itself faster than light. Objects of greater mass and speed fold spacetime into itself effectively moving through time more slowly, and at light speed time stops. If an object either surpassed light speed or gain enough mass time would theoretically reverse or just cease to function as we know it. And this is the idea behind why time doesn’t theoretically go back before the Big Bang. Time wasn’t moving forward or functioning the way that we know it now.
What was there 'before' God? Where did the matter god used to construct the universe come from? Invoking god doesn't solve any questions, in fact it creates more
My view, for what it's worth, is that there was Nothing before what became 'God'. Something happened, we don't know what, and a pattern began, leading to a fractal process. 'God' is an evolved perfect conscious geometry. It created this System to obtain new information. The universe was created for It's purposes, not ours.
@@kennybachman35 IF the universe was created, why would it be created for no purpose. My view is that the purpose is information. 'God' would have had no information other than geometry and mathematics, it would have to create something else outside itself for that.
I’ve never taken Piers for a deep thinker. I don’t really know what ‘God’ means anymore to be honest. I find so many discussions small and self limiting. It’s not as if any God is required to have hope regarding an afterlife. For all we know that just happens entirely naturally. Or humans in the far future found out there wasn’t one and are using wormholes to copy and paste our consciousness’ to some vast computer that exists in millions of years. Every discussion about Hod seems to be trying to force its way to a Bronze Age understanding being true just because there’s stories from tragedy period about some magical event. Yet the stories are of the exact category of myth. Just think about why the miracles were so crap. Each of them is ‘story-like’ in that they leave nothing even 10 mins later. If you missed the event then there was nothing. A real God could align the stars into a message. We get a bit of healing, walking in water, and water into wine. Totally useless if you want to show people for more that 30 seconds. But exactly as we’d expect from myth. Fully on the category of the doubtable. Meanwhile people want your minds, money, deeds etc in a very human way wrapped in stories that drive fear, guilt, and some sort of weird victim/rescuer relationship. And all Piers can say is ‘I find it comforting’ and some version of ‘we don’t know everything’. Well, we know enough about geology, biology and physics to know 99% of it is nonsense, even if we don’t know the last 1%. But that doesn’t mean people can’t hope. It just means we don’t need to give our money and time to other people trying to charge us for access via their institutions in one way or another.
You are a disgusting garbage person for supporting an organisation that has a fund to pay legal fees for their pedo priests. Absolutely shameful and immoral.
You need to be saved friend. You need to leave rc to do so. Do it soon. Your eternal destiny is at stake. Catholicism will not help you on that day before Jesus Christ. Only faith through grace guided by love and ordered by Jesus will save you from the institution which has blinded you from this spiritual reality. Trust Him before it is entirely too late to pray. God rest
I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said something along the lines of, “By saying ‘god did it”, you are answering nothing; you are simply introducing a greater mystery that has no explanatory power”.
Not being fond of an argument does not make the argument, therefore, illogical. Can you think of a better, more plausible explanation to what caused the universe to begin to exist?
@@Innesb If it is the case that God does exist, what difference does it make if we can't explain God himself? It's a non-sequitur. I mean, is this supposed to be an argument in favor or against anything?
@@victor_2216 The most logical answer is there was no beginning, it just always was. Christians ironically have an issue with the concept of eternity. We already know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so why should the universe be any different?
Carl Sagan said it best as I paraphrase: If theists claim that God did not need any cause because she is eternal, then why not reply that the universe needs no cause because it is eternal thereby getting rid of one unecessary entity?
@@AndresVfs that undermind the thiest perspective because everything that exist have a beginning. Since god had no beginning. Ergo, god doesn't exist.
@@icekills1Let’s propose that your logic is true here and expand the concept out. Now if God required a creator we must have a God 2 who created God 1. So if God 2 exists then God 3 must have created him. If we expand this concept out to infinity it would be impossible to come into existence because it would require an infinite amount of time. Then logically we can propose that to come into existence it requires a being who is eternal. Now this eternal being would be responsible for our existence and the observable universe itself. It’s logical to propose that this creator is powerful and also intelligent. Omnipotent and omniscient.
Does that make the answer invalid? I like to think my wife loves me, does that preference make my belief any less reasonable, or does it make it illogical in any way?
It's a common misconception that belief in God is just a way to find comfort. For me, it’s about understanding the universe on a deeper level-both scientifically and morally. Take Stephen Meyer’s critique of Darwinian evolution, for example. The sudden appearance of complex life during the Cambrian Explosion and the combinatorial improbabilities of forming functional proteins by chance present serious challenges to Darwin’s theory. If Darwin’s model is found lacking, and Intelligent Design offers a better explanation for life’s complexity, that could reshape the entire foundation on which modern atheism often relies. But more than just science, belief in God as the ultimate symbol of moral good provides us with a framework for living. The teachings of Jesus Christ, for example, offer guidance on how to align ourselves with compassion, love, and forgiveness, all of which promote human flourishing and reduce suffering. By striving to align with this higher moral good, we contribute positively to society. Atheism, on the other hand, often leaves a moral vacuum where there’s no higher ideal to aspire to. When God is removed from the equation, and morality becomes subjective, it can lead to a postmodern, chaotic, and nihilistic society where meaning and morality are seen as arbitrary. Without a foundation for objective moral truths, it's easy for people to act without concern for the consequences or the well-being of others. If atheism’s main argument relies heavily on Darwin’s theory of evolution, and that theory is proven to be flawed, it could have profound societal implications. A society without a moral framework, driven by a sense of purposelessness, could descend into chaos, as we're already seeing in some postmodern trends today. What do you think about the idea that God provides not just an explanation for life, but also a way to live that fosters a healthier and more meaningful society?
@@jimladen22 Too much gibberish. Ill answer the question tho. Every single religion tied with a law system appeals to the public with 1 main goal: Establish an authority in disguise of "G's authority" where they're in charge. Has been like that for thousands of years. Those ppl knew about these unfalsifiable problems long ago and tried to exploit them to their advantages through myths and forgeries. Moral works fine without G, science works completely opposed to G's command: submission. Societies doesn't need G. G need societies to implant fantasies and delusion to compete for power and influence, not for G, but for those ppl who benefits from "the G hypothesis". Ask a random church about financial report for more information.
@@jimladen22 Next time, before asking such question, remember: Its not us who run to the church everyday and try to prove that you're wrong. Its you ppl who knock at every door and try to persuade us that you're right. Survival needs approval. In this case, not mankind.
@@thomeilearn It seems like you either misunderstood my comment or are being intentionally dismissive. I’m happy to have a respectful conversation, but it’s important to engage with the points I’ve made rather than dismiss them as 'gibberish.' Let's address the issues thoughtfully. - Religion as Control: You mentioned that religion is often tied to power structures, which I don’t dispute. History is full of examples where religious institutions have been used to control people, often to meet political or economic ends. I fully acknowledge that, but it’s important to separate the core values of religious teachings from the corruption that can come with institutions. The idea of God or a higher moral good doesn’t necessarily equate to submission to human-made authority. - Moral without God: While you argue that morality works fine without God, I would counter that much of the morality in the West is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values. Even if someone doesn’t identify as religious, the societal framework they operate within has been influenced by those values. So, whether consciously or not, many of the ethical principles people adhere to have religious roots. - Science and God: I don't see Science and God as mutually exclusive. Science helps us understand the _how_ of the universe, while belief in God or a higher power addresses the why. Many scientists, including those who believe in God, see science and theism as complementary. My belief in Intelligent Design comes from this idea: the more we uncover about the complexity of life and the universe, the more it suggests purpose rather than randomness. - Submission vs. Understanding: I don’t view belief in God as submitting to an oppressive force but as aligning with the highest moral good. The values promoted by religious teachings, such as compassion, love, and justice, are what drive me towards that belief. It’s not about control but about living in a way that promotes human flourishing and reduces suffering, something that’s often lost when morality becomes entirely subjective.
Go to piavpn.com/alex to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free.
For early, ad-free access to videos, and to support the channel, subscribe to my Substack at www.alexoconnor.com
Get that bag king, make sure you tithe 🤪
Alex? Would you say the stache is a result of free will, or rather something else?
No thanks
do you think if you accepted only fans offer back then you wouldve named it Alex O 𝓯𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓴𝔂?
@@loust1264Freaky Skeptic?
I'm 2 minutes in and I've already seen the most impressive thing ever: Piers listens carefully to Stephen Meyer's argument, without interrupting once...
😲😲😲😲
More seriously he would listen to someone he agrees with and not someone he has assumed is wrong.
He lets his guests talk as much as they want when he agrees with them. Meyers believes in god, Dawkins doesn't. I wonder who will get a chance to speak.
That's probably because Meyer is on Piers' side on this question and therefore Piers wanted to absorb whatever argument was presented in that instance to then uncritically spit it up later, as he did.
A perfect example of confirmation bias.
More like Poop Morgan
Piers continues to prove that you dont need talent to do well in life
Strangely enough I think Piers Morgan is well educated, talented, and a very clever person. It's just unfortunate that all that talent and cleverness was wasted on Piers Morgan.
@@davegoldLOL
@@davegold Of course, the world would have been far better off, had it instead been bestowed upon the wonderful, davegold, without a doubt.
It's his job as a journalist to ask challenging questions and create discussion. People get offended too easily and just resort to personal attacks, and often mask them as jokes too.
Exactly, another example that not all effects need a cause to initiate. Usually talent (cause) is needed to become successful (effect), whereas Piers has seemed to have skipped the first step.
Einstein's girfriend: Albert, right now I need two things from you, space and time.
Einstein: OK, what's the second.
So space and time are the same things then or they both need each other?
same dimension
That's like saying a coin does not have two sides because it is one coin
😆😅😂🤣
@@sheldonlamey7010 they’re both one part of the reality we call “spacetime”
For the big bang to support theism
1. We have to prove causality applies before the big bang
2. We have to prove something outside the universe can affect/ cause the universe (or affect it after its started)
3. We have to assert the special pleading fallacy to this entity or else we've actually answered nothing because we don't know what caused this being
4. Once you've met those criteria, you have to prove your version of this entity is actually the one that caused it
Bringing up "the universe needs a cause" is merely admitting you worship the god of the gaps in your understanding
It's the ultimate god of the gaps
I have always loved this phrase - "The universe (or reality) is under no obligation to make sense to you."
Unless you're a physicist who rules out "before" and tell people with out evidence how you can get something from nothing.
In terms of theory of origin, scientists are as full of it as theists.
Same goes in the first self-replicating cell argument except the theists (like Stephen Meyer) are really good at pointing out the absurdity of the primeval soup nonsense.
Meyers assertion that that makes the Bible true is equally as absurd.
But it does make sense. That’s the mystery that astounded Einstein. It has no obligation to make sense, yet it does.
@@ethanlonchar No, "it" doesn't make sense. _We_ have evolved teh necessary apparatus to make sense of it. Within limits. We haven't yet made sense of the difference between the very large and very small, or what happens at a singularity. We may , we may not. the universe doesn't care
@@bestbehave no, the universe could have been a total mess, without rules, consistency, or predictability. But that’s not the case. The universe is governed by rules that we can make sense of. Sure we don’t understand everything but that’s not the point.
The fact the universe makes ANY sense at all is astounding.
@ethanlonchar The universe having rules isn't really "astounding", because while the universe has no obligation to make sense, it also has no obligation to not make sense. It's impossible to say whether it's unusual for the universe to have consistent rules because we have no other universes to compare it to. Maybe there's a one in a trillion chance for a universe to be so consistent, or maybe it's guaranteed. Maybe the rules aren't consistent, and we just think they are. Perhaps the laws of physics change every billion years and we simply don't know about it. It's not really possible to argue about the chances of an orderly universe, because it's outside of our current means to even speculate about.
Major props to Dawkins for refusing to play his game, and telling him to talk to an actual expert. So many experts in one field think that makes them knowledgeable in everything else. Wish more people did that.
Does that apply to Dawkins as well? He clearly does not understand theology of philosophy.
@@TBOTSSphilosophy isn’t a science. It’s personal
@@WeesloYT Clearly a comment who knows nothing of philosophy. Does it bother you that every time Dawkins calls up against a philosopher of theologian he always loses?
@@TBOTSS no because I don’t care about theology or philosophy lol. I care about fields based on the scientific method.
You've never read Dawkins, have you? "The God Delusion"?
Go read that and tell ME how Dawkins doesn't pretend to know enough physics to answer Christian physicists. That he is "humble" to admit he doesn't have all of the answers! Like hell.
Piers Morgan said it : 'I do believe in God, I do believe in the afterlife. *I find it comforting* '.
God of personal expediency.
I find it comforting to believe in the existence of bread. That's not an argument for the non-existence of bread just because I didn't spell out an explicit argument for bread. I just stated my belief and how it makes me feel.
Regarding afterlife, there's NDEs.
@@sherlockshlome473You can touch, eat, make and observe bread.
You missed the mark by a mile.
@@alexale5488 Note the first word of the phrase ''near death experience'' That means NOT dead mate.. So whats your point?
That talk was the hardest thing I've ever listened to 😂
Dr. Tyson famously said:
"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you!"
Does that make sense to you?
The example of the compass and the North is invalid. Anywhere other than the magnetic north pole, the compass needle will point to the magnetic north pole. When you are on the exact magnetic north pole, the compass needle should point vertically (straight down), but since it is limited by the compass itself (limited to being level), it will start to rotate. So, what is there to the North of the North? it is a valid question, and the logical answer is at the the North of the Magnetic North is the Magnetic North. The answer is valid, because since to ask what is to the North, is to ask for the geographical space that if we walk towards it brings us closer to the Magnetic North.
Causality in our universe is defined by a material event A, which happens before the material event B and, which is the source of that event B. That is, event A triggers a succession, ordered in space/time, of material events that produce event B. That definition of causality requires the existence of space/time and, of course, matter.
From the materialistic perspective, there is nothing beyond the material and everything is explained by causal relationships. But here it is, that now, science itself comes to the conclusion, that this is true, but not always, that the materialistic perspective is only valid from a "singularity point". At that "singularity point" the causal relationship ceases to be valid, because the matter and the space/time that are needed to define causality don't exist. That is, science postulates that there is an origin but that this origin is governed by a mysterious phenomenon that is not restricted by matter or space/time, since if it were, it could be explained by causality. That is, they arrive at the Magnetic North and the answer of what is there North of the Magnetic North is "I am".
@huveja9799
Not quite.
Apparently, according to my understanding, the pre-inflation singularity held all the energy that would later become matter, however, the universe itself was already spatially infinite at that point and always was.
Nb: Please don't make the mistake of conflating a universe that is spatially infinite, with a universe that consists of infinite possibilities. You've not said anything to make me think you'd make such a silly mistake, but you'd be surprised just how many people do! Because of that seeming human propensity, I like to include this caveat in any mentions I make of any dimensions of infinity.
@@Raz.C
"pre-inflation"? so, is there a "before"?
@@jogmasgnosis5769yes
Thanks Alex. I found that interview so painful; really appreciate you taking the time to broaden Dawkins' points with characteristic clarity
Why is it so hard for people to accept that there might be things they don't understand? I can't imagine having so much hubris.
You’ll find that most atheists are actually agnostic and hold the position that these things could be true, but that there is zero credible evidence to believe in them. You talk about hubris but seem to find no issue with people believing in random things for which there is no evidence. Atheists openly acknowledge that there are thousands of things we don’t understand. They just don’t believe in plugging those gaps in knowledge with feel good ideas without evidence.
GOD EXISTS
By that measure, you just can’t give the answer god exists and believe in an afterlife just because you don’t understand something, that’s actually hubris.
Who said it is hard to accept that there might be things we don't understand? If we understood everything then we wouldn't need science at all now would we? But I'm not gonna start believing in fairies for that reason.
@@dggjr1759Nuh Uh
”It explains things that are otherwise inexplicable”. My 6 year old has no shortage of explanations for things he cannot understand and he blurts them out with 0 hesitation and with full confidence. It doesn’t make them true
Theist: “We don’t have an answer, and we don’t even know if we’re asking the right question. So we invented an answer that solves all the questions.” 😂😂
This is why you should believe in the Everything Explainer. The Everything Explainer does not hide behind ambiguous labels, it literally is the essence of its name and explains everything. There’s really no arguing against The Everything Explainer because, don’t you see, it explains everything *by definition* .
@@derinderruheliegt I actually believe in the Son of the Everything Explainer, my lord and savior Captain Hindsight
@@kylenmaple4668 Ah yes, Your Hineyness.
" Whether there's a God or not is the most important question we can ask". - Dawkins ( 'Unbelievable' with Francis Collins).
@@derinderruheliegt exactly lmao.
What religion can't accept is that sometimes science says "I don't know" and that this is okay.
I'd even add that religion can easily accept a god of the gaps instead of the correct 'IDK'
@@christiensavoie5016 Exactly, they need to fill that gap with something and jam in whatever religious doctrine they believe.
if u dont know, then u cant say God doesnt exist.
@@brianm2238 if u dont know, then u cant say cause god.
Past experience would indicate that would be wrong about 100% of the time .
@@brianm2238Neither can someone say god exists.
Atheists aren't the ones making the positive claim on the subject, Christians are.
Despite Christianity existing for 2 thousand years, and judaism existing for a longer period of time, no one has ever definitively proven that god exists.
It's an incredibly lazy and cynical move to expect Dawkins to have all the answers when he displays humility at not knowing the answers to the biggest questions, whilst also just accepting without question Myers conclusions which he asserts with no evidence.
Truly backwards.
Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. Calling Dawkins humble is crazy. We know that information comes from a mind. We have found vast amounts of information in DNA, so it is logical to assume DNA came from a mind.
@@monkeybob13 what are you even saying? Lmao
@matthew3136 I stated why it was logical.... you just stated the opposite with no evidence lol. Good job!
@@gakpo_era I thought I was pretty clear....
Dawkins has NEVER been humble.
He only appears humble now because he's lost the debate!
For 30+ years he's been ridiculing Christian biologists, physicists, and philosophers, claiming they were using the concept of God to explain processes science hadn't yet explained. But one day it would! And then you'll be humiliated for thinking a Being beyond space and time created everything!
Opps!
If Dawkins were ever humble he would have said what atheists and agnostics USED to say: "We dont know what came before time/space/matter so we can't say with any certainty that there is no God. So we'll keep our mouths shut about God."
That what atheists and agnostics USED to say.
That is until Dawkins, Hitchins, Dennett, and Harris came along.
I love how piers morgan never fails to interrupt someone when they are on the verge of saying something profound. It feels like a conspiracy at this point
Consider these two propositions:
God is a supreme being who created us in his image.
Piers Morgan exists.
Checkmate theists.
Hahahaha
youre the best cook in the kitchen ive seen today
After being a devout Christian for 30 years of my life, I am finally convinced.
Nice non sequitur.
Yes, it is literally equivalent to nothing. It is both the absolute, and paradoxically, absolute void. We're made in God's image, or rather imagination, in that we are completely free, hence Morgan.
I cannot understand this, therefore I invoke God. In a nutshell.
"there can't not be a god, so it's definitely the very specific one I happened to have been raised with!"
" Our conclusion is that the fundamental properties of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for Life" - physicists Lewis and Barnes
( A Fortunate Universe)
@@briansmith3791funny how those fundamental properties are so fine tuned for life that we have only been able to observe such life on one planet of billions times billions of planets orbiting billions upon billions of stars.
Understand what ?? Big bang came out of nothing
@@briansmith3791 'Fine tuning'/teleology is debunked by the waste in the universe - species that have come and gone, individuals of each species not being able to survive/pass on their genetic etc.
If you are reading this whilst needing to wear clothes most of the time wherever you live then you need to reassess exactly how 'fine tuned' even just your local area is for your existence let alone places as climatically diverse as the Poles or regions along the Equator.
Nature is observably based upon trial/error and adaptation which would be unnecessary with existence of an infallible design.
It was Stephen Hawking who once said, "Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole."
The answer is "Iceland fucko"
Still worth asking tho
And you believe a pedophile plant😅
Santa is north of the north pole
What's North of the North Pole? South.
When I close my eyes I don’t see nothing- I see anything I can imagine.
Christian Bale saved Gotham. Atheist Bale didn't. Checkmate atheists.
The best argument I've heard yet.
Great now I've gotta worship Batman, thanks a lot
Christian Slater hit his girlfriend, attacked a police officer and used drugs. Atheist Slater didn’t. Checkmate christians.
But he didn't actually. It's just a story. Bummer!
-“Do you want to be a Christian?”
-“No. A Messi.”
Piers has the same mindset as humans from the dawn of religion "I dont understand, therefore - god exists"
The reasoning is, “I do understand, therefore - God exists”
@aureum7479 except piers' reasoning is, "I cant fathom how there isn't a 'before the big bang' therefore, god must be real"
Nice job coming in here with your "I actually know god exists, because I'm more enlightened and spiritual than you" pretentious bullshit though.
This is why no one likes religious people lmfaooooo. Insufferable losers with imaginary friends thinking they're special
@aureum7479 except that's not his reasoning, that's your reasoning.
And you don't actually understand, you just can't fathom how life could be meaningless, and this could all come from nothing.
You have to ascribe more meaning to your life than just chaos and random chance, so you make up an imaginary creator being that loves you unconditionally but also might condemn you to eternal hellfire?
It's weird nonsense bro, and you aren't more enlightened for believing it. You're just more afraid.
@@aureum7479 Except he clearly said he doesn't understand as his reason for believing in god.
@@MrKipling420 As if it was only Christians, or believers in general, who believe that there is a "reason" for things. Alex seems to believe that there is no free-will, and he believes there's no objective moral values, but he doesn't behave that way. If you asked him whether something is "good" or "bad," he would most definitely answer with either choice. Plus, what is this argument even supposed to mean? That people wish to believe in what they think is right? It doesn't invalidate the reasoning; if I have good reasons to believe God exists, what difference does it make if I also have a preference to the same? So long as the reasoning is good, it changes nothing.
I can't wrap my head around how anyone can waste time listening to Piers Morgan voluntarily
Because we as society allow such autism to thrive and exist. You have to also remember we have a high percentile of stupid and gullible folks who would listen to this bellnosh.
@EssenceNPower what?
no maybe listening to him also has some good points like you will create some counter arguments/points or research on something he says maybe !
@EssenceNPower yeah obviously
@@someguyfromnothingnesslmao I sometimes watch him to get pissed off and make amazing counter arguments. Honestly tho I only watch him if he is interview others that I watch.
Not having all the answers is not the same as having no answers.
Morgan challenges Dawkins on his assessment of the word "before" but would reject that word if someone asked what was "before" God. He would no doubt say that there was no "before".
Exactly. Wish Dawkins had thrown morgans argument back in his face but he let him off the hook for whatever reason he had.
That's because before God it was Morgan. Einstein said it. "Stupidity and God are eternal but i'm not so sure about God". Morgan is the practical proof that Einstein was right.
I grew up in an atheist family but I wanted to believe in something when I was a child. This is the first thing I tried to think about and quickly realized with or without god I had the same issue
Because God would be the prime reality (ultimate nature of existence) and would be absurd to do so.
Special pleading fallacy. The argument refutes itself.
Piers acts like if someone explained quantum computers to him in simple terms that he’d be able to build one.
Or even understand it, for that matter 😂
Even if we play devils advocate and entertain the possibility that such an amorphus, immaterial, uncaused causer exists, then how do we jump from that "non-thing" to a hyper-social conservative and personal god who cares what fabrics you wear; or where, with whom, and why you mate; etc.
Nor why such a god needed to send his son as a human sacrifice to himself to forgive the sins he himself decided were sins in the first place and could've just expunged.
@@I-am-Hrut they had a lot of pagan tropes to cover and combine.
On behalf of all Brits, I apologise for Piers Morgan.
On behalf of the people of the world, thank you for Richard Dawkins.
That's why he chose to seek the MAGA cult as his primary audience! All his brain cells got drained out by Trump and it all just went to waste!!! Or there really wasn't any that Trump could have used?🤣🤣🤣
On behalf of Americans. we apologize for Trump.
Not your fault pal, all societies produce morons.
@@JustinLHopkins mehmehmeh so sophisticated
nice program- thanks for
Richard Dawkins freely and honestly doesn’t claim to have the answers to astrophysics since he’s not an astrophysicist.
But Piers Morgan, despite also not being an astrophysicist as the self importance to think “his god” did it, since it’s what comforts him, and the billions of other religious who want an afterlife and a supervising big brother to look over them.
Very well put sir.
"There's been nearly 3,000 gods so far but only yours actually exists. The others are silly made-up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real." - Ricky Gervais
There are arguably millions of copies of the Mona Lisa, but the one in the Louvre is the only "real" (authentic) one.
I know Ricky Gervais means it sarcastically, but I can glean no sarcasm in his words.
That argument breaks down stupendously when you actually apply the probability theory it's invoking. Gervais mixes up individual probability with collective probability. And, I doubt he understands the difference between Bayesian and Frequentist.
See, here's my question. Why is it bad for Piers, as a non-expert, to debate an expert (as many people in the comments say), but its ok--indeed even quotable--for an actor with an undergraduate philosophy degree to say something that requires a solid understanding in maths, probability theory, and philosophy?
@@xaviervelascosuarezEvidence for the Mona Lisa ≠ to the evidence presented for any God.
@@xaviervelascosuarez Then why do you believe in a god that's not the original? Gods are like the Mona Lisa in that they are all artful fictions. You were born in a situation in which it was expected that you would believe in a particular art piece, but if all Gods are derived from the original, Christianity was created too late in the game to represent that one.
@@TurinTuramber I wasn't trying to present evidence for God, but to prove the fallacious "thinking" of Ricky Gervais.
Piers Moustache moustaches Richard Dawstache on moustachism.
Dawkins doesn’t have a mustache. I thought that too, but it was just the lighting.
Alex O' Moustache really moustached the moustaching of moustaching
Alright, take it easy dude
@@ricardorivera6092 Take it easy. It was just a joke.
@@AsixA6take it easy, man
Great video mate 👍
As an American it's fascinating watching stuff from over the pond
Is truly despise Piers Morgan so much.
Piers Morgan is narrow minded enough to pass for an American, though. 😀
@@MartijnHover top comment
@@MartijnHover Imagine calling a country of over 300 million people narrow minded. Projection much?
now you can imagine about 30% of how entertaining it is to watch america from here
Dawkins called Morgan a fool after his first interview with him. I expect after this one he's now calling him a f*cking idiot.
The concept of nothing before the Big Bang needs to be articulated better imo
@@ericanderson8795 Tell me you have never read anyhting about Bigbang without telling me.
I just can't understand why Dawkins went back again. Waste of time.
@@ericanderson8795 The concept of before the Big Bang needs to be articulated better imo
@@Wertbag99To advertise his books and tours.
What good could they do if only the ones who agree with him know it?
Dawkins was born religious, he knows reaching to the other side is a reasonable move.
He already said Piers is a fool everywhere, doesn't mean he wouldn't rely on him on these occasion.
A fool is still a fool, and books are still in need of advertising.
This was low-hanging fruit. A nice, easy Wednesday warm-up. Something you could bang out while you sat and let the coffee kick in. I approve.
thank you! this is actually the first time for me "understanding" that too...
Big bang theory is not final. It is the most accepted because it fits the data more than any theory.
Yea thats how science works
But we would need, any evidence for god to entertain it as other option
@@Finn07A I agree.
It doesn't even mean that everything popped up at the same time, the universe could have cycles or could have already existed with all the same matter and the big bang is just another phase
@@tw20239 As long as we cannot prove it. It is speculative theory.
Too true. I really enjoyed how we have to suspend all natural laws (per Alex's opening) to get it to work.
It’s basically ‘Team - I don’t know’ vs ‘Team - God did it’. The latter spend most of their time trying to shift the burden of proof.
Cute pfp :3
The former team there should switch to being called "agnostic" instead then, since "atheists" believe God DOESN'T exist.
Well than ‘team - I don’t know’ is it reasonable to believe that nothing created the universe? Nothing doesn’t do anything yet how is it supposed to be responsible for the greatest miracle of all time? Also if nothing created the universe what’s stopping nothing from doing it again multiple times outside of the observable universe? What’s stopping nothing inside the observable universe from another big bang like event? If you don’t know how is that logical reasoning for the creator of the universe to be nothing instead of something or someone?
@@AnthonyArmourMaybe an obvious answer but we actually don't know
@@AnthonyArmourhow did you turn "I don't know" into "it came from nothing"?
Aah, I know, religious logic!
As Hitchin's would say, you resolve yourself to an infinite regression.
No, you don't. I'll assume that the argument discussed is the Kalam argument. In that argument, only things which BEGIN to exist need a cause. If the universe never BEGAN to exist, that is, if the universe has an infinite past, then it doesn't need a cause.
@@victor_2216 Specifically a retort to intelligent design.
@@dariussparkes7080 Why make a point about intelligent design, in a video that is basically dealing with the Kalam argument?
@@victor_2216 I'm assuming you didn't watch the section concerning Piers and his guest?
@@dariussparkes7080 Are you interest in making any interesting argument? Your comment seemed to be talking about the Kalam argument, and if that's not the case, then I have very little interest in debating on who misunderstood what;
Really clear points. As Richard Feynman (and countless others) pointed out… without a shared frame of reference, shared fundamental conceptual or practical building blocks…how can I explain a complex concept based on those, to you?
"So the pawn, the knight, the queen, and the king are each on a square of the chessboard. Which square is the chessboard on though?"
"That question doesn't really make sense."
"But it just HAS to! It's obviously a sensible question, I can just feel it!"
GOD EXISTS
God can be viewed as the spirit that simultaneously created the chessboard, the pieces, the players and the game
When low IQ ppl cant win a chess game:
"God exists, hes controlling the chessboard. See? I turned the table. Now this is my rule. You have nothing on this board, I have God. I win😎"
Religion vs science in a nutshell.
When I0w IQ cant wjn a chess game:
"God controls this chessboard. See? God turned the table. Now its my rule. You have no legit piece on this board, its "metaphysical". I have God. I win😎"
Religion vs science in a nutshell
That's a very nice way to put it
Your mustache made me a fundamentalist Christian.
I become vahabi muslim after that.
Shave it lad.
@@PA1606XMid twenties is peak trying to grow facial hair you shouldn't. We've all been there
Piers confusing "it makes no sense" (that nothing came before the big bang) with "i dont understand". But he fails to grasp how silly it is that an all powerful entity created everything. This proves that Piers needs things to be simple. He cant contemplate "nothing before something" so its easier if he imagines a magic man in the sky did it all
At the end of the day, you also cannot contemplate "nothing before something." None of us truly can. It's like a stick figure pondering the idea of a sphere. Impossible.
@@domepuncher sure you can contemplate it. in fact im doing it right now. i dont think the stick figure analogy holds
@@timherz86people can ponder on the idea of a non-contingent thing and a 2D stick figure can ponder on the idea of a sphere. im sure the above comment meant they will just never have the ability to understand it.
Hold on - why is believing in a big bang somehow a better answer? Does it not also require faith, since it isn't something we can observe or test?
''How silly is that an all-powerful being created everything''? It's not silly in the least unless you're philosophically lazy. I'm not even a believer, but believing that everything came from nothing or, worse, in anything susceptible from an infinite regression does not make any smarter.
Such useful commentary. Alex is becoming one of rhe most important public intellectuals of our (space)time.
3 words I implore religious people to learn, and we athiests have no issue with saying, "I dont know
Or as the joke says "What do you call a man with a d i l d o strapped to his hooter?"
A: f * * * nose!
GOD EXISTS
@@dggjr1759cool story bro
That goes for Christian’s as well. No one knows everything that’s why there’s evidence. What makes the most sense
@@dggjr1759source: i made it the f3k up
9:08 I can contradict PhD physicists while not understanding 1% of the field🤦♂️
News flash: You can contradict anyone who commits a logical error.
As if a PhD is responsible for understanding the universe and only them. Lol. A child has more understanding of God than a physicist does.
@@yousoskibbidy did you just equate the universe with God?
@@eugenehertz5791 How do you know an error has been committed when you don't even understand what Quantum Mechanics is?
@@yousoskibbidy A child has better critical thinking skills than a pastor.
I would like Alex taking on David Wood petition here 🎉🎉
👇
Whos david wood? And on what?
@@Finn07A he is popular christian apologist he is smart
@@Barcelona_Fan_100Nah, Wood is low tier.
Ew no. He's like the dawah of Christian apologists.
@@Barcelona_Fan_100, I wouldn’t suggest he is smart. He was jailed for the attempted murder of his father.
Woods say he tried to kill his dad because he was an atheist and whilst in prison would challenge the prison priest and during these challenges he converted to Christianity.
Woods normally deals with Islam topics and why Islam is false.
very good (as always)
Piers really provides a great example of how a lot of anti-science attitudes work: I don't understand, it's not intuitive, therefore it's not true. When in reality tons of things are unintuitive while also true - the fact that everything falls at the same rate in a vacuum is unintuitive to me, but that doesn't make it untrue.
The north pole analogy for the big bang really nails it down. Piers unfortunately has no idea what he’s talking about but has the hubris to assume he must be correct because of his “common sense”. What part of General Relativity is common sense Piers?
"Common sense" is rarely common, and often nonsensical.
Singularities are a defect of General relativity, they only exist mathematically with no physical mapping. It would take hubris to assume the nonsense of a successful physical theory debunks some timeless creating force. Yes, General relativity implies that the universe was a singularity, but general relativity also contradicts quantum field theory. Our physical theories are incomplete; we shouldn't be religious about them and accept their nonsense just because the theories successfully predict other distinct behaviours of the universe.
That's not as smart as you might think. That idea of nort of the north pole and that there is nothing and no time before the big bang, that's rejected by Roger Penrose. He says he used to believe that too, but hes changed his mind on it.
You'd think people would stop the "what came before" argument when anyone else could just say "Well, what came before God then?"
That is the question which I thought of in High School which led me to part with Religion. At the time I was thinking why nobody else have thought of that and shared it with me. I thought it was an original thought which I had and nobody came up with it before. I was the chosen one. 😂 I was just living in a bubble with a bunch of religious zombies.
The spacetime is restricted to a block, so time it is entirely contained in that surface; past, present and future were either created at once or it was always there. But outside the universe something can exist, as someone watching the screen of a pacman game
The two questions aren't comparable at all. The big bang is understood as a temporal event which marked the beginning of time and the universe while God has been traditionally conceived under a theistic framework as eternal, outside time and space without a beginning or an end so the concept of 'before' I would argue, is inapplicable to God, the same way it is for a temporal event in the past like the big bang.
Regardless of where you stand, we could all be intellectually honest enough to agree that the big bang had a definite start and is not eternal, hence the question 'what preceeded the big bang is logical even if we don't have an answer yet. In contrast, the question what came before God is flawed as God is understood as eternal, beyond time and casuality. Not the same at all.
How can you be before something has no beginning or end??
Awesome video
Piers Morgan confronting Dawkins with creationist arguments had me about as dumbfounded as if Morgan started explaining how the earth is flat and it can't be a sphere because it's just inconceivable that the people wouldn't just fall off the bottom half of it
Being fair, Meyers isn't a creationist, he is a proponent of intelligent design. Creationists fall into the young earth category typically.
@@christopherneedham9584 Kitzmiller v. Dover ruled Intelligent Design (ID) as being unscientific and creationism in 2005.
And yes, ID does state that a young earth is not part of their doctrine, but at the same time, Stephen C. Meyer himself has pointed out that his work is constrained to being consistent with young earth creationism.
What these points tell me is that 1. he's officially (and also per definition) a creationist, and 2. he's part of the YEC grift.
@@kappasphere Kitzmiller v Dover did not rule that ID is unscientific or creationism. It was in the judges opinion. The ruled that it violated the teachers first amendment rights to be compelled to teach something.
Stephen C. Meyer is not a YEC, and all of his positing on his theory of Intelligent Design is within the general accepted timeline of the universe in scientific literature. He also accepts evolution as the means by which the species that exist today have come about.
YEC don't like Stephen Meyer generally because he does not agree that the earth is young.
Idk where you get your information but if you read his book or listened to his interviews, he definitely is not a YEC, and his theory is not Creationism.
@@christopherneedham9584Check out Prof Daves systematic deconstruction of Meyer and all the Discovery Institute frauds , it's shocking how manipulative and dishonest these people are.
@@christopherneedham9584Watch Prof Daves systematic deconstruction of Meyer and his cronies at DI , manipulation and dishonesty is their field of expertise.
Quantum Mechanics would break Pier's mind. Logic is different at the level.
That would be far too much hard work for Morgan, being uniformed is his natural state.
Haven't you listened to Piers Morgan's arguments? Clearly, quantum mechanics just isn't real when it's too complicated to understand for non-physicists. A much simpler explanation is that God sends angels to draw funny patterns on our instruments, and physicists just try to see patterns in the randomness. There's a reason why quantum physics uses a LIE algebra and not a TRUTH algebra.
@@kappasphere what would it mean for quantum mechanics to be "real" though?
@@zak2659 it would mean that idiots like Piers Morgan can understand it. It's not real otherwise
He would just reject it. Apparently if he can't understand it or grasp it then nobody can. Arrogance at it's worst.
Religion: "The greatest trick the devil has ever played is convincing the world he doesn't exist."
God: "Hold my -beer- wine."
Atheism is for teenagers
@@jonah9861that’s an insult, not an argument.
@@jonah9861and Christianity is for children, that's why they're indoctrinated so often
Psilocybin mushrooms are for atheists too.
@jonah9861
Cuz y'all need a book to keep y'all adults back from doing heinous stuff while using it to justify the heinous stuff huh 🤦🏽♀️
Also yh that's not an argument
Hello Alex, just wondering if you have seen the atheism vs believer ai debate and you think about it.
As someone who is in the field of physics as a researcher and teacher, I love the introduction of modern (quantum) physics to students. I start by telling them that intuition is out the door (except if you have statistics 'intuition' you may have gathered). You know things like F=ma and p=mv are wrong in certain circumstances. In superconductors electrons attract each other. Hydrogen molecules stop rotating below 100 K. Helium never becomes a solid at ambient pressure as you approach absolute zero in temperature. Clocks move differently depending on how fast you travel. We still don't know what a majority of mass and energy are in the universe. I could go on. But to me, trying to figure out we don't know is exciting and not a place to insert a god to 'help' us fill in the gaps and make us feel comfortable. Like with evolution, science continues to fill in gaps of our understanding. Remember, in the grand scheme of things, Galileo was around only 400 years ago.
fills it with what? like millions of years? Goldilocks conditions?
I feel all these enlightened self worshippers have stated their 'beliefs'...so what...the world, cosmos, has taken note...it stop spinning for a second..
the suffering, hungry, abandoned, war torn, helpless are better off?...so far only planet earth has life, glorious life, green trees, millions of super clever insects, marvellous animals, stunning flora, blue, green oceans with teeming fish and sea creatures and also little strutting man, who cannot make anything out of nothing, is still discovering fabulous things made by a master designer or it all just happened by chance?
Fine...you worship your own intellect and live your fantastic life...while the rest find hope and purpose in their belief in an Eternal God, made real in Jesus Christ, and they call Him Father and are filled with God the Holy Spirit.
Ordinary, illiterate fishermen standing up to the philosophers and intellectuals of their age with a commanding message...God made you and loves you, He gave His Son to die in your place as penalty for your inborn inclination to sin, repent and I AM will live in you as the Holy Spirit on earth and eternally...
Yes there are many so called Christians, who have done atrocious things in the name of Christ just as there are millions of non believers who have done worse... hypocrites abound in all beliefs...
Even if I find that Christianity is just a dream...and death is final...gone back to earth or ashes...no heaven, no hell...still I will not be sorry to have believed and with the Holy Spirit lived as far as possible a blessed Christian life...
May God bless you all who are seeking the truth, Merle.
Stephen Meyer is like if Saul Goodman became a Christian apologist.
it's hard to listen to Piers without cringing
So interesting but unfortunately won’t be watching anymore Alex O’Connor vids due to the advertisement toward the start of the video. I already pay UA-cam to have the ad free version so why should I put up with in video advertising?
I just skip through, less than 2 seconds of ads get me and Alex gets paid so win win
"I find It comforting". You don't even have to listen to the rest.
the Big Bang will only ever be a theory though
I see it as a lie to yourself in order to make you feel comfortable. Were you afraid before you were born? Was there something before you were born? NO. why think there is something different when you die?
I've had enough of Piers, he does not deserve our time or energy.
I think that even if I tried with all my might and my imagination and my determination, I still would not be able to agree with you more....lol...bravo for saying it so very very well!!
He does my head in....insufferable cretin..
Some might say the same about you.
@@shatteredteethofgod I think you should go and touch grass
@@jo-mi4966 With what you just said, all the people who read that comment said that about you.
A sign of intelligence / logic, which demonstrates Piers' has neither, is the ability/humility to admit there are things we dont understand, and even experts in that field dont understand...yet. And an intelligent & logical person doesn't need to fill that hole with the super natural.
Piers went a step further and asserted that the physicists that do understand this must be wrong because he feels like they must be wrong
nor should they fill it with the unobserved and untestable supposed natural process
@@kappasphere because logic dictates it
@@martsangalang5781 What I hate most is people expressing an uninformed hunch and then calling that "logic". That's not what logic means, and logic doesn't dictate that studying a subject makes you less likely to understand it.
Great vid
I never pass up an opportunity to share a Terry Pratchett qute:
"'Y’know,’ he said, ‘it’s very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is.'"
Always a treat to see Terry Pratchett, thanks for sharing
That's a good quote that is also very fitting when talking about God. It would go something like, "It's very hard to talk about an infinite reality with a language originally designed to talk about limited beings. "
@@xaviervelascosuarez Except that's bullshit of course, since we invented God using language and every bit of God we've ever believed in has been a silly play on words like "omnipotent". God is made for and by human language. He's a linguistic fiction
@revlarmilion9574 Can you actually prove that? Because the funny thing is that Christians claim that, far from us creating God with our language, God created us using his language.
Impressive what this "silly" concept of language can do then. Since we've been able to explain so many things, and achieve so much.
It always annoys me, that when there is an atheistic expert of a certain field talking with a theist, the theist always wants to examine the topic from any other view than the one that the atheist is an actual expert of. It’s dishonest, since both sound equally confused, while if you’d talk about creation with an evolutionary biologist or about the Big Bang with an astrophysicist, you’d get an actual intellectual discussion.
Yeah you are absolutely right! The respect should be more there. And what is a also dishonest is when it happens to a theist also who is expert in his field, but just the fact of mentionning God is like discrediting himself. That's intellectually dishonest also but never mentionned.
I may be wrong, but hasn't Dawkins written numerous books on atheism where he discusses and references and interprets science and other disciplines that are outside of his specific specialty? I guess I would question why he is allowed to do that, but someone isn't allowed to question him about subjects other than his particular specialty.
@@angusmcculloch6653 No one is saying he "isn't allowed" to ask questions...weird point to try and smuggle in.
To have a big bang before a date would make us loose with our morals.
Big bangs make me loose with my bowels, I don't like loud noises!
😂
We pop into this world without any recollection of all that came before. Our lives are measured by our short time within a timeless universe. I agree with Richard Dawkins, it’s wonderful that there are people searching for answers. I love the wonder of it all.
I like the moustache. 10/10 keep it just to upset these rubes
such chaos i love it
NO
If you do something just to upset someone else, are you really doing it for yourself? That's not to say you should necessarily do something *not* to upset people, but to do something *just* because it makes people angry who you don't like seems like a poor way to go through life.
Imagine just enjoying making people mad to make them mad...
@@angusmcculloch6653imagine not knowing the concept of schadenfreude. Bless your little heart
@angusmcculloch6653
Everything anyone does is always for themselves. Easy argument really.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the theory of the big bang does NOT claim that the universe came from nothing. With our current understanding of how the universe works (i.e. the combination of quantum physics and relativity) the theory of the big bang is able to explain how the universe was like back when it was as "old" as 10e-43 seconds and it had a size of 10e-33 centimeters (a Plank length). At that time, ALL the energy we detect and use today was already there. As the universe expanded, it cooled, and matter begin to form out of that energy. Of course the first intuition is to think that the universe was even smaller at an earlier time, given that there's overwhelming evidence the universe has been expanding since it was 10e-43 seconds old. However, we have no clue what happened (or how it happened) between "time zero" (if there's such thing) and the plank time. That's where scientists are evaluating other options like string theory and loop quantum gravity to try to explain and model those very early moments, assuming the universe was even smaller, down to a infinitesimally small singularity. But so far, we have no clue. And of course, it's perfectly feasible that the universe never got any smaller than the plank length! But that's the cool stuff about science. No problem to say "we don't know", and how exciting it is to continue learning new thing to discover those things that we don't know.
Yes I believe you are basically correct.
Stephen Hawkings claimed that the universe came from nothing along side proposing the Big Bang.
@@AnthonyArmour THANK YOU!! You made me look up other material that I had previously not considered. Indeed, it has been observed and measured that in completely empty space there is a constant soup of particles and anti-particles coming into existence and destroying themselves extremely quickly. Therefore we have observed and measured "something" coming out of "nothing". This indicates that the universe could have come from nothing. The second clue is that the net energy of the universe (also measured with high accuracy) is zero. We currently predict that the universe will continue to expand and matter will either rip itself apart or will fall inside black holes, and black holes eventually will dissipate to nothing. Essentially the universe will end in nothing, just like it began, thus keeping the "balance" at zero.
We don't know what "nothing" is or what it can do, or if it can exist.
Lets ask a physicist then;
'Professor Brian Cox, what came before the Big Bang and inflation?'
Professor Brian Cox: 'We are not sure'.
And theists don't know either. Theists just jump to conclusions because that is their only skill in this world.
@OceanusHelios they love an opportunity to insert their chosen god
Correcting your last quote:
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet, 1.5. 165-66). Spoken by Hamlet to his friend Horatio
So,theists say it is incomprehensible for us to explain nothingness, therefore they invoke God.But it is a hell of a lot harder to comprehend something exist without time and space.Isn't it counterintuitive?Can theists explain to me that.
Perhaps if you asked the question a bit clearer ...
@@angusmcculloch6653 Can theists explain to me how something can exist outside of time and space without counterintuitive implications. Piers argument is that we can't comprehend nothingness before big bang,therefore there must be a god who caused the universe to exist.But how can something exist outside of time and space?It is way more difficult to comprehend than nothingness. What I am saying is invoking a god doesn't solve the problem but increases the difficulties to explain significantly.
@@MDArifHossain-eh2hu I think most theists would simply say that Piers was making no sense, and would agree that it's not just because something is "counterintuitive" that this something is, therefore, wrong. I don't see how this changes anything about other arguments presented by theists.
@@victor_2216 Most theists do invoke God when faced with complexity particularly in situations where natural explanations seem insufficient.Philosophical arguments like Kalam cosmological argument, contingency argument, teleological argument these do indeed stem from the idea that certain features of the universe need explanation beyond natural world.If complexity requires an explanation, the solution is invoked to explain the complexity also requires an explanation and an omnipotent,all seeing,all hearing supernatural deity who exists outside of time and space is the most complex idea one could postulate.
It's mind blowing when you watch fact vs fiction go head to head. The one merely states that with multiple sources and a plethora of evidence, we can correctly assume a result, and it always has a tag attached: "Prove it wrong". The other has "Proof" which is always, yes, always hearsay. Always subjective without any tangible proof, unless emotions are proof. Notice that, the logical one speaks calm and respectfully, the other is always like a monkey on Ice.
Love your stuff Sir. keep up the great work!
Like a monkey on ice! 😂
Trumpets.
Nicely argued.
I saw Dawkins and thought, boy, what an intriguing conversation about biology we're about to have.
😂😂
Then why does he claim god doesn’t exist, criticise theology and the bible when he has no background on it to ground his criticisms ?. He’s not Bart Ehrman.
@@aureum7479 Anyone can make a positive claim but then they have a burden of proof. To me, theology isn't sufficient to declare that a god does/doesn't exist, that's just the study of what ancient people believed. It would take a heck of a lot more than just reading and examining old books looking for in/consistencies.
@@aureum7479 For the same reason that you, presumably, claim that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
And, to head off the obvious follow-up, the reason that you only passively assert the non-existence of Santa and Dawkins actively asserts the non-existence of God is because there aren't Leprechaun-worshippers demanding that we stop teaching evolution in schools because all life was made by the noodley appendages of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever.
If Unicorn-worshippers got to avoid paying taxes and built massive unicorn statues and had their druids abuse kids and get away with it and were given millions to spread their insane beliefs and tried to put you out of work and replace you with a horse with a paper-mache horn stuck on its head, I imagine you'd not sit idly by either...
@@aureum7479 - because Christians decided to start making all kinds of absurd false claims about evolution.
Thankyou Alex. These will never get tiring for me to watch. You're so clearly respectful of the God issues, like a medical professional committed to the well being of the patient.
i don't believe in moustaches despite all the evidence
Expecting Piers Morgan to argue in good faith is like expecting a brown bear to not eat salmon.
What would good faith have looked like? How would it had differed?
@@angusmcculloch6653 He could have interviewed an astrophysicist, if he wanted physics questions answered, for a start. Dawkins is a biologist.
@@SeanF374 You can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Dawkins a very public figure who has written books on atheism in which he references and interprets the scholarly work of physicists? Since Dawkins works beyond his specialty, at least with regards to theism, it doesn't strike me as particularly unfair or bad faith to ask questions of Dawkins along those lines. It's not as if Morgan demanded that Dawkins produce peer-reviewed physics research.
In my opinion, if there was bad faith, Dawkins came closest to it when he pleaded total ignorance, claiming he was "baffled" by what physicists told him. If he is so baffled by what physicists tell him, I don't understand how he could, with any authority, cite and interpret academic physics research in his works. Those two positions seem contradictory to me.
@@angusmcculloch6653 I do get what you are saying but, if Morgan genuinely wants an answer to a physics question, he should ask a physicist. He used this route to get Dawkins on the back foot. It was a tactic to try to win an argument, rather than trying to gain knowledge for himself or his viewers. Dawkins should have been better armed but anyone wanting to learn anything gets nothing from Morgan's approach, as usual.
@@SeanF374 If one presents themselves as having at least enough knowledge on a subject to cite and interpret work, I don't see asking them to show at least some proficiency in that area to show we can trust their interpretation as being *simply* a tactic to win. I think, perhaps, we did find some information, it's just uncomfortable: Dawkins, by his own admission, is not well-versed enough in physics to explain it in lay terms, which draws into question how accurate his interpretations of physics research are in his works.
Another example, I recently posted a preprint of a paper that uses a specific type of quantitative method. Now, I'm not an expert in that method. I ran the experiment, looked at the outcome, found it surprising and publishable if accurate. I sent it around to people who are experts to review. It has undergone peer-review. When I present it at a conference, you can bet I will get questions about that method to see how well I actually understand the method. Even though I'm not an expert, do you agree those questions will be fair, since I've chosen to employ that method? Did I use the method correctly? Did I miscalculate something somewhere? Is there another method that gives a different answer that I don't know about or ignored?
I think you would agree those questions are fair. Do I think Morgan was doing a bit of score settling for Dawkins' bad form of calling Morgan a fool behind his back on another program? Yeah, I'm sure that was part of it. But I don't see it as inherently unfair to ask Dawkins questions about physics as it pertains to theism when Dawkins himself is the one who employs physics. I just don't see how that can be the case. If we were to adopt that standard, it would seem to allow Dawkins to say whatever he wanted about any subject and then not have to face questions because it's not his specialty. And, again, lastly, I think we did find out some information, namely, Dawkins's weakness in understanding academic physics calls into question the accuracy of his use of physics research in his works.
So sick of hearing people talk about God. Thankyou for being a voice of reason
No you're not or you wouldn't have watched and commented on a video that talks about people talking about God.
@@goldenarm2118 Oh yes, my mistake. You're right. I'm not sick of it. Thankyou
@revivalfloatationcentre7032 You obviously didn't spend much time listening to alex and his take on so called 'reason'
@UnbiasOP His podcast is literally called Within Reason
@@revivalfloatationcentre7032 sometimes it's wise to research beyond the title.
"Time" is the "river" of the universe. So as a River, you can regulate how you ride that river.
The classic theist perspective: " This is a tough question, Therefore, the answer is my bronze age Imaginary friend"
If the explanation is logical, and the argument is sound, then what difference does it make? You might not like the arguments, but that doesn't make it a bad argument.
@@victor_2216 it is a bad argument because it fails to actually attempt to answer the question. It's the same reason many ancient civilizations had an innumerable amount of gods, they created a being the explained the things they didn't understand.
@@Aeivious What do you mean when you say it "fails to answer the question"? If I tell you God created the universe, and then you ask me who created God, those are two different questions; I did answer the first question, but then you made a different question.
@@victor_2216The problem is the arguments are never valid and sound. That's the entire point.
@@HTGY6YTH67Y Really? What would you make of the Kalam Cosmological argument?
I absolutely love that "What is north of north?" analogy, I'm definitely reusing that.
@@Lamster66 I'm sure that's the edge of the universe
I think you see the back of your eyelid when you close your eye - whereas your elbow truly sees nothing.
Where does the light come from to illuminate it?
Where does the light come from to illuminate it?
@@ChrisLee-yr7tz Through the eyelid - it's not fully opaque.
@@samuelmelton8353 You've assumed there's light beyond the eyelid!
It's like saying "There was a point in time when there was no time, and then at a later point in time, time came into existence." You can't apply the rules of something to the thing itself. You'd might as well ask "where" space was before space came into existence.
Piers is the typical religion follower. Has an unchanging dogmatic view and holds it as a criteria to rule out scientific explanations without even considering it or think why such great reasonable people should consider a "counterintuitive" explanation!! Knows nothings about scientific method! Only listening to answer. Here's a rule of thumb: if you're sure 100% that your point of view is not gonna change by a discussion, then don't have that discussion and don't waste another one's time! And if you know for sure that your view is not gonna change no matter what the other person is gonna bring up, know that you're called "dogmatic" by definition.
Yep. Someone should come on his show and point that out to him. But probably a waste of time.
There is no scientific explanation, because it violates the laws of logic, that is the core of the conversation. Dawkins himself said our brain can't process it, which is the core of the matter.
It is necessarily magic, and we will never be able to understand. The real question is not if it is magic, the question is if that magic is an entity related to us, or just something magical that happens by itself
You misunderstand entirely, much like Piers.
There is a scientific explanation, and yes, people can understand it, just not you or I.
Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it illogical.
And no it’s not magic. There is no need for a supernatural explanation nor any evidence to suggest the supernatural can or does exist. So why would we consider the proposition of a supernatural start to the universe when there are plenty of scientific explanations to investigate first.
@@Captain101-x1o That is the problem with regular people, you don't understand that science is based on basic principles, and logic axioms are understandable by children.
There is no axiom that allows something out of nothing, that is the core of the matter
@@Captain101-x1o “ you misunderstand entirely, much like Piers.”
it seems that the poster is in agreement with Dawkins and is clearly on the side of science. Who are you directing your comment to then?
It is incredible that Piers Morgan considers himself logical when his version of logic is "everything in my brain says its nonsense"
Akin to trying explain the science of a cell phone to an ancient human.
In a cyclic universe, there is a 'before the Big Bang,' which directly challenges the notion that one cannot ask what existed prior to the Big Bang.
Have we observed such a universe?
@@jarnalyrkar " The Big Bang did not come from Nothing. It came from a highly, highly ordered state of incredibly complex geometry, 1^10^10^124. This is an observable fact".- Penrose ( BBC Hardtalk).
@@jarnalyrkar Have we observed a linear or finite universe?
@@briansmith3791 That is certainly a claim without any evidence that doesn't explain why we don't see any evidence for it either, which we should if it was actually correct. The cyclic universe hypothesis is pretty much dead in the water.
@@michaelmay5453 "Dead in the water"? Ah, that old ploy again! Any evidence? Funny, last we heard from Penrose, he said his published papers have not been challenged. You're challenging Penrose's mathematics? Let's hear it.
Hey Alex, what exists a priori to the logic you are using to analyze this argument over the term "before"?
Every time we used God to explain something it has been the wrong answer, especially when people say "God made me do it." and even "The Devil made me do it.".
Instead of the genes made me do it as I am just a programmed meat puppet
@@daviddeida Those are bad excuses too. Thinking that the body dictates your entire psychology. It certainly does have an influence on emotions and behavior aswell as even the decisions we make, but it does not dictate how you handle those influences. Like physical attraction is something you cannot help feeling, but it is something you can have control of from influencing your behavior or how you treat other people. We have parts of our brain designed specifically for that purpose, so we can dictate and have control over ourselves. It is called Executive Function.
@@danieltenebrion9413 Who is this we that can control and dictate brain function ?.You did'nt write the program ,all there is is programming.
@@daviddeida What? Look up Executive Function and learn more on Psychology. It will teach you alot. Infact it will put you ahead of most people that will never learn it unless they take it in college.
@@danieltenebrion9413 Does it help in avoiding questions ?
Something I don't really get about these 'debates' where the question is "what came before Big Bang" or "how did the Universe start" is how an answer can't just be currently unknown. In the past before Earth's surface was fully explored, we didn't know what the uncharted territories looked like (with some interpretations being just horror stories about monsters or whatever), in even more distant past we didn't know what planets were and worshipped the Sun, but we've come far since. We currently don't have an explanation or knowledge about everything as new things are constantly being invented or researched, so why can't it be also applied to "what came before big bang" instead of having to insist that it's "unexplainable, therefore God"?
My father accidentally blinded one eye and for decades when someone asks how much he can see with that eye he says “the same you can see with your toe. Nothing”
. . . and yet, like Peter Falk, his other eye perceives the possibilities of what is missing from accidental blindness.
I remember a time when I was a Christian arguing with an atheist about what came before the Big Bang and he said exactly what Dawkins is saying here. So I said that’s crazy and goes against common sense. But since I became an atheist I started really trying to understand physics so that I can understand this question. I’m still no physicists, but after years of reading up of the theory of relativity it has come to make a lot more sense. It’s complicated, but it’s not crazy. Time is relative and varies depending on how objects of varying masses fold spacetime. Spacetime metrically expands ever since the Big Bang and everything in the fabric of spacetime moves apart with it, in some cases moving apart faster than light, but not moving through spacetime itself faster than light. Objects of greater mass and speed fold spacetime into itself effectively moving through time more slowly, and at light speed time stops. If an object either surpassed light speed or gain enough mass time would theoretically reverse or just cease to function as we know it. And this is the idea behind why time doesn’t theoretically go back before the Big Bang. Time wasn’t moving forward or functioning the way that we know it now.
What was there 'before' God? Where did the matter god used to construct the universe come from? Invoking god doesn't solve any questions, in fact it creates more
My view, for what it's worth, is that there was Nothing before what became 'God'. Something happened, we don't know what, and a pattern began, leading to a fractal process. 'God' is an evolved perfect conscious geometry. It created this System to obtain new information. The universe was created for It's purposes, not ours.
@@briansmith3791why attribute a purpose?
@@briansmith3791 There is no good reason to think that.
@@kennybachman35 IF the universe was created, why would it be created for no purpose. My view is that the purpose is information. 'God' would have had no information other than geometry and mathematics, it would have to create something else outside itself for that.
@@revlarmilion9574 Penrose said the Big Bang came from a "highly ordered state of incredibly complex geometry".
I love that Piers referred back to his conversation with Meyer, because it was so bad that even I was able to debunk it.
I'm a Catholic and I wish I was so sure as Pierce is. My forehead would be less wrinkled, I'd sleep better and I wouldn't think. What a bliss
I’ve never taken Piers for a deep thinker. I don’t really know what ‘God’ means anymore to be honest. I find so many discussions small and self limiting. It’s not as if any God is required to have hope regarding an afterlife. For all we know that just happens entirely naturally. Or humans in the far future found out there wasn’t one and are using wormholes to copy and paste our consciousness’ to some vast computer that exists in millions of years. Every discussion about Hod seems to be trying to force its way to a Bronze Age understanding being true just because there’s stories from tragedy period about some magical event. Yet the stories are of the exact category of myth. Just think about why the miracles were so crap. Each of them is ‘story-like’ in that they leave nothing even 10 mins later. If you missed the event then there was nothing. A real God could align the stars into a message. We get a bit of healing, walking in water, and water into wine. Totally useless if you want to show people for more that 30 seconds. But exactly as we’d expect from myth. Fully on the category of the doubtable. Meanwhile people want your minds, money, deeds etc in a very human way wrapped in stories that drive fear, guilt, and some sort of weird victim/rescuer relationship. And all Piers can say is ‘I find it comforting’ and some version of ‘we don’t know everything’. Well, we know enough about geology, biology and physics to know 99% of it is nonsense, even if we don’t know the last 1%. But that doesn’t mean people can’t hope. It just means we don’t need to give our money and time to other people trying to charge us for access via their institutions in one way or another.
Ignorance is bliss
You are a disgusting garbage person for supporting an organisation that has a fund to pay legal fees for their pedo priests. Absolutely shameful and immoral.
You need to be saved friend. You need to leave rc to do so. Do it soon. Your eternal destiny is at stake. Catholicism will not help you on that day before Jesus Christ. Only faith through grace guided by love and ordered by Jesus will save you from the institution which has blinded you from this spiritual reality. Trust Him before it is entirely too late to pray.
God rest
This is such a brilliant commentary.
The problem with the “god did it” explanation is that it doesn’t really explain anything. It’s as good as saying “ because I said so.”
I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said something along the lines of, “By saying ‘god did it”, you are answering nothing; you are simply introducing a greater mystery that has no explanatory power”.
What's the question?
Not being fond of an argument does not make the argument, therefore, illogical. Can you think of a better, more plausible explanation to what caused the universe to begin to exist?
@@Innesb If it is the case that God does exist, what difference does it make if we can't explain God himself? It's a non-sequitur. I mean, is this supposed to be an argument in favor or against anything?
@@victor_2216 The most logical answer is there was no beginning, it just always was. Christians ironically have an issue with the concept of eternity. We already know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so why should the universe be any different?
Carl Sagan said it best as I paraphrase: If theists claim that God did not need any cause because she is eternal, then why not reply that the universe needs no cause because it is eternal thereby getting rid of one unecessary entity?
because all of the evidence points to matter time and space having a beginning.
@@AndresVfs that undermind the thiest perspective because everything that exist have a beginning. Since god had no beginning. Ergo, god doesn't exist.
@@icekills1Let’s propose that your logic is true here and expand the concept out. Now if God required a creator we must have a God 2 who created God 1. So if God 2 exists then God 3 must have created him. If we expand this concept out to infinity it would be impossible to come into existence because it would require an infinite amount of time. Then logically we can propose that to come into existence it requires a being who is eternal. Now this eternal being would be responsible for our existence and the observable universe itself. It’s logical to propose that this creator is powerful and also intelligent. Omnipotent and omniscient.
Pretty simple. Creationists are desperate for an answer thats "comfortable".
Does that make the answer invalid? I like to think my wife loves me, does that preference make my belief any less reasonable, or does it make it illogical in any way?
It's a common misconception that belief in God is just a way to find comfort. For me, it’s about understanding the universe on a deeper level-both scientifically and morally.
Take Stephen Meyer’s critique of Darwinian evolution, for example. The sudden appearance of complex life during the Cambrian Explosion and the combinatorial improbabilities of forming functional proteins by chance present serious challenges to Darwin’s theory. If Darwin’s model is found lacking, and Intelligent Design offers a better explanation for life’s complexity, that could reshape the entire foundation on which modern atheism often relies.
But more than just science, belief in God as the ultimate symbol of moral good provides us with a framework for living. The teachings of Jesus Christ, for example, offer guidance on how to align ourselves with compassion, love, and forgiveness, all of which promote human flourishing and reduce suffering. By striving to align with this higher moral good, we contribute positively to society.
Atheism, on the other hand, often leaves a moral vacuum where there’s no higher ideal to aspire to. When God is removed from the equation, and morality becomes subjective, it can lead to a postmodern, chaotic, and nihilistic society where meaning and morality are seen as arbitrary. Without a foundation for objective moral truths, it's easy for people to act without concern for the consequences or the well-being of others.
If atheism’s main argument relies heavily on Darwin’s theory of evolution, and that theory is proven to be flawed, it could have profound societal implications. A society without a moral framework, driven by a sense of purposelessness, could descend into chaos, as we're already seeing in some postmodern trends today.
What do you think about the idea that God provides not just an explanation for life, but also a way to live that fosters a healthier and more meaningful society?
@@jimladen22
Too much gibberish.
Ill answer the question tho.
Every single religion tied with a law system appeals to the public with 1 main goal: Establish an authority in disguise of "G's authority" where they're in charge. Has been like that for thousands of years.
Those ppl knew about these unfalsifiable problems long ago and tried to exploit them to their advantages through myths and forgeries.
Moral works fine without G, science works completely opposed to G's command: submission.
Societies doesn't need G. G need societies to implant fantasies and delusion to compete for power and influence, not for G, but for those ppl who benefits from "the G hypothesis".
Ask a random church about financial report for more information.
@@jimladen22
Next time, before asking such question, remember:
Its not us who run to the church everyday and try to prove that you're wrong.
Its you ppl who knock at every door and try to persuade us that you're right.
Survival needs approval. In this case, not mankind.
@@thomeilearn It seems like you either misunderstood my comment or are being intentionally dismissive. I’m happy to have a respectful conversation, but it’s important to engage with the points I’ve made rather than dismiss them as 'gibberish.' Let's address the issues thoughtfully.
- Religion as Control: You mentioned that religion is often tied to power structures, which I don’t dispute. History is full of examples where religious institutions have been used to control people, often to meet political or economic ends. I fully acknowledge that, but it’s important to separate the core values of religious teachings from the corruption that can come with institutions. The idea of God or a higher moral good doesn’t necessarily equate to submission to human-made authority.
- Moral without God: While you argue that morality works fine without God, I would counter that much of the morality in the West is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values. Even if someone doesn’t identify as religious, the societal framework they operate within has been influenced by those values. So, whether consciously or not, many of the ethical principles people adhere to have religious roots.
- Science and God: I don't see Science and God as mutually exclusive. Science helps us understand the _how_ of the universe, while belief in God or a higher power addresses the why. Many scientists, including those who believe in God, see science and theism as complementary. My belief in Intelligent Design comes from this idea: the more we uncover about the complexity of life and the universe, the more it suggests purpose rather than randomness.
- Submission vs. Understanding: I don’t view belief in God as submitting to an oppressive force but as aligning with the highest moral good. The values promoted by religious teachings, such as compassion, love, and justice, are what drive me towards that belief. It’s not about control but about living in a way that promotes human flourishing and reduces suffering, something that’s often lost when morality becomes entirely subjective.