Hitchens: the universe doesn't need a designer.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2008
- Q&A part I of the Hitchens vs. Turek debate at VCU, VA.
Full debate:
www.vimeo.com/1904911
and
• Video
"What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - CH
Watch it happen to the assertion "there must be a creator of the universe".
Relevant:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequ...)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument...
“I’d rather have questions that can’t be answered rather than answers that can’t be questioned.” -Richard Feynman
Exactly! Such was the humility and modesty of an objective, impartial scientist such as Feynman
If we go by this rule then the Justice system would collapse & there would be chaos everywhere.
And when you think about it, that's exactly what's going on in the world today.
Yawn,, see that in every comment section of bitchin hitchen videos
Wild how in every atheist video all it is is people posting quotes. No original thoughts or dialogue of your own. Typical.
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
I love how he can literally say "prove it" and the religious debaters explode with rage.
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
@@cinesanti7 ohhh he's back... You're so desperate to be wrong it's embarrassing. You can't walk into a conversation half way through and expect to know what everyone is talking about especially when you don't have the decency to listen.
@@cinesanti7 Except that wasn't presented as evidence, so you're wrong from the very second sentence even if we give you the first.
@@cinesanti7the man is so great that even if you stood on your own mother you still wouldn’t be able to kiss his ass.
@@cinesanti7 Prove it.
They believe god doesn’t have a creator so why is it so hard to grasp that the universe doesn’t need one
Yes, that's it
The Creator is not made of matter of which the universe is .
So the universe is self made? That is hard to grasp by a reasoning mind.
Do you believe that the universe is eternal? If so, then no creator involved. Otherwise , YES
prophetto atheists prove to me that the creator is not made of matter in this universe? It’s an awful excuse you make on their behalf because you’ve not seen them.
Your god would need a creator ... why is that so hard to “grasp”.
To this day from thousands of years of recorded human history, thousands of gods and religions ... there still is no undeniable proof a god/s exist.
Stop wasting your life.
@@Stevk005 My God would not be God if a Creator created Himi.
@@Stevk005 Of course the proof of the Creator God's existence is a simple as the proof of your existence.
It is based on Information Science that if coding is traced back to its origin source than it is found always to be intelligent
I know that the comment comes from an intelligent source. Is this correct?
No physical evidence needed.
The burden of proof lays on he who makes the assertion, not he who refutes it.
True but didn't Darwin assert evolution?
Watercolour Society and he provided proof
Hitch says there is no God. Yet he never proved it.
However there is no Hitch, and I can prove it.
@@Art3615 but you do realize that he only has to make the claim that there is no god because other people claim that there is one. This means that Hitchens claim is only needed because of the claim of religious people and there for they still need to provide evidence for god existence(which they can't)
@@Art3615, we know Hitch' is gone. We also know, you're asshole,- you proved that, too!
"One of the reasons why I like debating with the religious is that you never know what they are going to say next." Hitchens.
But we know what you guys are going to say..
WE DON'T KNOW!!!😂😂
@Scott Scotty Scott..let me remind you that you are commenting about a debate...
And the debater all he can say...is I don't know!!!!
Do you understand there is no point to argue..🙄
Hitchens has the ability to make that gentleman mad with his knowledge.
@@stevenmcgill3053 My friend.. He straight up say I don't know... what knowledge are you talking about???
But He did have an ability!!!! To make up Lies 🎈🎈
@@Messi.1907 Yea but all his lies were true....that's probably too much for you.
A creationist once confronted me in my driveway, and used my car as an example of intelligent design. She stated "This car didnt just appear, it was designed by someone" I said, sure, but the design EVOLVED from a horse and buggy.
@@snackler6102 A man with a horse and some spare wood.
@@snackler6102 Evolution can happen by natural selection or by artificial selection. The difference is in the "guiding hand" and the "selection criteria"; in natural selection the guiding hand is the survival of a species and the selection criteria is the fitness for survival, in artificial selection the guiding hand is the human or machine and the selection criteria is the human or machine objective (having a plant bear more fruit, etc). So, yes, technological innovation is evolution, the same ways there's cultural evolution and moral evolution. This is just what systems based on reproduction and variation do, they get better, they evolve.
You were misapplying the theory of evolution. But actually you were using the now generic meaning for change. Change does not mean evolution.
Evolution in the biological sense only refers to the supposed process of one kind of organism over time and chance evolving into another completely different kind of organism.
Of course you incorrectly used the term evolved which rejects intelligence as being involved in the changes.
Intelligence WAS required for the car to become a reality. Or do you reject this and credit it as a result of natural selection?
@@prophettoatheists8057 "evolving into another completely different kind of organism" Lmao! That is 100% incorrect.
' I remember being asked by one of my children once' that backhanded insult is so thinly veiled it just gets right past everyone. Amazing.
Omg i just got it lmao
This guy was such a magnificent bastard. Such intelligence, swag, and cool elegance at the same time. Could listen to him talking the whole day :D
who?
@@lindae6035 of course Hitchens
Try this of the magnificent bastard in the lion's den ua-cam.com/video/HECI4QK_mXA/v-deo.html
And look at him now.
@@AhmadEdinHodzic Yes, he's dead, just like you and me and everyone else will be one day. What's your point?
In this one, Hitch gives me the impression of a cat boringly playing with a ball of wool.
Manuel Romero I'm going to use that line. Well said!
To put it in one word : Hubris
Hubris is thinking you are some special being made by a magic man who listens to your stupid prayers and you'll meet him up in heaven and rocking it out with a bunch of harps.
Religion has the depth of a puddle yet some still manage to drown in it.
That sounds more like delusional, the bible bashers I've met generally mean well, they aren't like this, they are deluded.
He wanted to know the truth in death. He knows now for sure.
"The typewriter is out of existence... but it's still designed "
The typewriter still exists, it's just obsolete. It's non-sequitur arguments like that that really make it hard to seem convincing in any debate
by man. lol
Well a single typewriter in many cases was created and then disassembled/destroyed
The universe without a designer , is a Luniverse ? ? ?
@@lwmaynard5180 what is a luniverse
@@lwmaynard5180 come on, man. It’s not that hard to keep a level head without the help of anyone or anything else.
Good grief....that religious guy is nearly hysterical in his need to substantiate what he truly cannot.
"Religion is the last bastion of a man with no questions and no arguments" -Thomas Jefferson...i believe and I got that before I knew jeff was one of hitches heroes and I may have got the quote slightly wrong
They all sound the same, like children.
@@jfphotography69 I bet you haven't met a single religious person other than those of your parents
look generalizing a group just because of the actions of one person is like someone generalizing all atheists by the behaviour of Lawrence Krauss...
@@spiralithil that's not an argument. Delusions are not reality, no matter how hard you want them to be. Religions are a mind virus and a cancer on the human species. The ridiculous needs to be ridiculed.
The Unbelievers Interview
ua-cam.com/video/iUUpvrP-gzQ/v-deo.html
Frank Turek
It’s amazing that when you ask a theist “who “created created god or where is he?” They respond by saying “he exists outside of space and time” And “he has no creator” sounds like pretty much the same response to science. People are wasting their lives being a slave to a person who doesn’t even exist!
Preach lol
Sounds like they both agree. Why argue the details? The God model is cooler.
@@potato2248 it isnt about what sounds cooler. its about what is true
For argument sake, do you prefer people to waste their lives being a slave to a person who exists?
@@prophettoatheists8057 No one should be a slave at all. The bible condones slavery. I am more moral than the bible and any god it represents.
Hitchens was just first class in every sense. Love the way he delivers his answers with such wisdom, humility, intellect and dry humour. Simply brilliant!
And he did it without yelling.
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
@@cinesanti7 if your right? Why is the religious leader getting so frustrated?
@@cinesanti7 you are speaking nonsense.
Seriously? All he did was claim total ignorance and demand Turek explain knowledge.
Hitchens rightly points out the absurdity of Turek's argument: "We don't know exactly how everything began (yet) but some ancient people with almost no understanding of the natural world figured it all out by collating a collection of oral myths."
Eric van Bezooijen
Meaning that they put stock in what a non-specifically defined group of people who went around collecting myths.
In other words word, he really said,
"We haven't exactly gleaned yet how the universe came to be, but we have FFFFFFFFFFFFF- Harumph! We have *Confidence* science will provide us an explanation that doesn't involve an Intelligent Creator."
+1aundulxaldin actually he never approached making that statement or anything resembling it.
1aundulxaldin Anyone who has a basic understanding of the lithospheric cycle knows that at this point, we will never know how the beginning of the world came to be. Also, the universe is changing at such a rapid rate that deducing the origins would also be fruitless. The difference is a lazy person will pick religion and an intellectual will still try to find answers. Either way, this doesn't prove god exists.
Jesse Kahler
True, the purpose of Science is not to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being but to attempt to explain our surroundings/reality using reason and logic. Religion is 'The Bible says so and the Bible is the Word of God, that is how I know.' Not much of an answer. I like Hitchens, he says I don't know and neither do you - maybe not here but he did in another
Q and A - as to how this all came to be.
It’s funny how atheists like Hitchens put the burden of proof on those who believe in God. The burden lies with the atheist who 1) is positing an absolute negative (there is no God) and 2) speaks in terms within a moral framework (no moral lawgiver-no moral framework).
As Mr. Hitchens himself has said, that which requires no evidence to assert requires no evidence to dismiss.
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
@@cinesanti7 how do those farts smell pal?
The answer is simply 'we don't know'...
Simple: You don't know..."
Zeek Banistor you believe that, and nobody knows if it’s really that way. I would like to know what do you think would happen to a very good, caring and respectful person when they die but didn’t believe that jesus died for his sins, or didn’t believe in a creator.
Agnostic Atheism FTW
@@prophettoatheists8057 and you don't either neither does any priest or bishop or ur mommy or daddy nobody knows the truth...
“You’re welcome, I don’t need 5 minutes!” 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼 hitches the greatest intellectually subtle troll
That Hitch slap!!! (:
Sadly he's in hell now.
@@criticofgames lol how do you know this? He's more humble than the average Christian I know and all he did was try and help people get out of their religious cult since 9/11 showing them freedom by allowing yourself to question everything. Whether it be a jesus man rising from the dead or Muhammed cutting the moon in half with a sword on a flying horse. You decide. But he's a good example of why we should question such ridiculous things when we know more about the universe than the people on this Earth thought they did 4000 years ago.
@@criticofgames see you in hell you condescending assuming human being.
@@FlasRoose 9/11 was an inside job. It's good to question always but at least get your information right I m Muslim and he flew to heaven and he didn't cut the moon in half with the sword or anything god did it to prove that he was indeed a prophet and when God did that they claim Muhammed was a wizard type u know a magician
Mr. Hitchens makes a very good point when he says"What resources do you have
available that I don't" I believe that sums up his argument pretty well.
Mr. Turek might become aware of an important statement from Richard Feynman:
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty! I think it is much more interesting to live NOT knowing, than to have answers, which might be wrong!" ... and an even more important the statement from Daniel J. Boorstin:
"The biggest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - It is the illusion of knowledge!"
So those sayings might be why Hitch was such a dumbass. Maybe he followed them.
"It is much more interesting to live NOT knowing, than to have answers, which might be wrong!"
Then how does your dumb ass know that statement is true? If you know it's true, then you might be wrong. if you're better off not knowing, then you'll never commit to knowing anything.
""The biggest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - It is the illusion of knowledge!"
Then there's the illusion that the statement is knowledgable. It's better off being ignorant.
Dumbass, we KNOW creation could not happen naturally. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Anyone doubting those laws are absurd and you can shove those saying up your dumb ass.
Hitch the dumbass doubted those laws. He sure as hell did because he didn't believe in any supernatural events. Not just that, you can't get laws of nature without a Lawgiver. We KNOW that.
What're your next sayings that you use for an excuse to be the dumbass you are?
@@2fast2block
Load of horse shit. Thanks for nothing.
@@2fast2block
Load of horse shit. Thanks for nothing.
@@2fast2block nonsense
@@oltedders "Load of horse shit. Thanks for nothing."
And your proof is...
(blank)
Neither religion or science has the answer for everything, but I'd say theres one big difference in the action each of them takes when confronted with something that's poorly understood:
_When _*_religion_* doesn't have an answer for something that isn't understood... Then it must be a miracle and us petty humans just aren't meant to understand, and that's the end of it.
_When _*_science_* doesn't have an answer for something that can't yet be understood... That's the beginning of it, and through the scientific method we can progress in our understanding of the universe.
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
@@cinesanti7 sad you still believe in fairytales about people walking on water, zombies coming back from the dead and a "virgin" giving birth (that one in particular is hilarious... she probably had a train ran on her and couldn't admit it, lol)
@@jhyland87damn you turned spiteful real quick after one dude disagreed with you.
Fucking genius. According to the rules, he had to answer in 5 min. He said fuck u, I dont need 5 min. He was being asked a question, then he flipped it around and said fuck u, u r the one who needs to answer quite a few questions. Love this man, he is destroying the rules in the most polite possible way.
Nice comment. Right on.
I miss Christopher so much... The absolute voice of reasonable thinking!
I wept when he passed
@@criticalthinker2380 Christopher Hitchens started believing when he was on his death bed
@@Wdym41 That is absolute nonsense. Of course, if you have any evidence to back up your ridiculous statement I'm sure everyone in the Comment Section would love to know what it is?
@Wisest Of the the century You are talking nonsense. It would be very interesting to see what evidence you could provide to back up your ridiculous statement.
@Derrick Crawley And how do you know Hitchens didn't enjoy his life? He clearly did, just partied to excess. Go fuck yourself, shitstain.
Hitch towers above his opponents' arguments with facts, logic, and authority.
Luis Cypher Facts! Opinions in the main or so called facts wouldn't keep changing. Absolute truth we need
Hitchens knows how to run and hide in these arguments. He takes the opposite view from atheists like Richard Dawkins who believes he can explain everything. Talking to CH is like playing chess with a squirrel, in the words of his brother Peter.
@onelove sorry, I dont play chess with squirrels. Happy landings.
@onelove 😂😂 nice comeback! Love people with a good sense of humor, whether they agree with me or not. Anyway, the best for you and yours for what will probably an eventful 2020 on many fronts....
@onelove I'm not saying this with any animosity or malice, but I would submit that he did run and hide by ducking the question at 3:00.
when a christian is losing, he gets hysterical
@Azay Deelay Or rather not being able to answer the questions Christopher throws back at him makes him hysterical. One claims not to be able to know the other asserts that therefor it must be a god.
@Azay Deelay He is hysterical and delusional just like you!!!!!!!!
Atheist world view is insane
@@Wdym41 Believing in supernatural, invisible, space daddy is what then? Your god exists in your head, no where else. Handle it.
@@tgsquier you do realize that the simple fact that we exist is supernatural. But ok
Sad that he's gone I fell in love with him just a couple days ago he's like my favorite debater now
Melissa Sahagun heathen same! Just discovered him. Wish I found him years ago!!!!
I can relate. Found him about 3 months ago. His voice and everything he says hooks you.
My fav person❤
@big spheres ..how satanic you are ..why you want him to be in hell
big spheres how could you possibly know that?
Creationist: Something came from nothing, how?
Hitchens: i don't know how
Creationist: it has to be god!
Hitchens: support that claim
Creationist: how else can something come from nothing?
Hitchens: that's not evidence of a diving being, listen there are universes exploding all the time, why would a creator create that?
Creationist: doesn't mean god doesn't exist
Hitchens: You have to prove this god exists in the first place!!
the evidence for god is all around us smarty pants. try reading Frank's book 'I don't have enough faith to be an athiest' and see what you think?
Palmer Patterson the title is already wrong. Atheism is lack of faith.
Denying the existence of a God, or rather affirming that the universe came about without one (athiesm) is a faith claim. There is nothing wrong with the title.
Palmer Patterson I am denying God because it is a positive claim with no evidence to support it. Would you say it is a faith claim to deny that tinker bell is real?
+Kyrie Irving but how can you then accept athiesm as it has no evidence to support its claims?? again please refer to Frank's book if you wish, in it you will find that the evidence we do have makes it increasingly difficult to come to any other rational conclusion about the existence of life other than through a creator (I. E God).
Man the only animal narsistic enough to claim he created the universe
Also the most narcissistic to claim they know for a fact.
Huh? Which man or woman has ever claimed he or she created the universe?
@@gameofpwns1165 created on our behalf is it hink what he meant, diffirent then what the original comment said but monumentally arrogant and narsistic nonetheless.
Why do creationists insist that something came from nothing? Who said there was ever a nothing?
because everything we now has borns and dies
@@oenf4bjfn3k yes...and?
Because if we go back in time a lot of what we know didn’t exist
@@j.j1060 correct...still waiting for the punchline
They claim that we claim it in an attempt to force us to try to defend that position. Which is so fucking stupid.
The creationist creed: "I don't know, therefore God.
What Neil DeGrasse Tyson so accurately describes as "the God of the gap."
If there were really a God, then it would not make people like Hitch and fuck itself up.
Well come on thank you it rationally people who believe in God have never seen anything come from nothing people who are atheists have never seen anything come from nothing Anything that is design had a designer look around you everything you see has a designer your TV your telephone the clothes you wear R did you make them out of nothing
@Pedro Suarez timeless out side of time you need to stick with the where did the universe came from before you try to figure out where did God come from here is a hint you have to think out side the 3 dimensional Box
@Pedro Suarez Seriously
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. - Voltaire
Roland Deschain yes, and you’re too afraid to laugh because if he did exist then he would be no more sick a person than a real life joker could be. You are it’s victim and your existence and possibility of suffering the joke.
But that’s not the case, because as far as we know he doesn’t exist.
No He is not.
@MrJayguess What a noble christian, gloating in all his pride.
@MrJayguess Don't gotta be rude to the guy. Show some civility and compassion to those who are lost in this confusing world. To shun them is to shun gods children, which I am certain is not your intention lest you fall victim to your own ego and inner sin.
@@biscuitkeyboard I prefer your response much more than some threatening egoiste who thinks he has the answers. Judgement and the attitude of Righteousness is SO easy for them to sling upon those who just want to express themselves, isn't it? No need to respond to those who act that way. Not worth it :) Just like his channel he has no content : )
This is what I like about Buddhism, there’s no need to know how it came to be. Instead, fully live in the present moment because that is the only thing that exists.
Wow
Exactly :D
Namaste
@Jesus Christ Glorified jesus christ glorified...your superiority must be orgasmic... try not to get any on me please:-)
You should see Hitchens piece on Buddhism, or actually an interview of him done by his long time friend Tim Rutten and I believe colleague for a good number of years, about Buddhism in Cambodia after the Red Khmers.. In short, he ain't to found of them either to put it mildly..
Here, found it!
ua-cam.com/video/R6frLhqKfzM/v-deo.html
It's a good interview over all, so watch it in it's entirety! But here's the more specific part that I referred too! 25:30 but sort of starts at 24:40.
Dumbest argument ever. If he's claiming you need a "creator" because something can't come from nothing, then where the hell does That something come from??
It's turtles all the way down !
"Everything must come from something! That's proof of a creator!"
Where did the creator come from?
"Listen here you little shit..."
An eternal creator that has just always existed is a lazy answer for the question. The honest answer is "we don't really know."
@@lastfirst2241 Couldn't agree more. I hate the "God is metaphysical and timeless" argument they spin when faced with the fact that they believe the universe needs a creator, which means the creator needs a creator.
Whatever, the big bang is basically the same as God(s) snapping its fingers, just cut out the middle man lol.
Actually if time, matter and space are created and have starting point the creator don't need a creator because there is no contrast like before, now and later because there's always been now, therefore the creator has always been.
Why not just assume God is real anyway?
Correct - infinite regression.
Christopher Hitchens was such a bad ass.
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
@@cinesanti7 You are making the claim, so provide the evidence
Hitchens was the greatest nightmare for all theist... I really have lost count of the number of prominent theist who were left in dust in his wake. Even though he is gone but his legacy lives on.
Oh yeah? Well I still believe in the tooth fairy, Peter Rabbit and Ground Hog Day. So there!
You can say that again!
He was such a weak debator
Bullocks he was just too damn drunk half the time , he confuses the question , while he enjoys in his own answer ..
Just look at his debate with John Lennox.
..the Typewriter has not gone out of existence, it has simply evolved.
I thought that too. What a poor choice of words.
His point is simply typewriters are practically extinct, replaced by laptops and tablets, within a few centuries there might be no trace of type-righters at all
Yes but they don't evolve on their own do they? They have a guiding hand
@@giovannimartin3239 It's amazing to watch you put words into Turek's mouth. Bullshit just comes so easy to Christians.
@@classicartfoundation639 Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but the guiding hand among living things is called natural selection, i.e., no need for a god.
“How do you get something from nothing?”
“I don’t know, how do you god from nothing?”
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
@@cinesanti7 God came about by happenstance
@@peaness7275exactly. Chinesanti7321’s comment is a hot mess of words strewn together to form sentences that explain Nd mean nothing. They ask questions that if they were answered would get an insane answer because the questions by the commenter are nonsensical, word-salad, gobbledygook that make no coherent point one way or the other. Such a waste of time written by an individual with a teeny tiny little brain which knows no better…
@@peaness7275lol. That is a good one right there!!! If u didn’t call them out on it I was right behind you!
@@cinesanti7boo this person…. Boo this person
notice how hitchens answers all questions he's ever asked, and how turek never really answers any...
Hard to answer a question when you have no answers
I love that and miss Mr Hitchens
@@VNVgirl The irony.
@@VNVgirl yeah such a great loss NOT!! ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
@@rishabhsingh8771 HAHA
As always, Hitchens Just broke this guy down...
Alex Gonzalez what’s funny, is that he does here, but he so rarely does anywhere else.
He’s like Dawkins, he demands proof but in the same breath tells you he won’t believe any proof you provide.
The point being, he demands proof in all his arguments. Demand he can prove his own idea to be correct, show his evidence.
He can’t do it.
Even Einstein stated, there comes a time when there are so many coincidences that it can no longer be a coincidence.
It’s the argument that we ‘just happen’ to be in the perfect place in the galaxy to get the right amount of sun for the plants, animals etc we have to grow and develop within a climate we have, so far, shown to be unique.
Every single part of the natural planet works. Cut out human actions, such as buildings, roads etc.
The ecosystem of the planet works perfectly to support and maintain the life cycle of everything on it. We have a line of predator down to prey. So if you say Foxes eat rabbits, fine, but rabbits breed at such a rate the foxes will never wipe them out, meaning they have a continual link.
Leaves fall from trees in autumn, they get broken down by the climate, insects and no longer being ‘part’ of the tree.
Ultimately they are turned into a mulch that works as fertiliser for the tree.
It all works, it’s only when you add in the rapacious appetites of humans that things start to go wrong.
It doesn’t seem to matter what the creature is we’ll find a reason to consume it. If it’s a plant, we’ll eat it, make something out of it or just burn it.
Humanity has taken itself out of a perfectly functioning ecosystem and started to destroy it. When you include humans, there are too many predators and not enough prey.
One of the reasons for that is demonstrated in all arguments on whether there is a deity or not. We ignore everything else around us in a battle to prove who is right and who is wrong whilst slowly destroying the very thing that keeps us alive and able to have that debate.
He was broken to begin with.
With stubborness - not logic or scientific fact, certainly.
@@AngelicusImmortus _"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."_ (Einstein in his letter to Gutkind).
How lol
I commented this on another video but I'll say it again:
I like that Hitchens attempts to extend the conversation to the audience at nearly every opportunity.
Hitchens , the voice , the calmness , the knowledge ..... The sarcasm 😂 ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Hitchens evolutionary bitchens deserves a revolutionary ditchens ? ? ?
The looks
normal for sophist who have no argument at all and just in denail of everything (science, logic and history)
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
This Christian guy is angry, not calm, shouts all the time, asks stupid questions
Constantly interrupts because he doesn't understand a f**ing thing.
Turek is a wacko douchebag.
Composer 222 because the dick sitting next to him can’t keep his composure because he is obviously stupid and can’t understand what Hitch is saying, typical brain dead theist
It's his cognitiv dissonance kicking in especially religious people suffer a lot from it, it's bascally their stereotypcal disease which prevents them from thinking unbiased and clearly.
His mic wasn't working or was it, huh? You get that impression because you analyze the form and not content. On the other hand, the content from religious guy was bullshit, obviously he's not from Mensa, but Hitchens puts himself in the above position which is really ignorant from him but that's the way you play to work the audience, people like you... Religion is almost always based on faith but that doesn't exclude it from the reality, you know? Catholicism is indeed pagan, it shouldn't be connected to Christianity. It's so much complicated for not so smart people, that's why they get always lies and after realising they were fed with lies, they prefer to listen to people like Hitchens who was sometimes witty but was more about destroying the opponent in eyes of a viewer than seeking for truth and that's stupid!
Listen to *Paul Harvey - If I was a devil*
The "nothing" physicists speak of is not the common _nothing_ we understand. Just saying.
The nothing that physicists speak of is NOT the nothing that we understand in every day life. If I show you a shoe box minus its shoes, you may say that it is a box with 'no-thing' in it. To a physicist it is NOT a box with no-thing in it. Just saying.
***** That's exactly what I meant to post. When we think faster than we type, and fail to proofread after a moment of repose, words come up missing. I usually do this with _is_ or _the_ or something relatively innocuous. The presence of my comment as written wouldn't make sense if I meant it that way. Editing, if able. Thanks for the catch.
6chhelipilot watch Lawrence Krauss A Universe from Nothing if you seriously want to know what he’s talking about. Alchemist you too.
Wrong
cbrusharmy There is no nothing with something in it. There is nothing ( 0 ) or something.
We miss you, Christopher.
I’m so stoked to have been able to attend one of his last bebates. It was “is there an afterlife”.
The other guy came unarmed to a battle of wits. He got absolutely mopped by Hitchens
"the typewriter has gone out of existence", I have one sitting on my lap...
I'm replying to this comment using one, checkmate Christians!
God obviously put it there.
@@solentbum Of course I did.
@@vincentflannigan2727 You do not understand, you may have thought you put it there but to the God that invent and designed hundreds of diseases , putting a typewriter in your lap was a simple conjuring trick. I suggest a couple of dry biscuits and a glass of diluted wine to bring you to your senses
@@solentbum No, I am god!
“I regard masochism as a sinister and creepy impulse”
*sips Pepsi*
XramerGaming pretty sure that cup contains a stronger substance than pop
*laughs in BDSM*
If I know Hitch that was not only Pepsi ;-)
I'm always amused, at how the discussion of God's existence, power, and benevolence, ultimately turns into a vocabulary lesson.
It's funny how there's no evidence of abiogenesis or macro evolution yet intelligent idiots such as Hitchens would have you believe it's stupid to believe otherwise. Machines thousands of times more complex than anything man has made and these people want other gullible people to believe it came about by chance lol
@@21divel ... I would suggest to anyone, that they base what they believe in, on evidence and proof. Rather than faith in anything that possesses neither.
@@reisekeller6859 If you could give me scientific evidence for either abiogenesis or macro evolution I would consider believing but at the moment, the Biblical evidence is stronger. If you want, you site your evidence and I'll site mine.
@@reisekeller6859 And you have the definition of faith all wrong. Faith can only be based on evidence....otherwise it's called wishful thinking.
@@21divel Well, I don't believe in either. Perhaps you'd like to share the "evidence" for your faith?
If god created the universe, then who created god. If something cannot come from nothing, then god cannot exist yeah?
+NickBigsmoke Good question that you can find the answer yourself. The word origin is the answer. If everything need another origin, then the word origin is meaningless.
+NickBigsmoke God is not creature, so how can you ask, who created God, He is eternal being, He is out of time, if He is out of time He don't have creator or beggining, why is that so hard to understand, every atheist i know ask that stupid question an they think they have point ...
The elements that compose of the universe need to come from somewhere. I guess your argument is that God snapped his fingers and miraculously created an entire universe composing of Hydrogen, Helium, and Oxygen?
+Dusan Plavsic " every atheist i know ask that stupid question an they think they have point ..."
Uh ya and we continue to ask that 'stupid' question because we don't get a believable answer, just like you've stated. There is one thing that all things including a god would need to exist and that is time. As you stated "if He is out of time He don't have creator or beggining", then if he was out of time he could not do a thing, as you need time to do anything god or not.
Also theist love to throw around that everything needs a creator...well that everything would also apply to your god.
It have meaning, you are just close minded and you don't have ability to think outside of time, Human thinking is in the box of space, time and matter, if you can't understand eternity with your litlle mind it doesn't mean that eternal being doesn't exist ...
It's pretty easy to gauge in a debate who is losing by observing how emotional each debater is becoming. Hitchens is calm and collected the entire time.
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
@@cinesanti7oh well, then it’s the same as your faith. A complete sham 😂
Ooooooohhhh Frankie boy getting all bent out of shape. Meanwhile Hitchens - cool AF
What seems to be overlooked is the marvelous feat of coming to understand the universe to the degree we have. Did any of this knowledge come from the Bible? No. Science. So there is no reason to think our greater understanding of the origin of things will come in the future, again not through religion but through science.
and thats the point I don't have to know, you do, your the one who says you know! Brilliant and worthy of socrates himself! Hitchens is a massive loss in a world that needs him more then ever!
Making a rod for your own back. lmao
liltd87 holding empty sack
From nothing? Who ever said the universe came from nothing. As far back as we can see there is always something. Beyond that is unknown!
Virtual Particles are considered to be nothing based on our definition/limits, and virtual particles can, in theory, cause a big bang.
@@mahmoudalsayed1138 But it is still something, isnt it. Calling it nothing would be a bit of an understatement.
@@mattl1762 Well, nothing in a sense that it can be neglected due to the fact that it's infinitesimally small or it's effect is almost undetected. But still, Virtual Particles causing a Big Bang is way more reasonable explanation than an almighty being farted to cause a big bang and create matter, isn't it?
theist: god has no creator
atheist: universe has no creator
theist: you are cheating
What/who created the creator?
Edison
Man created the god.
Edison would probably just create the patent for that creator.
Mr Fafaa I laughed too hard at this
@@zivuhz Happy to be of service.
If God created something out of nothing, then who created God? There must be a designer who also created him, because by his logic everything needs to come from something. And if the answer is God came out of nothing, wouldn't that mean that it would be possible that our universe could also have been created out of nothing? Meaning it didn't need a designer?
Ikr? I actually hinted at this when my roomm8 was bothering me with his tiresome religious monologue (which I certainly didn't ask for) about a week ago about how the universe existing without a conscious creator would be 'pure chance upon chance upon chance'. And when I said 'so this creator would have to _exist_ outside of _existence_ itself' he did not even see a contradiction and just said 'yes exactly'. Time is required for both thought and action, a reality is required in order to exist in it, but apparently god didn't cuz fuck it. Suffice to say I was screaming inside my own head at that point. x'D
God would of simply always been, thermodynamics shows that energy is eternal it simply takes multiple forms but is never extinguished, this is proven that we live in a finite universe everything that has been and will be already exists, this is the eternal I am all that has been and will ever be. Cannot create that which has always been, no reason to.
In a word, NO, neither God nor the universe can come from nothing. Both claims are self-contrdictory and wrong.
But you are correct, God as creator does beg the question of who created him. Christians, don't say he always existed. You have to traverse an infinity of moments to claim that. And traversing an infinity of moments to get to here is also a logical absurdity, can't be done.
Actually, God doesn’t need a designer because of the whole idea of God. The idea of a God (capital G) is ‘something’ that is the furthermost basis of the reality that we live in. It’s the ultimate, total reality of everything, even of nothing. God stands outside of the world and just as well He/It is it’s primal principle. Read on to some platonists, Plotinus or Plato and you’ll know what I am talking about, the Christian/Islamic God is something much deeper and much greater than people think
Using that reasoning, thermodynamics can prove the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus and Middle Earth!
My favourite thing about Christopher is that no matter how drunk he is, even though he is seeing double, he still wins debates. It only came to light after he passed just how much whiskey he would drink during these shows. Any body else would be sleeping but Christopher just slebbers on, pished drunk....and still wins
This video right here goes to show how much of a pseudo-intellectual this man was. A pretentious argument put forth as evidence. It was never a matter of whether or not the universe needed a creator, but whether if it did and to accept that it came about by happenstance is just pure absurdity. Sad you atheists bought into his sham.
@@cinesanti7 You literally just copied and pasted this, didn't you? Okay. Have some copy paste back: _Except that wasn't presented as evidence, so you're wrong from the very second sentence even if we give you the first._
Hitchens has lost every debate with creationists because creationists know genetics, thermodynamics, information science, paleontology, geology and radiometrics better than he.
“Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.”
- H. L. Mencken
I honestly never felt right with the whole big bang theory, because it implies we need a beginning. What if the universe, or even multiverse rather, has literally always been? What if there was no beginning or end? I think the very notion of beginnings and endings is a very human, or mortal assumption because we do have a beginning and end. But that doesn't mean everything does.
+AugustAdvice That was actually Einstein and almost every cosmologists problem with the Big Bang until they were presented with overwhelming evidence. Most Cosmologists of the past echoed your 'I think the very notion of beginnings and endings is a very human,' point. The 'Big Bang' is even actually a derisive term coined by cosmologist Fred Hoyle who fought tirelessly against the theory long after it was accepted science (you'll often notice that creationists cite Hoyle when trying to present evidence against the Big Bang, acting as though because he was a cosmologist from decades ago he is an authority on the hard science of the Big Bang - Turek even does in this debate). He was an adamant supporter of the 'Steady State' theory that the universe had essentially existed for ever.
vimeo.com/64223872
I would watch this. It's the story of the evidence and Einstein's acceptance of theory presented to him by Hubble and Le Maitre. It's very interesting.
The big bang theory is the best bet. The clues are there. I often feel like it does a great disservice to call it a theory. You have to regarded in the same way you see gravity, evolution, and general relativity. There is 4 main clues that you have to consider. Some of which people have already mentioned.
The discovery that the galaxies are speeding away from us. The ever expanding universe. The concept that this all started in a central point, expanded, and it's still doing so at a high pace.
Cosmic microwave background radiation. That's a mouthful but the idea was that if the big bang occurred, it would have come along with huge amount of radiation to which we can still measure today.
The elements that are around us. If we are to believe in the big bang, the process would have occurred in a way that hydrogen would have been present in high heat acting like a star fusing hydrogen into helium and other elements. Scientists have observed and determined that all of the elements that would take for this to occur are the most prominent in the universe.
Lastly, after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled to the point that the gravitational attraction of matter was the dominant form of energy density in the Universe. This mass was able to collect together into the first stars, galaxies and eventually the large scale structures we see across the Universe today.
These are known as the 4 pillars of the Big Bang Theory. Four independent lines of evidence that build up one of the most influential and well-supported theories in all of cosmology.
Now, excuse me if I rambled. I realize this is a long post and even though I am not a scientist or professor, I understand the idea that was brought up and accept the findings supporting it. Some might not agree and that is fine but you need to support your claims with evidence. You don't have to believe it but I am telling you, no other theory fits so perfectly.
+Unintentional Effectiveness
*Unintentional Effectiveness:* _"I often feel like it does a great disservice to call it a theory."_
Theory doesn't mean what you think it does in science. It's not a hypothesis or guess, but the most supported explanation. That's why natural selection is a theory. A theory encompasses and explains all of the known facts.
There's an excellent video called 'Science Works! Scientific theory explained' which is worth watching.
crocdoc2 but I'm not speaking on my own behalf. I speak for the average Joe that hears "theory" and quickly dismisses any concept put forward, even though I might be constantly put to the test and constantly passes with flying colors. Anyways, thanks for the recommendation. I might go check it out right now.
+Unintentional Effectiveness
No worries. My point was that there is no disservice in calling it a theory, regardless of the failure of the general public to understand what that means in science, for that's exactly what it is.
i can buy a typewriter. cant buy a god.
????
Judging from your sentence structure, you deserve neither.
@@TruthfullySpeaking500 So nice of you.
@@TfwNoGiantGF So perceptive of you.
@KIJIJI ALLIN - "cant buy a god." - Pshaw! There are many evangelists who will gladly sell you one.
2:57, the moment Turek realises one of his fundamental assumptions is competely baseless.
Hitchens' point at the end of the clip of how there's a totalitarian inclination among those who posit this "first cause" idea is spot on.
So Mr Hitchens found a rescuing device to get himself out of a corner.
Hitchens knew enough about histoy to know that there were atheists who were totalitarian.
Cause and effect is rational.
If we could all just admit that we really don't understand yet how or why we are here, then the smartest answer to any question, ever considered, in the history of the human race would be, "I JUST DON'T KNOW!"
But we do know why we are here. Most people just will not accept the answer.
@@prophettoatheists8057 We only "know" why we are here based solely on what we thought was true 2000-3000 years ago. Belief in the supernatural is the only thing we humans steadfastly support irregardless of the knowledge we've acquired. EVERYTHING else we know we are willing to change our opinion of if another idea, opinion or theory proves more plausible.
@@gordie225 Wrong. I KNOW based on current evidence. I KNOW that The Intelligent Source exists as well as KNOWING that you as an inteillgent source exists
Do you KNOW or do you assume that I exist? Maybe you are uncertain. Which?
@@prophettoatheists8057 How do you know? Do you know because you've been indoctrinated since the day you were born and told to believe because your family believed? Do you know because believing in ancient 3000 year old stories handed down helped you through a crisis? Did you hit rock bottom and the only way to bring yourself back from drugs or alcohol was to do as they told you and believe in those stories? Do you know because you had an epiphany and literally talked to God? No matter what excuse you use to justify your delusion it all boils down to believing in what we believed 3000 years ago without consideration of what we've learned since.
@@gordie225 I asked you how do I KNOW that you exist. I am not assuming.
Do you know based on scientific evidence that I exist or do you just assume so?
Is it a delusion that I state that I KNOW that you exist?
How can I make this claim when I can't identify you personally?
Do you exist? Do I need confirmation? NO!
I love how Hutchins proposes to change the format of the debate to include the audience earlier. Hitchens rules.
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." - Bertram Russell
"I think that Masochism is a sinister and creepy impulse" *drinks Pepsi*
Turek's idea of 'something from nothing' and 'there's needs to be a choice for everything to come into exsistence' doesn't really work for the time before the "big bang". In Hawkin's 'A Brief History of Time' he mentions that the human models for time don't really work when all of the matter in the Universe was condensed into a singularity. As all the matter had a direct effect on all other matter then there's no distinction of cause to effect or even an order of events. The past, the present and the future were all occurring and therefore not occurring at the same. The big bang was basically a break down of this loop so all the matter could expand and time could actually be recognised. To think of time before the big bang is like trying to think of place more north of the north pole. I apologise if I haven't made any sense, still trying to make sense of this myself, but there are some things that out of the human understanding as we're experiencing a universe that ultimately has time. There simply couldn't have been a conscious decision made, within a universe that has no time, and saying "God made a choice do we could exist" is a too simpler explanation for me. Hawkins > The Bible.
Science knows how much matter it takes to create a black hole singularity that will explode in a big bang. The trouble is that there is at least 300 times more known observable matter out there than that. No big bang can account for it. But this problem in no way means that the universe was created by God. It just means science right now is wrong and incomplete. And Christians are right to point out that "something from nothing" is a contradiction. But the wrong-headed notions of science do not prove the existence of God as creator. They just show that science is wrong. And science is willing to correct itself. Religious dogmatists are not so willing, usually.
Hawking
You talk of Hawking's ideas as if they were Gospel. HE came up with Hawking radiation, nothing else. He was famous in scientific circles fro making grand claims he could not prove.
Saying that a god created the universe is not an explanation. It's a baseless, illogical, meaningless claim.
Only God could create time space and matter at the same time in order for the Big Bang to occur. Illogical is to think that the Big Bang happened without God.
@Abdi Abdiwahid What we DO know for sure is that the energy that turned into matter originated from somewhere at some point. It's impossible for energy to come from nothing, nowhere and not at a specific point in time. God on the other hand is not affected by time. He could easily create this energy. ALSO... The first moments of the CHAOTIC explosion set the course for our creation. If it wasn't perfectly planned we wouldn't exist. As i said it was a chaotic explosion....that HAPPENED to be so perfectly coordinated... Or was there an architect. If you search into depth the first seconds of the creation you will find out that many evidence point out to the existence of a creator.
@Abdi Abdiwahid Also you contradict yourself. You first say that we don't know about what happened and on the next comment you say that the Big Bang didn't need a God. YOU DON'T KNOW. AS YOU SAID.
@Abdi Abdiwahid Υou said that we don't know AND then said that the it doesn't need a creator to be created. How do you know that? You claimed that you don't. That's a contradiction.
@Abdi Abdiwahid Energy DOES die out. Look it up. It's not eternal. It must have a point of beginning and a point of end. The universe WILL completely die out with all of its energy. It's calculated.
Occam's razor : the simplest solution is usually the best.
So why choose an Incomprehensible creator, creating a comprehensible universe over just an incomprehensible universe ?
Turek has a Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics. What does that amount to apart from painting targets around the arrows one has already shot?
What's so laughable about religious people is that they all think they know best in their own particular group...
If religion where true, they would all belong to the same religion and not all the different factions that they do....
This is no different to belonging to a different political party.....
My party is better than your party......
My religion is better than your religion.......
Utterly ridiculous !!
DAVID LOCKWOOD Specifically Christians?
I guess people belong to different religions because rhey have different opinions, just like with political parties
Alpen, yes, religion and politics are tribalistic. Every primitive tribe and civilized religion know that their tribe is the true people and they have the true group identity. Christians have names for the others such as heathen, heretic, pagan, blasphemer whom they think deserve eternal torment for not joining the group and accepting the group identity.
+Jesus Christ Glorified its not a stupid comment. coming from a very religious background I have asked myself this question a million times .I have been paranoid and living in fear because of it's doctrines ,but fortunately coming out of this.
So truth is relative lol?
The watchmaker argument? Against Hitchens? Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight.
This man was so brilliant and eloquent
LEGEND and greatly missed
Imagine the whole universe created for an uninspiring ape while the Siberian tiger gets nothing. Think about it.
How much art has the siberian tiger created throughout history. What capacity has the siberian tiger to appreciate the beauty all around it? None. It eats flesh raw and cleans it's arse with its tongue.
The shit you people come out with is ridiculous. An "uninspiring ape" speak for yourself lol
C R what other animal gives a shit about art?
@@CR-ej6nl You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of "an eye for an eye, a life for a life," which is known throughout the universe... for its stupidity. Even your Buddha and your Christ had quite a different vision, but nobody's paid much attention to them, not even the Buddhists or the Christians. You humans, sometimes it's hard to imagine how you've made it this far.
it's still hilarious to me that Turek had no concept how completely out of his league Hitchens was. He was an absolute fool to accept this debate.
Stupidity is only matched by arrogance. Turek is an idiot, with a PhD
Have you ever seen Turek get even *remotely* as shaken up as he seems to get when debating Hitchens?
I'm always amazed at how well he performed at these debates when drunk. He's so lit here that his head looks like it's going to explode.
Thank you Hitchens.. I needed that.
If the notion of the universe coming from nothing is absurd then what did god make it out of?
And where did god come from anyway?
Indeed. And if God can do anything, including the impossible or absurd then does not that make God absurd?
I suppose the answer is that god can do anything, but without god, you need some explanation, which is a cop-out, I think.
Richard Hunt I recommend the "I don't know, you don't know and nobody we have ever known knows the answers to the absurd questions" position.
Any other point of view is moronic and strictly egotistical/fear of the unknown based childishness.
My comment was rather tongue-in-cheek. Of course nobody knows, and we should keep an open mind. It's interesting to speculate, but I don't see how a serious world view can be built on any such speculation.
The answer to Turek’s question is “we don’t know why there is something instead of nothing” and to say otherwise is dishonest. Please don’t insert “God of the gaps” for everything we don’t know.
Please do not insert "evolution of the gaps" for everything we don't know
@@prophettoatheists8057
Don't put God and evolution on the same level. They're not even close.
The theory of evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. We literally have more evidence for it than for the theory of gravity, and we've even watched it happen in a lab. The evidence is out there, easily accessible. Educate yourself.
So if humans don't know then God doesn't know? But He is omniscient! He knows you too!
How boring life would be if we weren't able to agree or disagree. Can we all agree on that?
The something from nothing argument is so tired and needs to be put to rest. Nobody says the universe came from nothing. That isn't what any scientist actually says.
The problem is the idea and the definition of "nothing". Theists definition and idea of "nothing" is very much different from a scientists view of nothing.
But even so, we have no idea what the universe was like before the singularity because we can only model what the universe might have been like. The people who claim that this all came from nothing is just using the god of the gaps argument.
Reality is what reality is: so lets try to create our own paradise then shell we...:)
Reality is Reality? This is profound, indeed. You mean, like, reality isn't unreal? What a staggering discovery!
And a cup is a cup, a table is a table, a cloud is a cloud....hey! I see a pattern here. Lots of stuff is what it is. Brilliant!
@@lurking0death wow genius ! Thanks for pointing out the obvious ... Wat he meant here is we have our reality to deal with and let's make a paradise out of it with the short time we live in this realm . Nice try , trying to look like a smartass btw .
Where can I find the full debate? This is really interesting
I pity the man who goes up against Hitchens, they all deserve a medal of bravery in doing so.
Brave but dumb.
Bro like hitchens is so smart it’s insane .
Aaron Adams
He was too smart and rejected all the evidence. I bet he wishes he had a do over.
James Haynes that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
These people have no clue yet, they still try to answer.
And so, I laugh😂
They will also claim they get their knowledge from the bible, yet invent fantastic attributes and descriptions out of thin air that are nowhere IN the bible. Often even contradict it.
Can't find the full program can anyone send the link if you find it🙏🌺
The counter argument to Turek is really simple though.
- What was before the big bang?
- I don't know.
- Something can't just come from nothing. There has to be a creator, or a first cause.
- What makes the creator, or the first cause exempt from the same requirements? If there had to be "first cause" before the big bang, what was before the first cause, or before the creator? If there's no requirement for anything to exist before the first cause, or the creator, why are we imposing that requirement to the big bang then?
BTW as far as I know since time and space are inseparably joined we can sort of say that before the big bang there was no time, so really, there's no such thing as "before the big bang".
To put it plainly, science, logic and reason, have given the world a helluva lot more than religion, or religions in general.
Humanity has surpassed all religions combined by now.
Men go crazy in congregations, but they only get better one by one.
"The desire to be a slave", hitchens is fantastic.
Hitch NEVER answered how we got creation except for we don't know answer. We DO know. Only a dumbass freak like Htich makes believe we somehow figured out there can be a way around these laws.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
The guy gets really worked up, raising his voice, etc. I love Christopher, no need for that. One one a kind and deeply missed.
If our universe needs a designer, then who or what created the designer? And if the designer does not need a creator, then why does our universe need one?
Religous people somehow find it easier to begin with the most complex thing possible and work from there rather than begin with the most basic things that get more complicated over time. No wonder they find evolution so hard to understand!
Goddamn it. If I had a soft deep British accent, everybody would be debated
“You’re welcome- I don’t need 5 minutes.”
LMFAO #rekt
*sips drink because I've destroyed your argument*
Time and Gravity are 2 rules of the Universe. There is absolutely no requirement of a being outside of this Universe having to confirm to our physical rules. It's as unknowable as a Blind Man trying to understand the difference between Blue or Purple or Super Mario trying to understand 4 dimensions. Hitchens doesn't even dismiss the notion of a designer, he just says he doesn't understand what those plans are, a bit like an moron trying to understand an intellectual giant, but to many, many levels more exteme.
The universe is everything there is, how can something be outside of a system that consists of everything? Hitchens doesn't dismiss the notion of a designer because he's not making those claims. He's not saying that it's impossible for there to be a designer, he's asking for proof. How do YOU know that God created the universe? How do you know that aliens didn't make the universe? That our existence isn't just the play thing of a type 5 civilization? That we actually exist and not a dream of an ancient god whose awakening will destroy the universe. Each of these claims can explain the existence of the universe. But YOU will not believe any of them because YOU weren't given any proof of any of it. So why can't hitchens make the same stance and only believe in God if given proof?