Thank you. It is so nice to hear a person with their head straight. Most people don't understand that God is all that is AND all that isn't. There's not a thing that he "needs" from anybody or anything - not even Love. It is not necessary that we Love Him/Her/It BUT it is necessary that He Loves us. As His children made in His image ( on the soul level) we do not NEED to be loved from an external source - we are already Love. However, it is necessary that we Love others ( even especially if we don't like them). It is our less than perfect insecure and Fear filled human selves that cry out for Love 🙏❤️. Ironically, we are supremely important to God. Thanks to His children God knows what it FEELS like to be God. Before He Created us He could only KNOW that He was God. Experience was required for feelings making a physical reality necessary.
@@piehound IF you are going to worship "something" , then that should be God - even though it isn't necessary. However, don't give pleasure bad press. Out of God's infinite Love for His/Her/It's children He Desires for His children to enjoy ourselves. Don't forget, God is enjoying it all IN, AS, and THROUGH us. I'm very certain that if He is enjoying Himself vicariously through us (and He is) He chooses pleasure. In physicality it is necessary that there also be pain in order to know pleasure but be sure that God chooses pleasure - the same choice His children have. You could say that pain is a necessary evil but it need not affect you.🙏❤️
@@piehound what is hurting you so much that you feel the need to try and hurt someone else? Sorry! Try another target or learn to be an honest observer of yourself. Try raising your consciousness and thereby your awareness. ✌️🙏❤️
@@helensmith7596 Haha. Look, i share with you two of my anti-lockdown songs. ua-cam.com/video/3xt8Mp8oWzc/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/9s9qxz8dXuA/v-deo.html
I have to say, the religious is the mother of moving the goal post. The god of 400 isn’t the same as 200 ago years, the god of 200 years ago isn’t the same god today.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE. during September 1970.. Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
Much of what you say is true ( at least from your perspective) BUT you are so long winded that most people will get tired of hearing you. When we talk about God it involves Life, Love, the Universe - EVERYTHING. A book about it all would hardly cover it all. This is not the venue for a book.
Love this channel and the content! I have been a fan for years. I especially love how open minded Robert is and actually listens to each side equally giving everyone a change to explain their way of thinking. And then just leave it up for the viewers to absorb that information and use their own thinking to make of it what they will. And covering so many different and interesting topics is just a treat! Keep doing what you do and a joy to see this channel gaining the recognition it deserves!
Weinbergs assumption that it is the common human feeling that you should love your neighbor and live in peace with each other seems to negate the fact that in reality humans very often do not have this kind of feelings towards each other and act in very brutal ways even when they do not adhere to any religion. And as he says science has nothing to say whether a behaviour is good or bad. Therefore moral values or the lack thereof may be a strictly subjective matter, the result of human power over other humans or perhaps some sort of aggreement. The alternative view is that there are objective moral values which are independant of individual consent or some sort of coercion. But then, what is the source of such objective values and how do we get to know them?
It seems to me that it’s possible to have objective moral values without religion. I highly recommend Sam Harris’ book titled The Moral Landscape for a deeper exploration of this concept. I also recommend Dawkins’ writings on “ESS” or “evolutionarily stable strategies”. I think both these perspectives drive a nail into the coffin of the idea that we need god to be moral. They also provide elegant explanations for the reason that some moral concepts emerge simultaneously in nearly all successful human cultures, even when those cultures have different religious practices.
It's silly to say that the Universe is fine tuned for life, because if it wasn't we wouldn't exist to contemplate the Universe in the first place. If there is such a thing as the multiverse and a multitude of possibilities of Universes, of course we would inhabit the Universe that is conducive to forming life. And if there is a purpose for humans I guess it's what Carl Sagan suggested that 'We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself'. Humans as sentient beings give our Universe a consciousness, but are we the only ones? Considering The Fermi Paradox, maybe we're the first in our Universe to become sentient, or maybe not. If so-called God exists, we could never have the capacity to understand God, unless we ourselves were God.
So, let me get this right: The universe is NOT fine-tuned because we already exist to observe it? If it were fine-tuned it would be because our universe is a single, random member of an eternal, nearly infinite multiverse? Our purpose in this universe is for this (random) universe to know...itself? Moreover, human consciousness comes from sentient beings "giving" a purpose to this universe because consciousness came from beings being sentient? Also God couldn't exist because we're too puny to understand him...but we can give a non-conscious universe consciousness and purpose to itself?
@@joetech12 To be honest, I'm just a tiny human intellect on the long search to discovery. This is the way I see it, but just one thing about our use of the word God. It depends how we interpret what God is. Because we humans tend to anthropomorphize everything and because we've been bombarded with religious messages since we were children, we tend to say he of him. Even many of the atheists on Closer to Truth fall into that trap, but God, if that's what we're going to call it could be anything or any form that's so beyond our ability to comprehend with our limited brain capacity. I think God whatever it is, it would be so ethereal and formless it could like energy or a force and physically indescribable. Personally, I lean towards a pantheistic view in that God could be the universe itself. It’s always bothered me that our worldly religions are all centered on Earth and us humans, when our universe seems so vast. It seems like a major flaw in our thinking, and the fact there are so many religions or belief systems, they’re probably all wrong. They’re just our feeble attempts at an explanation of everything. I think the idea of God is just a by-product of our consciousness, just like Marvin Minsky and others have said that it’s comfortable for humans to use as a way to answer the questions we can’t answer; the God of the gaps so to speak. Maybe this is all just a simulation like the ‘Simulation Hypothosis’. ua-cam.com/video/Sn22cRiFEog/v-deo.html Closer to Truth is a fascinating series and encapsulates my lifelong interest in the deep questions about the Cosmos, Consciousness and God. I can certainly relate to Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s search for the Truth. For me, I’m kind of comfortable with something like modern pantheism, but like all of us, I’m only guessing. I do like the idea of a oneness that kind of fits physics, E=mc2, that nothing can be created or destroyed, only changed, and it seems the most balanced way of looking at the Cosmos and our place within it. Anyway brother, good luck on your search, and ‘May the Force be with You’.
If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it." "So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider." Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang - a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon - could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist, he said. "I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said. 'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'" But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said. The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve. "The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics." … … … … … … The solution to the never-ending Chain or the problem of infinite regress : The solution is Aristotle's UNmoved Mover called the Actus Purus.
Of the five interviewed, the last one, Steven Weinberg, gave the absolutely worst rationale of all, providing even more support for the contention that being an expert in one discipline doesn’t make one an expert in all. I’m sure Albert Einstein would agree.
Can you see the symbols I am typing? Have you ever considered how and why you can see them? Sure, you have sight, sure, you can just see the symbols, but wait! Remove the background on which these symbols we call writing sit upon. You would not be able to see the symbols, right? Open any book on any page, and you'll see that the symbols that we attach meaning to ALL sit on a background, and because of that background an author is able to express their ideas or opinions, or tell us a story of fiction or non-fiction. So if the symbols on a page are "held" by a background, in what is our Human experience and the planet we live held by? I suggest that you sit down in a place of your choice, close your eyes, and just listen to the noises around you. You may hear vehicular traffic, people's voices, You may hear birdsong, or running water, or the sound of a door closing. Whatever noises you can hear, what sits behind or holds those noises? To find that out, you must go beyond those noises, deeper and deeper, until you realize that the noises, and the whole Human experience is held by.... Silence. That is the background on which all of our Human experience sits and is held by.... silence. Perhaps this foundation of silence upon which our world and earthly experience is held, is God/ a higher power? It is just there, and few realize that it's there, and the strange thing is, when you're able to go beyond the earthly noises to the foundation that holds it, that is silence, you find that any question you may have had in your mind has simply dissipated, in fact all questions just disappear, there are no questions. Perhaps Mr Kuhn that is why you have never had a spiritual/religious experience, because you need to touch and be with that upon which you experience is being held by.....Silence.
What utter unBiblical nonsense! This kinda argument reduces God to nothing more than the conclusion to man’s futile imagination - it makes Him out as nothing more than a footnote to man’s religious affections! Proffering ‘faith’ as nothing more than ‘mere belief’, completely misapprehends the Biblical nature of faith - faith in the Heb 11 sense, is IMPUTED BELIEF - it is a gift of God (Gal 2:8,9)! If you believe you’re a Muslim, then you’re a Muslim… if you believe you’re a Hindu or a Seikh or a Buddhist, then you are a Hindu or a Seikh or a Buddhist or a whatever And if you believe you’re an atheist, well, then you are an atheist… But if you believe that you’re a Christian because you believe (for whatever reason - empirical, rational, moral, emotional, psychological, cultural…), then I fear you stand a good chance that you will hear those dreaded words of Jesus… “Get away from me you evildoer - I never knew you (as one of my disciples)” (Mat 7:21) It is GOD who sovereignly makes some to be His own (Israel never chose God - God chose them as His own) - “It is God who saves” (Psm 68:20) I am a Christian, not because I believe… but because I’m a Christian, I believe! Biiiiig difference! “Arguing for God”? Seriously? How do you as a finite being make a case for God who transcends all human understanding? Rather try and count to infinity - you stand a better chance to get to the end! Ultimately… God does not need us or our religious affections to assuage or to defend Him - “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands… And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything… Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else” - Act 17:24-25
The video asks: “How to Argue for God?” Well, I suggest that the first step in the process is to avoid referencing most of the mythological nonsense handed down to us in the form of the world’s divergent religions. The second step would be in trying to imagine how hard (impossible) it would be for an amoeba to visualize the human level of being, and then use that as a simple analogy for our own dilemma when it comes to visualizing God’s level of being. Or, more accurately: how impossible it is for a human fetus... (i.e., a non-conscious entity suspended within the amniotic water of its mother’s womb) ...to visualize the higher (and outer) context of its mother’s ultimate form. _______
It’s funny because the episode is called how to argue “for” God and at the beginning he says “this time I put the question to believers” but then he gives the last word on the matter to the atheist! Hhh!
He also said at the end that he still is not closer to the truth, meaning... the existing descriptions or arguments for God are not and could not be satisfactory since God himself has to be beyong our imagination and capacity to explain Him. Makes perfect sense! I always thought atheists, deep inside, argue for a God that is orders of magnitude more interesting when compared with the silly explanations of God employed by religions of today.
At about 14:00 the word is immanent not imminent. Immanent means (1) intrinsic (2) inherent (3) something like ever present. Logical objections may arise when at the same time we posit God is transcendent. That means BEYOND the mere here and now. The Abrahamic religions claim He is both immanent and transcendent. A logical impossibility to most humans.
I really loved the interview with Russel. He explains things very clearly and to the point without the cryptic fancy words most experts throw around. And come on, the bit about his wife was not only a very good example of subjective feeling and belief but truly adorable and touching.
I really like Mahmoud's description. It sounded both poetic and yet very Platonic almost as well. I think of 'God' as Eternal Truth and more like a Platonic ideal than a person, yet still because of its qualities (balance, self-efficacy, and provident) ensures that all successive changes in reality serve either as consequence of and/or to return these states ultimately.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus says: " Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." It looks to me as if Jesus was teaching that our experience of the Deity is subjective. A rabbi on another Closer to Truth episode seemed to be saying that in the case of religious belief, we're stuck having to act in a situation of ambiguity. My choice is to believe. Religious belief, however, isn't knowledge. It doesn't, in our world, provide an adequate basis for ethical or political action. America's separation of church and state is a wonderful thing.
It's very easy to argue for Dog All you have to do is think of a mysterious feature (origin of dogs, dog intelligence, dog dreams etc) Then say, well it must be caused by a dog and we call that Dog.
At its centrality the discussion can be presented in one of two ways. Was the Big Bang an act of consciousness or was consciousness the result of a series of chaotic and random events. I believe in time the latter will become untenable.
Hey Warren, I just looked up the meaning of the word untenable. Now, after reading the definition, I agree with your statements. But does "an act of consciousness" prove the existence of a god? Could a series of chaotic events also be the outcome of some consciousness? Or is that a contradiction?
This is a false dichotomy. If you believe that consciousness is an emergent property in complex life forms (which seems accurate), then it is emphatically NOT the result of random chaos. You are forgetting one thing: evolution by natural selection. Evolution is, by definition, the opposite of a “chance” or random process. I see people make this mistake frequently. They assume that the only options are random accidents or God. This makes me wonder how the education system is letting people down - do they not learn biology (evolution being the fundamental, necessary building block to understand the topic)?
Thank you for another fascinating video; this on one of the deepest questions ever - is there a God (Supreme Creator)? And how does one argue for it or prove it? It seems almost miraculous that we as a species are even around to ask it - just a group of hairless apes on a tiny, insignificant rock near an ordinary star among billions, tucked on the edge of a routine galaxy, among perhaps trillions, in a universe that may be only one of trillions in a vast cosmic landscape. Here’s what I think I can offer on the question; my 2 cents. 1. We as a species are hard-wired to believe in God. A study was done on very young children, and found that they had a natural, innate belief in a God creator. (*Footnote) Thus, systems of thinking such as atheism or belief in particular religions are learned over time and habit.) 2. Whether or not there is a God, it seems for that most people: we NEED a God or at least a faith in one. Life for most people can too often be too painful, tragic and grievous - either daily or over time or from time to time. Only faith in a God can carry many thru. 3. If there is a God creator, we can never fully comprehend such an entity because God must exist in a reality zone outside of our human categories of space, time, logic, mathematics and even “existence” vs. “non-existence” - all limiting factors that could not apply to God. In fact, the very word “creator” implies an act of “creation” which then implies a limiting factor - the passage and arrow of time from past to present - x created y. Thus, for us mere mortals trapped in our universe with its particular space-time matrix and constants, perhaps it’s better to think of any possible God as a primordial “source” of all things, rather than as a temporal “creator” of it. Lastly, any intellectual inquiry about God must be mindful of that eternal question of humility always posed in Hindu philosophy: Is Man truly the invention of God, or is God perhaps the invention of Man? Just my musings. Thanks again for the video. (*Footnote): evolutionnews.org/2014/08/more_studies_sh/
Hey Gary... what do you mean by the statement " perhaps it's better to think of any possible God as a primordial 'source' of all things, rather than as a temporal 'creator' of it?"
John Brzykcy Hey. I just mean that - if there is a God (Supreme Force) - I like the concept of God as a primordial “source” to the observable universe rather than using the human English word “creator” or “maker” since those word-concepts are trapped within the limitation of time. Another way to think of God as “source” is: God as “sustainer” or “ground” of all things. See CTT’s interview on UA-cam of Dr. Russell Stannard “Did God Create from Nothing?” Now, let me be clear, I don’t agree with Dr. Stannard on everything; for example I disagree with his views on other scientific concepts such as evolution and the Multiverse. But I do agree with his idea of a God, if any, as “sustainer”, which I call “source”. Thanks.
@zempath I agree with some of your statements but, for example, I don't think the words of Jesus the Christ are "constantly mutating" although people do have their own interpretations. What seems to be mutating is the FALLEN nature of mankind.
@zempath Life imply that it was created. Here's a dude that's technical and beyond my superficial understanding. In this supposed vast universe life seems to be vary rare but especially life with advanced consciousness like us. So they claim... "utter self-centeredness" so what.? What's this mostly barren universe without 'life'
God isn't an old man sitting on a cloud...not a human being at all. God prescribed the laws of nature of this universe before He created it. God is the energy that forms every atom, constantly. God IS everything.
i found the most significant point in this video (and there were the usual plethora of good points) Dr. Weinberg's equating Marxism and laissez faire capitalism ...
@@johnbrzykcy3076 You can create Zeus, you can believe in Zeus, you can worship Zeus, but when you die there's no Zeus...Like all Gods Zeus is a man made concept, they do not exist in reality...
@@zenmode88 Also, pleading to the gods is an attempt to change reality. When, in actuality, it only changes our attitude or actions towards reality, but not reality itself, of which we do not have control.
Jordan Peterson had an interesting take on God in his "Psychological Significance of the Bible" youtube lectures. Wish he was doing well enough to take part in this series.
@@Frank-og4nn Thank God! Some random stranger on the internet here to set us all straight. Regale us Frank, oh genius who needs no last name! Correct all our thought crimes with your mighty wisdom.
@@Frank-og4nn If you really want people to believe in God, they have to start somewhere. And Jordan is that link, for those who weren't raised or taught about the Bible etc, or rejected it due to various influences or hypocrisy of those around them.
Yah uh… not true. It’s rational to believe science but I’m sure in the future parts will be falsified. Let me correct you. It’s not rational to believe in something which doesn’t evidently exist.
Thomas Aquinis' formula for proving God. Ask some really difficult questions and then claim God is the answer. Then if there comes an answer, a real demonstrable answer, to one or another of these questions, you just dream up more questions. ' What most be true is true.' Apparently when it comes to God, a bad argument is better than none.
There is no better way to live a life than to live as per beautiful teachings of Islam (not what anyone or what media think and say Islam is.. but what Quran and it’s billions of followers think - thank you).
Salaam wa alaikum to you. Of course the media maligns us Rameez. The war is on...luckily, we know who wins so for us it is interesting to watch and interject carefully once in a while because unfortunately, these talks are rooted in disbelief rather than belief. At least this one asks a Muslim some VERY limited questions. Aiyeee. No one likes the lengthy equations, in math or in religion.
Joe Milosch I like the vedic stuff but darn, so many syllables. As far as illusion, illusion - so what? Isn’t it as real as it needs to be? Recognizing a spiritual universe is important because it gives us further insight as to how to act HERE.
Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher Albert Einstein
Did Einstein believe in God? Yes. He defined God in an impersonal, deistic fashion, but he deeply believed that God's handiwork was reflected in the harmony of nature's laws and the beauty of all that exists. He often invoked God, such as by saying He wouldn't play dice, when rejecting quantum mechanics. Einstein's belief in something larger than himself produced in him a wondrous mixture of confidence and humility. As he famously declared: "A spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort." When asked directly if he believed in God, he always insisted he did, and explained it once this way: "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." . ~ by Albert Einstein (from Time Magazine) April 5, 2007 .
Dense meaning stupid. I mean, since when has peace and harmony been the “common human understanding”? And I’m pretty sure that, on balance, only religious faiths of the axial age (generally so), and Christianity in particular (explicitly so) has made a metaphysical and existential priority of peace, charity, and love that extends beyond standard social group affiliation, including kin groups.
Ultimately even mathematics is impossible to prove to be true,.. nevertheless,.. if one is rational there is still a lot left to argue. You're overestimating the importance of absolute proof. Most important knowledge is often just beyond reasonable doubt. For life, that's sufficient. For death you can do with less.
@@Michiel_de_Jong I wouldn't begrudge you your point. But I don't think that I've been overestimating the importance of absolute proof. But you do cause me to wonder if I haven't been failing to recognize the importance of arguing. I suppose that in moving forward there would be the necessity for it. (That just goes to show how obtuse I've been.) Even so, I guess I'm just burned out on having any arguments at all. I've had too many of them.
@@Michiel_de_Jong It wasn't that I wasn't moderate in my approach to arguing. It's that my opponents weren't moderate in theirs. Too many of them were so extreme. Too much intellectual dishonesty on their part. I could never get very far with any of them. At some point along the way I finally learned that I didn't have to be a masochist if I didn't want to be.
Timothy O’Conner’s argument is salient. Things exist as contingent realities, contingent “ontologies” with a small ‘o.” These contingent ontologies point to a non-contingent reality, the Ontology with a big “O.” Why might this Ontology be personal? The key seems to be that exquisite fine-tuning points to a Personal Ontology. Exquisite fine-tuning points back to the big "O" ontology. Steven Weinberg makes a good point that religion has not fared well in helping people be good. But I think he skews the point towards his bias when he says that the commands of the religions are evil. Love God (love the truth) and love your neighbor as yourself are fine ethical premises, if only people followed them. The problem then is not with religion, but with people.
I think "God" is necessary in our thinking. We have no other "light" than "God", everything else is reconstruction of that. Or like Kepler said: whatever science will find out, we already know that about god. We can not "grow" without this "light" (this is our real "sun"), that not means that the "soil" is not equally important! 🌱 And I think, that we could not even understand and locate us or classify us as "human beings" without the idea "God". And not only "God", but also the "self", the "subject", the "mind", the "creator", the real "living" can not be perceived by natural sciences and reflexion. It is always bigger, than everything you can demonstrate to it. The "creator" or real "living" is already subtracted out of the scientific calculation, otherwise this tool would be useless to it. Even this "subject" or "self" is transcendent, unknowable, invisible. That's the difficulty with self-knowledge. But science is not self-knowledge, neither does sciences touch our real existential questions. With science the "living" organizes and transforms itself. For that we are something like building bricks! 😄
People think perfectly well without ever referencing god. They think about the world and how it is they consider others and have empathy for them. They about their self and what meaning or purpose they want from their lives. They think about moral values and ethics. If you want to think that you need god to think you can think that. But you could also think without god many good people do.
@@myothersoul1953 No, this is not I was talking about, if some ppl can live without god.. And even ppl who don't have this light can often come in trouble (like depression), and then they need this light to live. Kierkegaard, the father of all modern psychology knew that, too. And you cannot believe in the world with final consequence, if I don't believe in God!
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ Ernest Becker built on the works of Kierkegaard and others and came to the truth about religion. It is an elaborate belief system to deny our own morality. Religion is a defense mechanism to defend us against the knowledge that we will die. The final consequence of living is dying. Deep inside we all know it but we grab for unfounded beliefs that tell us we will live forever; living for every in some bland heaven. But that is just a dream, the end will come, we will pass away; the human race will pass away; the earth, moon, sun and everything will end. That doesn't bother me but maybe it does you.
@@myothersoul1953 Live never died, it is in a steady progress, yes every thing is in doom, but in the same time life is going to organize itself and will be one day in its full glory and have all its godly abilities that it has promised. I say with Newton again: Be careful with your hasty judgment about the future abilities of the mind or the life! Credo ut intelligam! And if you would read newer literature in philosophy, psychology and social sciences, you would know that our perspectives on religion and believe has changed, even in Psychoanalysis!
The Christian Bible does not argue like this. It argues human wisdom can’t find God, but the knowledge will be given in such a way that there can be no pride, that is by faith. “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” 1 Corinthians 1:21-23
You let the actions of a few bad people influence the way you feel about an entire religion? I hope no one ever applies that logic to the things you do in your life. You have no room to judge people.
Is it a necessity that I become an apologist? Is it a necessity that I bear "the burden of proof." How can a fallen and contingent being like me explain the necessity of a god?
But saying you are “fallen” already presumes god (or a certain type of god) exists. That is a massive, massive claim. Massive claims require massive evidence. All your work remains ahead of you, sir.
mustafa elbahi exactly. a lot of the commenters i assume are speaking from a Christian background and simply slump Islam into that theology. not realizing Islam has an entirely different doctrine to christianity.
@@RP-ch8yn I don’t feel obliged to prove god for anybody. If you don’t see the proof in your creation and all the blessings inside and outside of you then it is up to you. At the end, we will all die and find out the truth. But l like you to think of this: imagine an embryo that denies the presence of his mother just because he cant see her although he is fed, protected and nurtured by her presence. I feel denying god is something like that.
@@RP-ch8yn well, to be honest I think it is difficult to prove that God exists, but this is as difficult as to prove that there exists a sun in the middle of a sunny day. You see, if you ask the wrong the question you will feel that the answer is difficult. if you ask someone to prove that there is a sun, I’m sure he/she will not know how to answer but will say what’s wrong with this guy, can’t he feel it, see it. The hypothesis is, at least from my religion’s point of view, that belief in God, in addition to being a good person, will determine the kind of life I will live after death. I see it this way: If it turns out there is a God and another life after death (which I don’t a have a doubt in): I will be in a good position in next life and in this life my faith helped me during difficult times, during loss, and gave me hope that justice, that is not present on this earth, will be achieved one day.
@@RP-ch8yn you re marking very good points indeed. I’m happy for this discussion. I think the problem comes down to this simple fact: you are trying to prove god in a scientific and experimental way. In a sense, you are trying to measure god or his effects as you do in the lab. Maybe this is why so many highly intelligent scientists do not believe that god exists. They try to apply the scientific method on God while it might be simply that God is beyond the scientific method. If God is God, then he is the one who created this system we call universe and all the rules that govern it. Why should he be ruled by these physical theories we know. on the other hand, the complexity and elegance of the universe should make us think who put those rules? On the other hand, if we assume that God can be measured by scientific methods, maybe humanity has not yet reached to that level of knowledge yet. 500 years ago, no body knew about bacteria, viruses, gamma rays, and so on, but today we know. At the end, I think that it is wise, if we cannot definitively measure God Scientifically, to not be so sure that he does not exist. May be he is there but beyond our minds to comprehend fully in this life and at this stage. This is what is faith is all about. May God bless you 😉
Wow. Great presentation. I like to say we say there is no heaven and pray there is no hell. Seems to be what your conclusion is in a nutshell? Tough subject. One thing for sure if there was proof, there would be longer any purpose for us. All would be pre ordained.
god can be anything you want him to be, because he only exists in the mind of a believer. Until there is tangible evidence of a god. god is only a hypothesis
@@thevulture5750 Your reality is, what else could it be? If you hit your thumb with a hammer that pain is doubtless whatever you mean by real for you, but not for anyone else, which makes it both real and.... you got it. h yes, subjective. What other reality could there be for you? Do you have some vague idea that there is some *other* whatever you mean by " reality" to which you are not privy? What exactly *do* you mean by " reality. If your pain is not whatever you mean by "real" to you, what exactly is it? If I were you I would avoid using words with the meaning of which you are not remotely familiar, such as real, mean, exist and perhaps universe-they are all utterly incoherent are they not?
Most of the discussions I have heard so far seem to relate to God The Father and trying to understand different aspects of His nature. Why are questions and observations about His Son not incorporated in the debates. Is there not a clear demonstration in the life of Jesus Christ on how we are to think and relate to God and the ethics of how we relate to our fellow human beings. The main themes in The old Testament writings tell us about God's Love. In these books there Is creation, History, Myth, Murder, lust, Wars, Truth, hate, lies, crime, punishment, hypocrisy, Music, song, wisdom, dancing, prophecy, laws, innumerable acts of kindness as well as many examples of wickedness. Through it all we are constantly reminded by God to care for the widow and the orphan and to welcome the stranger and to love our neighbor as our selves. Man cries out which Way do we go in our search for the Truth about Life? and like Pilot of old, he demands what is Truth? and mankind questions, what is Life all about. Then a humble carpenter Jesus answers in a simple sentence ;" I Am The Way, The Truth, and The Life " Glory to God in the Highest and on earth peace and good will to all men. For God so Loved the World.
Sons are for mortal beings like us for our continuance in this world and support in our time of weakness and need like for example old age. God has no son and doesn't need one for anything.
I find most of the arguments of seemingly competent religious scientists very weak and far from convincing. It is amazing how certain persons (fortunately very few and therefore statistically irrelevant) can have a kind of bipolar brain allowing them to live in 2 completely different worlds. One which is based on experience, logics and scientific reasoning, while the other is ruled by fate, blind believe and the acceptance of a god without any evidence for his existence. This does not go hand in hand and is mutually exclusive.
okay gilbert you see it how you want you can give scientific justifications for racism if you like from sociology ,biology .history you can justify and give reasons for whatever you like
You are missing a crucial point here.... Apologists don't exist for the purpose of proving God, but to change the minds of those denying His existence.
@@Michiel_de_Jong what existence is there to deny? If you can show me existence of this god outside of your own personal testimony, I'll look into your claim. Otherwise you are just asserting existence.
@@Michiel_de_Jong So why doesn't god, any god, speak for itself? Another human is not going to convince me ever that a god exists, that god is the only thing that will.
Alister McGrath: '... enlightenments said that there is only one rationality, and by the way, that they'd got it ...’ And then me: Yes. Therefore exactly them got it - and exactly this leads to hegemony. This is very important! Most religions personalize god. They do not take god as everything that is, but as god is them themselves. A State should not be the same as society, some manager not the same as collectivity, some church not community (society does not manage, bare, not jet living, not more) … Then they decide over destiny of others, even of life and death, take advantage of others and so on. We should legally define society as owner-not manager and society separately of managers (of churches, States, capital, capitalists, particulars), not through them ...
The man at 18:46 is chatting pure nonsense: "Why is reality?.." Is already the wrong way of asking the question. "How is reality" is the only sensical way of understanding anything from an "objective" and "empirical" perspective. Asking "Why" presumes that there is some prima facie meaning to be discerned. Whereas "how" suggests that to determine an objects contextual-meaning one must determine its functionality. "Why is it this way rather than that way" will already be explained once the fundamental understanding of the objects functionality is clear.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Consider me simply a fellow critical thinker, i dont have higher than a bachelors degree to be honest. Moreover, education in my opinion has far more to do with the curiosity, and the criticality of the intellect than it does ones formal schoolings anyway. ^.~
@@piushalg8175 It doesnt eliminate this question, but it begs us to refine and clarify what we're actually trying to ask: If by it we mean.. "Is non existence, or nothingness a physical concept, or a strictly theoretical and philosophical concept?" If the answer is the former, "why there is something rather than nothing" becomes redundant dont you think? If nothingness is a physical property of a material system, and can be quantified. It would mean that nothingness itself is fundamental to somethingness. By that i mean, when deconstructing the natural laws and trying to construct a theory for Cosmogony (the study of the origin of the Cosmos) by understanding nothingness as a physical property of space, but not of time, we can speculate exotic forms of matter that may have given birth to all we know. Understanding how this would work suffices. No need to multiply entities beyond necessity with a "why" except for ones own personal musings.
@@SecretEyeSpot In my humble opinion nothingness is a strictly theoretical philosophical concept. To call it a physical concept is a contradiction of itself. And if you are satisfied by knowing how this world functions (if that is even possible by scientific means, is questionable), then so be it. But to regard further questioning as a matter of personal musings is unduly dismissive.
I don't understand why some of these episodes are discussing God in different ways, I don't find it relevant nor is there much reason for much discussion on the matter. There's not a shred of evidence for it as of yet
We are the God of AI, we have created it, coded it, designed it, and experience it from a distance. I’m sure that in the future that AI will be creating stuff without our help, becoming a god in its own right. So then where did we come from? God? The odds that this just happened by chance is impossible, the odds of a fine tuned universe, the odds of humans being here, the odds of water being perfect for life, the list is crazy!
I'd like the think your question answers itself, but confirmation bias could limit us both. It is similar to saying "how did that dart hit the bullseye?" Maybe someone threw it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Or maybe someone walked it up there (multiply this by 20+). That's not proof. But it is reason enough to inquire, hence what the interviewer is attempting to do. Also, your "lifeless dead planets" phrasing is flawed and misconstrues that situation. Lifeless is without life, which isn't necessarily dead; Dead things were once living. These are not necessarily the same. Think of the difference between an aluminum can and a car battery. Or a sheet of paper and a tree stump -one is inanimate, lifeless. The analogy falls short biological life because it gives an idea.
At 7:19 the speaker argues that we need to build up a case and use big bang as example. But, we need to ask is this a sound assumption? This is the same as asking can we use a single Physics law to explain everything? The answer is: we can't! We used to believe Newton's laws or law of classical physics can explain everything in this universe. But Einstein proof it wrong, then comes general relativity. Then we discover the sub-atomic particle world where our existing physical law breaks down, then comes quantum physics. So we can't use a single law to apply for all situations. We use different physics law at different situations and different environment, can we use Ideal Gas Law in space when there is no gas? It is strange that the speaker, being a physician, does not know this fact.
@Stefano Portoghesi it's just with ndes, everyone's told they have to go back. They experience obes too, they describe leaving their bodies? So I dunno if brain based
@Stefano Portoghesi Stefano But a (mind) is not completely a physical thing either, so it too is a condition of experience and not an absolute proof. It turns out reality is a more complex question than we thought.
@Stefano Portoghesi So it emerged from the material, therefore it is just another part of the material nothing more. It can't nor wan't to be anything more because that's all it is, yet it asks what is the meaning of it all?
“How to argue for God,” but Allister doesn’t. He just says it is reasonable. That is not an argument, it is a claim that there are arguments. The only ones he mentions are Aquinas’, and those are fallacious, e.g. special pleading.
I'm really tired of , "the universe is fine tuned for life". The universe is possibly infinite. We know that, at the very least, the universe is well over 96 billion light years across. But as far as we know, we are the only example of life in the universe. And anywhere outside of our atmosphere is instant death for anything living on our planet. How the fuck does that make our universe fine tuned for life?
The way to argue for God is to stuff cotton in your ears, ignore the counter-arguments, and just keep repeating endlessly your own flimsy, easily debunked arguments, like "fine-tuned universe" or "irreducible complexity" . Just keep in mind that uttering the word "God" a lot makes whatever you are saying virtuous, uplifting and profound, so you cannot possibly be wrong.
IF there were a "God" (however one may define that term), why-oh-why, would it be a "God" with human-imposed baggage (I.e. Christian, Muslim..etc... etc... etc)????
From a general perspective, you don't. Live by the best example of what you believe, best for people to come to their own conclusions. Of course, then, also any means, any effort to force others to believe what you believe is absolutely wrong and against everything that keeps the universe balanced. Freedom of choice and will might be a bigger deal than most imagine.
Survival at the fittest.....fair enough if the Nature were establish properly. as Smart person I really want to know how to comprehend Infinity in my single consciousness.
Step 1: be dishonest with your self as deep down as possible. Step 2: become immune to facts, evidence and logic. Step 3: find pretentious ways to use pseudo intellectual language to convince yourself and gullible others that your irrationality is actually sophisticated , open minded, and noble. You’re welcome.
I've never seen an argument for god which uses truth. Always distortion, sophistry and lies. All arguments for God are designed to give the doubting faithful something to cling to.
i see plenty of justifications for racism and scientific racism that had people in zoos and to this day that same underlying hate on the grounds of less say igmentation is as rampant as ever with all this science and enlightment about
So most people have their mind made up, and have significant confirmation biases. Too bad. I don't see how you can eliminate the possibility. It helps to use modern terminology (God= "the programmer" running the simulation). Faith is an issue. Foundational actors in Abrahamic religions had actual experiences to convince them, not faith. We are stuck with deciding whether what they experienced was genuine, based on how well they communicated their experiences in writing. Unfortunately, the modern scientific mind thinks very differently, hence the problem. So we look for other evidence. The fine tuning argument is a good one, but falls victim to the anthropic principle, and the multiverse construct created to undermine it. So what do we have that is not anthropic? The cubic structure is a common element. The Holy of Holies of the First Temple, the Ka'aba in Mecca, the New Jerusalem of Revelations 21. All cubes. Also the number 7 is predominant, from the Menorah, to the number of times Muslims circle the Ka'aba. There is a huge consciousness investment in these. The number 77 is used as an exclamatory to emphasize 7 on occasion. What I find very interesting, and extremely unlikely, is that the volume of the New Jerusalem from Revelations, multiplied by 77, results in the exact volume of planet Earth. Extraordinary coincidence? Or durable marker? I would suggest if you aren't convinced by transient phenomena experienced by others, aren't convinced by durable phenomena, and are waiting for your own mystical experience, at least admit that you can't eliminate the possibility of that experience happening in the future, and therefore can't eliminate the possibility of something beyond pure materialism.
Thank you so much for this brilliant work. I just want to say that religions have been changed by their followers and that's why you see them different and inconsistent. Unfortunately, linking God to religions and understanding God through interpretation of religious people is big mistake instead people need to believe in God and understanding him via his holy books and via their own experiences of god In fact, there is only one true religion which all about believing in one God and this was the religion of all prophets since Adam.
People need to understand god through his holy books rather than through human interpretation? 🤔 I hate to break it to you, but holy books are written by humans. And there are many ways to interpret them. And…all of the holy books disagree. I would not rely on these texts for anything other than enjoying interesting historical literature.
@@kuribojim3916 Old and new testaments have the revelation that God sent but it had been formed in historical narratives which been written by people, whereas the whole quran book including its narratives been revealed by God and thats why God mentiones quran as the dominant on previous holy books, and that's why quran clarifies some narratives details for sake to show the mistakes in bible narratives!! So old and new testaments narratives which you like to deal them as historical are not always correct and accurate, many of them have some mistakes and inaccurate details
@@realislam3838 Well, I don't know how you differentiate between the books. The Quran came after the Bible and is, in large part, a plagiarism of it. Regardless, all "holy books" were obviously written by human beings. The sheer act of scribing the words into legible text is an act undertaken by a human, which necessarily requires said human's interpretation. Unless you were there in the room when God supposedly spoke to any of the prophets, you're fundamentally relying on texts written and printed by human beings. Fallible human beings. Buyer beware.
@@realislam3838 In broad terms, yes. The three major monotheisms heavily borrow from one another - more specifically Christianity is a branch of Judaism, and Islam is largely a plagiarism of both. There's a clear kinship between them, especially on the textual and historical levels.
God backwords....DOG.....ENOUGH SAID...Well enough said after I say why I said that. Cause dogs are an amazing creature, capable of understanding humans but not only understanding but predicting things, knowing thing before they happen. Also what about the cats who have predicted deaths in nursing homes.
It's not hard to argue that the Uni must have been created. But why by "God"? It could have been a creator who/which looks/ed nothing like humans and made the Universe in a moment of boredom. Or for any number of other reasons. It could be a creator that having made the Uni, perhaps even by accident, takes no further interest in it. That would get rid of all the ridiculous mumbo-jumbo that accompanies all religions.
Replace the word god with pure infinite consciousness it all fits but the god word jas been misinterpreted by religions.I prefer the non dual understanding its our experiential teuth of our experience.Nothing exists outside of consciousness and never will.
God does not need your worship. It is *You* that needs to worship.
Thank you. It is so nice to hear a person with their head straight.
Most people don't understand that God is all that is AND all that isn't. There's not a thing that he "needs" from anybody or anything - not even Love. It is not necessary that we Love Him/Her/It BUT it is necessary that He Loves us. As His children made in His image ( on the soul level) we do not NEED to be loved from an external source - we are already Love. However, it is necessary that we Love others ( even especially if we don't like them).
It is our less than perfect insecure and Fear filled human selves that cry out for Love 🙏❤️.
Ironically, we are supremely important to God. Thanks to His children God knows what it FEELS like to be God. Before He Created us He could only KNOW that He was God. Experience was required for feelings making a physical reality necessary.
I would say that is correct. Thumbs up. But these days so many of us are full of ourselves. And we worship nothing other than pleasure.
@@piehound IF you are going to worship "something" , then that should be God - even though it isn't necessary. However, don't give pleasure bad press. Out of God's infinite Love for His/Her/It's children He Desires for His children to enjoy ourselves. Don't forget, God is enjoying it all IN, AS, and THROUGH us. I'm very certain that if He is enjoying Himself vicariously through us (and He is) He chooses pleasure. In physicality it is necessary that there also be pain in order to know pleasure but be sure that God chooses pleasure - the same choice His children have. You could say that pain is a necessary evil but it need not affect you.🙏❤️
@@garychartrand7378 feel better now that you got that off your chest ??? I'm so glad.
@@piehound what is hurting you so much that you feel the need to try and hurt someone else? Sorry! Try another target or learn to be an honest observer of yourself. Try raising your consciousness and thereby your awareness. ✌️🙏❤️
I'm a secular person, but i appreciate your approuch in those videos. They are interesting.
I'm more of a triangle ⚠️📐🔼🚩😁👍 ( I'm so sorry, this lockdown is so tedious)
@@helensmith7596
Haha. Look, i share with you two of my anti-lockdown songs.
ua-cam.com/video/3xt8Mp8oWzc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/9s9qxz8dXuA/v-deo.html
@@domcasmurro2417 ah! Ty so much!! Music is my life!! Both are fabulous!! How kind ty reminds me of holidays and beeches 👍☀️⛱️🏜️🌇🌝
Thia content is so good.
Except for McGrath
I agree I love this stuff.👍🙏
Robbert is kind of person I would like to meet before I die
truth is all, and consciousness exists. therefore consciousness is all.
i hear you
but materialists will say that says nothing
consciousness is just an emegent by product of materialism
If truth is all and pizza exists, is pizza therefore all?
How did you get that truth is all?
And God is "all" that is👌
I have to say, the religious is the mother of moving the goal post.
The god of 400 isn’t the same as 200 ago years, the god of 200 years ago isn’t the same god today.
It is impossible for God to lie Hebrews 6:18.. Titus 1:2. Numbers 23:19. His Words are LAWS that have finely tuned everything
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE. during September 1970..
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
Much of what you say is true ( at least from your perspective) BUT you are so long winded that most people will get tired of hearing you. When we talk about God it involves Life, Love, the Universe - EVERYTHING. A book about it all would hardly cover it all. This is not the venue for a book.
Love this channel and the content! I have been a fan for years. I especially love how open minded Robert is and actually listens to each side equally giving everyone a change to explain their way of thinking. And then just leave it up for the viewers to absorb that information and use their own thinking to make of it what they will. And covering so many different and interesting topics is just a treat! Keep doing what you do and a joy to see this channel gaining the recognition it deserves!
Completely agree! He does give his view and opinion but not in an overbearing way.
Weinbergs assumption that it is the common human feeling that you should love your neighbor and live in peace with each other seems to negate the fact that in reality humans very often do not have this kind of feelings towards each other and act in very brutal ways even when they do not adhere to any religion. And as he says science has nothing to say whether a behaviour is good or bad. Therefore moral values or the lack thereof may be a strictly subjective matter, the result of human power over other humans or perhaps some sort of aggreement. The alternative view is that there are objective moral values which are independant of individual consent or some sort of coercion. But then, what is the source of such objective values and how do we get to know them?
It seems to me that it’s possible to have objective moral values without religion. I highly recommend Sam Harris’ book titled The Moral Landscape for a deeper exploration of this concept. I also recommend Dawkins’ writings on “ESS” or “evolutionarily stable strategies”. I think both these perspectives drive a nail into the coffin of the idea that we need god to be moral. They also provide elegant explanations for the reason that some moral concepts emerge simultaneously in nearly all successful human cultures, even when those cultures have different religious practices.
objective moral values yeah sure
It's silly to say that the Universe is fine tuned for life, because if it wasn't we wouldn't exist to contemplate the Universe in the first place. If there is such a thing as the multiverse and a multitude of possibilities of Universes, of course we would inhabit the Universe that is conducive to forming life. And if there is a purpose for humans I guess it's what Carl Sagan suggested that 'We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself'. Humans as sentient beings give our Universe a consciousness, but are we the only ones? Considering The Fermi Paradox, maybe we're the first in our Universe to become sentient, or maybe not. If so-called God exists, we could never have the capacity to understand God, unless we ourselves were God.
Nailed it..
So, let me get this right: The universe is NOT fine-tuned because we already exist to observe it? If it were fine-tuned it would be because our universe is a single, random member of an eternal, nearly infinite multiverse? Our purpose in this universe is for this (random) universe to know...itself? Moreover, human consciousness comes from sentient beings "giving" a purpose to this universe because consciousness came from beings being sentient? Also God couldn't exist because we're too puny to understand him...but we can give a non-conscious universe consciousness and purpose to itself?
@@joetech12 To be honest, I'm just a tiny human intellect on the long search to discovery. This is the way I see it, but just one thing about our use of the word God. It depends how we interpret what God is. Because we humans tend to anthropomorphize everything and because we've been bombarded with religious messages since we were children, we tend to say he of him. Even many of the atheists on Closer to Truth fall into that trap, but God, if that's what we're going to call it could be anything or any form that's so beyond our ability to comprehend with our limited brain capacity. I think God whatever it is, it would be so ethereal and formless it could like energy or a force and physically indescribable.
Personally, I lean towards a pantheistic view in that God could be the universe itself. It’s always bothered me that our worldly religions are all centered on Earth and us humans, when our universe seems so vast. It seems like a major flaw in our thinking, and the fact there are so many religions or belief systems, they’re probably all wrong. They’re just our feeble attempts at an explanation of everything. I think the idea of God is just a by-product of our consciousness, just like Marvin Minsky and others have said that it’s comfortable for humans to use as a way to answer the questions we can’t answer; the God of the gaps so to speak. Maybe this is all just a simulation like the ‘Simulation Hypothosis’. ua-cam.com/video/Sn22cRiFEog/v-deo.html
Closer to Truth is a fascinating series and encapsulates my lifelong interest in the deep questions about the Cosmos, Consciousness and God. I can certainly relate to Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s search for the Truth. For me, I’m kind of comfortable with something like modern pantheism, but like all of us, I’m only guessing. I do like the idea of a oneness that kind of fits physics, E=mc2, that nothing can be created or destroyed, only changed, and it seems the most balanced way of looking at the Cosmos and our place within it.
Anyway brother, good luck on your search, and ‘May the Force be with You’.
@@bipolarbear9917 the force ?
@@bipolarbear9917 good luck to thir simulation hypothesis
Good stuff here. Always makes me think and rethink.
McGrath is awful
God doesn’t need anyone to speak for him. His handiwork is all around us. It is self evident.
Kenneth Copeland is worth about $750 million. Give that some thought.
Yeah but which one?
Lol
This is a good entry in the series. Well worth saving and rewatching.
If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it."
"So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."
Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang - a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon - could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist, he said.
"I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said.
'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"
But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said.
The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve.
"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
… … … … … …
The solution to the never-ending Chain or the problem of infinite regress :
The solution is Aristotle's UNmoved Mover called the Actus Purus.
Of the five interviewed, the last one, Steven Weinberg, gave the absolutely worst rationale of all, providing even more support for the contention that being an expert in one discipline doesn’t make one an expert in all. I’m sure Albert Einstein would agree.
Can you see the symbols I am typing? Have you ever considered how and why you can see them? Sure, you have sight, sure, you can just see the symbols, but wait! Remove the background on which these symbols we call writing sit upon. You would not be able to see the symbols, right? Open any book on any page, and you'll see that the symbols that we attach meaning to ALL sit on a background, and because of that background an author is able to express their ideas or opinions, or tell us a story of fiction or non-fiction. So if the symbols on a page are "held" by a background, in what is our Human experience and the planet we live held by?
I suggest that you sit down in a place of your choice, close your eyes, and just listen to the noises around you. You may hear vehicular traffic, people's voices, You may hear birdsong, or running water, or the sound of a door closing. Whatever noises you can hear, what sits behind or holds those noises? To find that out, you must go beyond those noises, deeper and deeper, until you realize that the noises, and the whole Human experience is held by.... Silence. That is the background on which all of our Human experience sits and is held by.... silence. Perhaps this foundation of silence upon which our world and earthly experience is held, is God/ a higher power? It is just there, and few realize that it's there, and the strange thing is, when you're able to go beyond the earthly noises to the foundation that holds it, that is silence, you find that any question you may have had in your mind has simply dissipated, in fact all questions just disappear, there are no questions. Perhaps Mr Kuhn that is why you have never had a spiritual/religious experience, because you need to touch and be with that upon which you experience is being held by.....Silence.
Interesting posit... cheers!
What utter unBiblical nonsense! This kinda argument reduces God to nothing more than the conclusion to man’s futile imagination - it makes Him out as nothing more than a footnote to man’s religious affections!
Proffering ‘faith’ as nothing more than ‘mere belief’, completely misapprehends the Biblical nature of faith - faith in the Heb 11 sense, is IMPUTED BELIEF - it is a gift of God (Gal 2:8,9)!
If you believe you’re a Muslim, then you’re a Muslim… if you believe you’re a Hindu or a Seikh or a Buddhist, then you are a Hindu or a Seikh or a Buddhist or a whatever
And if you believe you’re an atheist, well, then you are an atheist…
But if you believe that you’re a Christian because you believe (for whatever reason - empirical, rational, moral, emotional, psychological, cultural…), then I fear you stand a good chance that you will hear those dreaded words of Jesus… “Get away from me you evildoer - I never knew you (as one of my disciples)” (Mat 7:21)
It is GOD who sovereignly makes some to be His own (Israel never chose God - God chose them as His own) - “It is God who saves” (Psm 68:20)
I am a Christian, not because I believe… but because I’m a Christian, I believe! Biiiiig difference!
“Arguing for God”? Seriously? How do you as a finite being make a case for God who transcends all human understanding? Rather try and count to infinity - you stand a better chance to get to the end!
Ultimately… God does not need us or our religious affections to assuage or to defend Him - “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands… And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything… Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else” - Act 17:24-25
The video asks: “How to Argue for God?”
Well, I suggest that the first step in the process is to avoid referencing most of the mythological nonsense handed down to us in the form of the world’s divergent religions.
The second step would be in trying to imagine how hard (impossible) it would be for an amoeba to visualize the human level of being, and then use that as a simple analogy for our own dilemma when it comes to visualizing God’s level of being.
Or, more accurately: how impossible it is for a human fetus...
(i.e., a non-conscious entity suspended within the amniotic water of its mother’s womb)
...to visualize the higher (and outer) context of its mother’s ultimate form.
_______
TheUltimateSeeds
Except...
We know the outside of the mother’s womb exists...
It’s a poor analogy
@@bazstrutt8247
So then, when you yourself were a fetus, you knew what existed on the outside of your mother's womb?
_______
TheUltimateSeeds
No...
But we know...
We have evidence for “outside the mother’s womb”...
Give me evidence of god
@@bazstrutt8247
What evidence would you need to see that would convince you of God’s existence?
_______
TheUltimateSeeds
God showing up at my house.
I’d invite him in and we’d chat over a cup of coffee
Love is mystery.
not really that can be traced quite easily
It’s funny because the episode is called how to argue “for” God and at the beginning he says “this time I put the question to believers” but then he gives the last word on the matter to the atheist! Hhh!
It must be the works of SATIN .
He also said at the end that he still is not closer to the truth, meaning... the existing descriptions or arguments for God are not and could not be satisfactory since God himself has to be beyong our imagination and capacity to explain Him. Makes perfect sense! I always thought atheists, deep inside, argue for a God that is orders of magnitude more interesting when compared with the silly explanations of God employed by religions of today.
I agree with Hassan. He pretends to be inpartial but he is not.
@@richardsoto278 What are the 'silly' explanations you talk about? Maybe you should go beyond your bias which pretends to be knowledge.
@@DougKoper no clearily the work of what he intended
At about 14:00 the word is immanent not imminent. Immanent means (1) intrinsic (2) inherent (3) something like ever present. Logical objections may arise when at the same time we posit God is transcendent. That means BEYOND the mere here and now. The Abrahamic religions claim He is both immanent and transcendent. A logical impossibility to most humans.
"How to Argue for God?"........WHY?
How do you measure something that is outside of time and space? If God were within time and space would that be God?
How can you be outside space if there is no space to be outside from?
A group of gentlemen... No one "its none of your damn business" as one of your guest once said.... Brother James 🙏
I really loved the interview with Russel. He explains things very clearly and to the point without the cryptic fancy words most experts throw around. And come on, the bit about his wife was not only a very good example of subjective feeling and belief but truly adorable and touching.
okay
so you like the law of attraction and science
Beautiful. What I love most in Robert is his honesty of intention to move (closer) towards TRUTH.
I really like Mahmoud's description. It sounded both poetic and yet very Platonic almost as well. I think of 'God' as Eternal Truth and more like a Platonic ideal than a person, yet still because of its qualities (balance, self-efficacy, and provident) ensures that all successive changes in reality serve either as consequence of and/or to return these states ultimately.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus says: " Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." It looks to me as if Jesus was teaching that our experience of the Deity is subjective. A rabbi on another Closer to Truth episode seemed to be saying that in the case of religious belief, we're stuck having to act in a situation of ambiguity. My choice is to believe. Religious belief, however, isn't knowledge. It doesn't, in our world, provide an adequate basis for ethical or political action. America's separation of church and state is a wonderful thing.
It's very easy to argue for Dog
All you have to do is think of a mysterious feature (origin of dogs, dog intelligence, dog dreams etc)
Then say, well it must be caused by a dog and we call that Dog.
At its centrality the discussion can be presented in one of two ways. Was the Big Bang an act of consciousness or was consciousness the result of a series of chaotic and random events. I believe in time the latter will become untenable.
Hey Warren, I just looked up the meaning of the word untenable. Now, after reading the definition, I agree with your statements. But does "an act of consciousness" prove the existence of a god? Could a series of chaotic events also be the outcome of some consciousness? Or is that a contradiction?
We are all created in the imagination of a greater consciousness. Chaos is consciousness collapsing unto itself.
Allow me to correct the last sentence. It is the manifestation of consciousness that becomes chaotic. Consciousness remains constant.
This is a false dichotomy. If you believe that consciousness is an emergent property in complex life forms (which seems accurate), then it is emphatically NOT the result of random chaos.
You are forgetting one thing: evolution by natural selection. Evolution is, by definition, the opposite of a “chance” or random process.
I see people make this mistake frequently. They assume that the only options are random accidents or God. This makes me wonder how the education system is letting people down - do they not learn biology (evolution being the fundamental, necessary building block to understand the topic)?
10:25 Amen brother
Thank you for another fascinating video; this on one of the deepest questions ever - is there a God (Supreme Creator)? And how does one argue for it or prove it?
It seems almost miraculous that we as a species are even around to ask it - just a group of hairless apes on a tiny, insignificant rock near an ordinary star among billions, tucked on the edge of a routine galaxy, among perhaps trillions, in a universe that may be only one of trillions in a vast cosmic landscape.
Here’s what I think I can offer on the question; my 2 cents.
1. We as a species are hard-wired to believe in God. A study was done on very young children, and found that they had a natural, innate belief in a God creator. (*Footnote) Thus, systems of thinking such as atheism or belief in particular religions are learned over time and habit.)
2. Whether or not there is a God, it seems for that most people: we NEED a God or at least a faith in one. Life for most people can too often be too painful, tragic and grievous - either daily or over time or from time to time. Only faith in a God can carry many thru.
3. If there is a God creator, we can never fully comprehend such an entity because God must exist in a reality zone outside of our human categories of space, time, logic, mathematics and even “existence” vs. “non-existence” - all limiting factors that could not apply to God. In fact, the very word “creator” implies an act of “creation” which then implies a limiting factor - the passage and arrow of time from past to present - x created y.
Thus, for us mere mortals trapped in our universe with its particular space-time matrix and constants, perhaps it’s better to think of any possible God as a primordial “source” of all things, rather than as a temporal “creator” of it.
Lastly, any intellectual inquiry about God must be mindful of that eternal question of humility always posed in Hindu philosophy: Is Man truly the invention of God, or is God perhaps the invention of Man?
Just my musings. Thanks again for the video.
(*Footnote): evolutionnews.org/2014/08/more_studies_sh/
Hey Gary... what do you mean by the statement " perhaps it's better to think of any possible God as a primordial 'source' of all things, rather than as a temporal 'creator' of it?"
John Brzykcy Hey. I just mean that - if there is a God (Supreme Force) - I like the concept of God as a primordial “source” to the observable universe rather than using the human English word “creator” or “maker” since those word-concepts are trapped within the limitation of time.
Another way to think of God as “source” is: God as “sustainer” or “ground” of all things. See CTT’s interview on UA-cam of Dr. Russell Stannard “Did God Create from Nothing?”
Now, let me be clear, I don’t agree with Dr. Stannard on everything; for example I disagree with his views on other scientific concepts such as evolution and the Multiverse. But I do agree with his idea of a God, if any, as “sustainer”, which I call “source”. Thanks.
@@garybala000 Thanks for explaining what you meant. John in Florida
@zempath I agree with some of your statements but, for example, I don't think the words of Jesus the Christ are "constantly mutating" although people do have their own interpretations. What seems to be mutating is the FALLEN nature of mankind.
@zempath Life imply that it was created. Here's a dude that's technical and beyond my superficial understanding.
In this supposed vast universe life seems to be vary rare but especially life with advanced consciousness like us. So they claim... "utter self-centeredness" so what.? What's this mostly barren universe without 'life'
The fact that an all powerful creator deity needs to be argued for is absurd enough to discount its existence.
God isn't an old man sitting on a cloud...not a human being at all.
God prescribed the laws of nature of this universe before He created it.
God is the energy that forms every atom, constantly.
God IS everything.
their should be no racism then
This is the best apologetics channel on UA-cam.
i found the most significant point in this video (and there were the usual plethora of good points) Dr. Weinberg's equating Marxism and laissez faire capitalism ...
We can delude our minds to believe anything but reality remains unchanged and will inevitably and ultimately win in the end...
You don't even believe in science if you think reality hasn't changed.
@@Frank-og4nn DO TELL,... What part of reality has ever changed?
Hey Zen... what do you mean by reality "will inevitably and ultimately win in the end..." ?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 You can create Zeus, you can believe in Zeus, you can worship Zeus, but when you die there's no Zeus...Like all Gods Zeus is a man made concept, they do not exist in reality...
@@zenmode88 Also, pleading to the gods is an attempt to change reality. When, in actuality, it only changes our attitude or actions towards reality, but not reality itself, of which we do not have control.
Jordan Peterson had an interesting take on God in his "Psychological Significance of the Bible" youtube lectures. Wish he was doing well enough to take part in this series.
Jordan Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual who should stay in his lane
@@Frank-og4nn Thank God! Some random stranger on the internet here to set us all straight. Regale us Frank, oh genius who needs no last name! Correct all our thought crimes with your mighty wisdom.
@@Frank-og4nn If you really want people to believe in God, they have to start somewhere. And Jordan is that link, for those who weren't raised or taught about the Bible etc, or rejected it due to various influences or hypocrisy of those around them.
I got addicted to this show ,,,went to a psychiatrist now he is also addicted!
To believe in something that dose not exist is not RATIONAL
The living or life itself exists!
Yah uh… not true. It’s rational to believe science but I’m sure in the future parts will be falsified. Let me correct you. It’s not rational to believe in something which doesn’t evidently exist.
@@ceREALrEaL-ih6ev but you believe in the suppositions of string theory and all the rest of it
Amazing man Robert !I am caring respectful responsible love all things but don’t believe in god Do I need to?
Thomas Aquinis' formula for proving God. Ask some really difficult questions and then claim God is the answer. Then if there comes an answer, a real demonstrable answer, to one or another of these questions, you just dream up more questions. ' What most be true is true.' Apparently when it comes to God, a bad argument is better than none.
There is no better way to live a life than to live as per beautiful teachings of Islam (not what anyone or what media think and say Islam is.. but what Quran and it’s billions of followers think - thank you).
Salaam wa alaikum to you. Of course the media maligns us Rameez. The war is on...luckily, we know who wins so for us it is interesting to watch and interject carefully once in a while because unfortunately, these talks are rooted in disbelief rather than belief. At least this one asks a Muslim some VERY limited questions. Aiyeee. No one likes the lengthy equations, in math or in religion.
Does your logical fallacy
If I were a god who created a universe that needed me, I’d be kicking myself forever, and trying to find a babysitter.
Joe Milosch I like the vedic stuff but darn, so many syllables. As far as illusion, illusion - so what? Isn’t it as real as it needs to be? Recognizing a spiritual universe is important because it gives us further insight as to how to act HERE.
If God created the universe then we as mere humans are not capable of understanding His thoughts.
Well buddy,I'm that guy and guess what...We will meet someday!
Joe Milosch I can’t make heads or tails of that.If it helps you, more power to you.
Timothy Herget My aliens can beat up your aliens.
He looks like Einstein
Einstein means " one idiot" in German
Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher Albert Einstein
Did Einstein believe in God?
Yes. He defined God in an impersonal, deistic fashion, but he deeply believed that God's handiwork was reflected in the harmony of nature's laws and the beauty of all that exists. He often invoked God, such as by saying He wouldn't play dice, when rejecting quantum mechanics. Einstein's belief in something larger than himself produced in him a wondrous mixture of confidence and humility. As he famously declared: "A spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort."
When asked directly if he believed in God, he always insisted he did, and explained it once this way: "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
.
~ by Albert Einstein
(from Time Magazine)
April 5, 2007
.
PLEASE define, really define God.
@Nicolas Jimenez Sierra : A magic antropomorphic immortal.
@@fredriksundberg4624 :D
God is conscious light
@@helensmith7596 4 words that say absolutely nothing ..:)
@@WyreForestBiker is does 😁 yes they do! You won't get a better answer than that!
Wow. Weinberg is spectacularly dense on the subject of religion and history.
Closely compacted in substance, or stupid?
Dense meaning stupid. I mean, since when has peace and harmony been the “common human understanding”? And I’m pretty sure that, on balance, only religious faiths of the axial age (generally so), and Christianity in particular (explicitly so) has made a metaphysical and existential priority of peace, charity, and love that extends beyond standard social group affiliation, including kin groups.
To argue for God ( and miracles ) is to argue against what?
If one is rational one does not attempt to argue what's ultimately impossible to prove. I know that much.
Ultimately even mathematics is impossible to prove to be true,.. nevertheless,.. if one is rational there is still a lot left to argue.
You're overestimating the importance of absolute proof. Most important knowledge is often just beyond reasonable doubt.
For life, that's sufficient. For death you can do with less.
@@Michiel_de_Jong I wouldn't begrudge you your point. But I don't think that I've been overestimating the importance of absolute proof. But you do cause me to wonder if I haven't been failing to recognize the importance of arguing. I suppose that in moving forward there would be the necessity for it. (That just goes to show how obtuse I've been.) Even so, I guess I'm just burned out on having any arguments at all. I've had too many of them.
@@somethingyousaid5059 | There is a time to argue and a time to be quiet., a time to search for the truth and a time to accept without proof.
@@Michiel_de_Jong
It wasn't that I wasn't moderate in my approach to arguing. It's that my opponents weren't moderate in theirs. Too many of them were so extreme. Too much intellectual dishonesty on their part. I could never get very far with any of them. At some point along the way I finally learned that I didn't have to be a masochist if I didn't want to be.
@@Michiel_de_Jong Hey Michiel... I like you statement of "There is a time to argue and a time to be quiet,... "
Timothy O’Conner’s argument is salient. Things exist as contingent realities, contingent “ontologies” with a small ‘o.” These contingent ontologies point to a non-contingent reality, the Ontology with a big “O.” Why might this Ontology be personal? The key seems to be that exquisite fine-tuning points to a Personal Ontology. Exquisite fine-tuning points back to the big "O" ontology.
Steven Weinberg makes a good point that religion has not fared well in helping people be good. But I think he skews the point towards his bias when he says that the commands of the religions are evil. Love God (love the truth) and love your neighbor as yourself are fine ethical premises, if only people followed them. The problem then is not with religion, but with people.
Man it is in anyway so. People are the problem. No people no problem.
I think "God" is necessary in our thinking. We have no other "light" than "God", everything else is reconstruction of that. Or like Kepler said: whatever science will find out, we already know that about god. We can not "grow" without this "light" (this is our real "sun"), that not means that the "soil" is not equally important! 🌱
And I think, that we could not even understand and locate us or classify us as "human beings" without the idea "God".
And not only "God", but also the "self", the "subject", the "mind", the "creator", the real "living" can not be perceived by natural sciences and reflexion. It is always bigger, than everything you can demonstrate to it. The "creator" or real "living" is already subtracted out of the scientific calculation, otherwise this tool would be useless to it. Even this "subject" or "self" is transcendent, unknowable, invisible. That's the difficulty with self-knowledge. But science is not self-knowledge, neither does sciences touch our real existential questions. With science the "living" organizes and transforms itself. For that we are something like building bricks! 😄
People think perfectly well without ever referencing god. They think about the world and how it is they consider others and have empathy for them. They about their self and what meaning or purpose they want from their lives. They think about moral values and ethics. If you want to think that you need god to think you can think that. But you could also think without god many good people do.
@@myothersoul1953 No, this is not I was talking about, if some ppl can live without god.. And even ppl who don't have this light can often come in trouble (like depression), and then they need this light to live. Kierkegaard, the father of all modern psychology knew that, too. And you cannot believe in the world with final consequence, if I don't believe in God!
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ Ernest Becker built on the works of Kierkegaard and others and came to the truth about religion. It is an elaborate belief system to deny our own morality. Religion is a defense mechanism to defend us against the knowledge that we will die. The final consequence of living is dying. Deep inside we all know it but we grab for unfounded beliefs that tell us we will live forever; living for every in some bland heaven. But that is just a dream, the end will come, we will pass away; the human race will pass away; the earth, moon, sun and everything will end. That doesn't bother me but maybe it does you.
@@myothersoul1953 Live never died, it is in a steady progress, yes every thing is in doom, but in the same time life is going to organize itself and will be one day in its full glory and have all its godly abilities that it has promised. I say with Newton again: Be careful with your hasty judgment about the future abilities of the mind or the life!
Credo ut intelligam!
And if you would read newer literature in philosophy, psychology and social sciences, you would know that our perspectives on religion and believe has changed, even in Psychoanalysis!
The Christian Bible does not argue like this. It argues human wisdom can’t find God, but the knowledge will be given in such a way that there can be no pride, that is by faith. “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”
1 Corinthians 1:21-23
I think the best argument for the existence of God is the Westborough Baptists Church.
Which is why i believe Good is a capricious psycopath.
You let the actions of a few bad people influence the way you feel about an entire religion? I hope no one ever applies that logic to the things you do in your life. You have no room to judge people.
God is🚀male and is light, just like the sun
@@sahelanthropusbrensis thats your description okay
Is it a necessity that I become an apologist? Is it a necessity that I bear "the burden of proof." How can a fallen and contingent being like me explain the necessity of a god?
Just have a jolly good go, for fun
Fallen beings that have been regenerated by Christ see with greater clarity.
The fact that you say you're "fallen" already presumes a god to "fall away from". You need to demonstrate that.
So, that's a YOU problem.
@@Frank-og4nn Here comes Christianity's Arrogance in its greatest display...
But saying you are “fallen” already presumes god (or a certain type of god) exists. That is a massive, massive claim. Massive claims require massive evidence. All your work remains ahead of you, sir.
in this vedeo penrose became closer to truth of islam. the god only one in the sky.
mustafa elbahi exactly. a lot of the commenters i assume are speaking from a Christian background and simply slump Islam into that theology. not realizing Islam has an entirely different doctrine to christianity.
I think the strongest argument for God is that we argue about him. Another strong argument is that no body can argue against God and prove it.
@@RP-ch8yn I don’t feel obliged to prove god for anybody. If you don’t see the proof in your creation and all the blessings inside and outside of you then it is up to you. At the end, we will all die and find out the truth. But l like you to think of this: imagine an embryo that denies the presence of his mother just because he cant see her although he is fed, protected and nurtured by her presence. I feel denying god is something like that.
@@RP-ch8yn well, to be honest I think it is difficult to prove that God exists, but this is as difficult as to prove that there exists a sun in the middle of a sunny day.
You see, if you ask the wrong the question you will feel that the answer is difficult. if you ask someone to prove that there is a sun, I’m sure he/she will not know how to answer but will say what’s wrong with this guy, can’t he feel it, see it.
The hypothesis is, at least from my religion’s point of view, that belief in God, in addition to being a good person, will determine the kind of life I will live after death.
I see it this way: If it turns out there is a God and another life after death (which I don’t a have a doubt in): I will be in a good position in next life and in this life my faith helped me during difficult times, during loss, and gave me hope that justice, that is not present on this earth, will be achieved one day.
@@RP-ch8yn you re marking very good points indeed. I’m happy for this discussion.
I think the problem comes down to this simple fact: you are trying to prove god in a scientific and experimental way. In a sense, you are trying to measure god or his effects as you do in the lab. Maybe this is why so many highly intelligent scientists do not believe that god exists. They try to apply the scientific method on God while it might be simply that God is beyond the scientific method. If God is God, then he is the one who created this system we call universe and all the rules that govern it. Why should he be ruled by these physical theories we know. on the other hand, the complexity and elegance of the universe should make us think who put those rules?
On the other hand, if we assume that God can be measured by scientific methods, maybe humanity has not yet reached to that level of knowledge yet. 500 years ago, no body knew about bacteria, viruses, gamma rays, and so on, but today we know.
At the end, I think that it is wise, if we cannot definitively measure God Scientifically, to not be so sure that he does not exist. May be he is there but beyond our minds to comprehend fully in this life and at this stage. This is what is faith is all about.
May God bless you 😉
@@moazdarwish9360 wow
How to argue for a creator of nature.
Wow. Great presentation. I like to say we say there is no heaven and pray there is no hell. Seems to be what your conclusion is in a nutshell? Tough subject. One thing for sure if there was proof, there would be longer any purpose for us. All would be pre ordained.
Good one... But I need you to get to the bottom of this !!!!
Stannard makes sense.
Robert always asks the right 'questions'!
What is God?
Light
god can be anything you want him to be, because he only exists in the mind of a believer. Until there is tangible evidence of a god. god is only a hypothesis
The self evident thneeds no "argument".
If it is not self evident no amount of argument will make it evident.
@@thevulture5750 Is there also " our" headache?
No, so that disposes of " our" reality.
@@thevulture5750 Your reality is, what else could it be?
If you hit your thumb with a hammer that pain is doubtless whatever you mean by real for you, but not for anyone else, which makes it both real and.... you got it.
h yes, subjective. What other reality could there be for you?
Do you have some vague idea that there is some *other* whatever you mean by " reality" to which you are not privy?
What exactly *do* you mean by " reality. If your pain is not whatever you mean by "real" to you, what exactly is it?
If I were you I would avoid using words with the meaning of which you are not remotely familiar, such as real, mean, exist and perhaps universe-they are all utterly incoherent are they not?
@@thevulture5750 in part yes
Most of the discussions I have heard so far seem to relate to God The Father and trying to understand different aspects of His nature. Why are questions and observations about His Son not incorporated in the debates. Is there not a clear demonstration in the life of Jesus Christ on how we are to think and relate to God and the ethics of how we relate to our fellow human beings. The main themes in The old Testament writings tell us about God's Love. In these books there Is creation, History, Myth, Murder, lust, Wars, Truth, hate, lies, crime, punishment, hypocrisy, Music, song, wisdom, dancing, prophecy, laws, innumerable acts of kindness as well as many examples of wickedness. Through it all we are constantly reminded by God to care for the widow and the orphan and to welcome the stranger and to love our neighbor as our selves. Man cries out which Way do we go in our search for the Truth about Life? and like Pilot of old, he demands what is Truth? and mankind questions, what is Life all about. Then a humble carpenter Jesus answers in a simple sentence ;" I Am The Way, The Truth, and The Life " Glory to God in the Highest and on earth peace and good will to all men. For God so Loved the World.
Sons are for mortal beings like us for our continuance in this world and support in our time of weakness and need like for example old age. God has no son and doesn't need one for anything.
I find most of the arguments of seemingly competent religious scientists very weak and far from convincing. It is amazing how certain persons (fortunately very few and therefore statistically irrelevant) can have a kind of bipolar brain allowing them to live in 2 completely different worlds. One which is based on experience, logics and scientific reasoning, while the other is ruled by fate, blind believe and the acceptance of a god without any evidence for his existence. This does not go hand in hand and is mutually exclusive.
okay gilbert
you see it how you want
you can give scientific justifications for racism if you like
from sociology ,biology .history
you can justify and give reasons for whatever you like
@@chrisbennett6260 Indeed, everybody can say whatever he wants, also nonsense devoid of any logic, that's the problem!
@@gilbertengler9064 logic
you can use logic to justify racism or use logic to tear yjat ideology down
take your pick
A creator of all things would not require an Apologist to argue for its existence. Period.
Exactly what think.
You are missing a crucial point here.... Apologists don't exist for the purpose of proving God, but to change the minds of those denying His existence.
@@Michiel_de_Jong what existence is there to deny? If you can show me existence of this god outside of your own personal testimony, I'll look into your claim. Otherwise you are just asserting existence.
@@Michiel_de_Jong So why doesn't god, any god, speak for itself? Another human is not going to convince me ever that a god exists, that god is the only thing that will.
@@Michiel_de_Jong I don't deny the existence of God, yet I still feel I need the help of an apologist. Sounds like a contradiction?
I was hoping for more convincing arguments for God. Didn't hear anything remotely convincing for God(s).
How did this show come to be about psychiatric pathology?
We can't approach God by our own endeavor but God can make himself known to us by his mercy in the form of transcendental knowledge.
Alister McGrath: '... enlightenments said that there is only one rationality, and by the way, that they'd got it ...’ And then me: Yes. Therefore exactly them got it - and exactly this leads to hegemony. This is very important! Most religions personalize god. They do not take god as everything that is, but as god is them themselves. A State should not be the same as society, some manager not the same as collectivity, some church not community (society does not manage, bare, not jet living, not more) … Then they decide over destiny of others, even of life and death, take advantage of others and so on. We should legally define society as owner-not manager and society separately of managers (of churches, States, capital, capitalists, particulars), not through them ...
The man at 18:46 is chatting pure nonsense: "Why is reality?.." Is already the wrong way of asking the question. "How is reality" is the only sensical way of understanding anything from an "objective" and "empirical" perspective. Asking "Why" presumes that there is some prima facie meaning to be discerned. Whereas "how" suggests that to determine an objects contextual-meaning one must determine its functionality. "Why is it this way rather than that way" will already be explained once the fundamental understanding of the objects functionality is clear.
Hey Secret... thanks for clarifying this. Very interesting. I get the impression that you are a teacher or highly educated?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Consider me simply a fellow critical thinker, i dont have higher than a bachelors degree to be honest.
Moreover, education in my opinion has far more to do with the curiosity, and the criticality of the intellect than it does ones formal schoolings anyway. ^.~
Declaring a legitimate question like why is there something and not rather nothing as nonsensical, doesn't eliminate this question.
@@piushalg8175 It doesnt eliminate this question, but it begs us to refine and clarify what we're actually trying to ask: If by it we mean.. "Is non existence, or nothingness a physical concept, or a strictly theoretical and philosophical concept?"
If the answer is the former, "why there is something rather than nothing" becomes redundant dont you think?
If nothingness is a physical property of a material system, and can be quantified. It would mean that nothingness itself is fundamental to somethingness. By that i mean, when deconstructing the natural laws and trying to construct a theory for Cosmogony (the study of the origin of the Cosmos) by understanding nothingness as a physical property of space, but not of time, we can speculate exotic forms of matter that may have given birth to all we know.
Understanding how this would work suffices. No need to multiply entities beyond necessity with a "why" except for ones own personal musings.
@@SecretEyeSpot In my humble opinion nothingness is a strictly theoretical philosophical concept. To call it a physical concept is a contradiction of itself. And if you are satisfied by knowing how this world functions (if that is even possible by scientific means, is questionable), then so be it. But to regard further questioning as a matter of personal musings is unduly dismissive.
I don't understand why some of these episodes are discussing God in different ways, I don't find it relevant nor is there much reason for much discussion on the matter. There's not a shred of evidence for it as of yet
We are the God of AI, we have created it, coded it, designed it, and experience it from a distance. I’m sure that in the future that AI will be creating stuff without our help, becoming a god in its own right.
So then where did we come from? God?
The odds that this just happened by chance is impossible, the odds of a fine tuned universe, the odds of humans being here, the odds of water being perfect for life, the list is crazy!
How is having 1 planet full of life while there are hundreds of lifeless dead planets a universe fine tuned for life
I'd like the think your question answers itself, but confirmation bias could limit us both.
It is similar to saying "how did that dart hit the bullseye?" Maybe someone threw it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Or maybe someone walked it up there (multiply this by 20+).
That's not proof. But it is reason enough to inquire, hence what the interviewer is attempting to do.
Also, your "lifeless dead planets" phrasing is flawed and misconstrues that situation. Lifeless is without life, which isn't necessarily dead; Dead things were once living. These are not necessarily the same. Think of the difference between an aluminum can and a car battery. Or a sheet of paper and a tree stump -one is inanimate, lifeless. The analogy falls short biological life because it gives an idea.
At 7:19 the speaker argues that we need to build up a case and use big bang as example. But, we need to ask is this a sound assumption? This is the same as asking can we use a single Physics law to explain everything? The answer is: we can't! We used to believe Newton's laws or law of classical physics can explain everything in this universe. But Einstein proof it wrong, then comes general relativity. Then we discover the sub-atomic particle world where our existing physical law breaks down, then comes quantum physics. So we can't use a single law to apply for all situations. We use different physics law at different situations and different environment, can we use Ideal Gas Law in space when there is no gas? It is strange that the speaker, being a physician, does not know this fact.
A correction. When I wrote there is no gas in space, I mean there is no gas between planets. I do acknowledge that some planets are made up of gas.
God is metaphysically rational. Physically irrational.
@Stefano Portoghesi it's just with ndes, everyone's told they have to go back. They experience obes too, they describe leaving their bodies? So I dunno if brain based
@Stefano Portoghesi Stefano But a (mind) is not completely a physical thing either, so it too is a condition of experience and not an absolute proof. It turns out reality is a more complex question than we thought.
@Stefano Portoghesi So it emerged from the material, therefore it is just another part of the material nothing more. It can't nor wan't to be anything more because that's all it is, yet it asks what is the meaning of it all?
@johnkan : Gandalf is metaphysically rational. Physically rational. ;-)
@Stefano Portoghesi : Agreeing with that, but please don't tell that to inmate Kent Hovind, will you? ;-)
“How to argue for God,” but Allister doesn’t. He just says it is reasonable. That is not an argument, it is a claim that there are arguments. The only ones he mentions are Aquinas’, and those are fallacious, e.g. special pleading.
I'm really tired of , "the universe is fine tuned for life". The universe is possibly infinite. We know that, at the very least, the universe is well over 96 billion light years across. But as far as we know, we are the only example of life in the universe. And anywhere outside of our atmosphere is instant death for anything living on our planet. How the fuck does that make our universe fine tuned for life?
The way to argue for God is to stuff cotton in your ears, ignore the counter-arguments, and just keep repeating endlessly your own flimsy, easily debunked arguments, like "fine-tuned universe" or "irreducible complexity" . Just keep in mind that uttering the word "God" a lot makes whatever you are saying virtuous, uplifting and profound, so you cannot possibly be wrong.
There is no prove for god.
God is simply an ancient idea, at best an unsupported concept. People still killing each other silly over this useless idea. WTF?
I have to go cook supper...
Said
IF there were a "God" (however one may define that term), why-oh-why, would it be a "God" with human-imposed baggage (I.e. Christian, Muslim..etc... etc... etc)????
From a general perspective, you don't. Live by the best example of what you believe, best for people to come to their own conclusions.
Of course, then, also any means, any effort to force others to believe what you believe is absolutely wrong and against everything that keeps the universe balanced. Freedom of choice and will might be a bigger deal than most imagine.
TAG Argument next time bois
McGrath is wrong on Aquinas.
Why don't you believe in God, is a ridiculous question. Why DO you believe in God is the only question that needs to be asked.v
11:50 - I dont really understand why do you take idiots seriously.
"Faculty" of theology is laughable. It's like a faculty of alchemy or astrology.
Taxpayer should not pay for this crap.
Aren’t they all the same when it comes to “feeling” god, like the physics guy before him?
“Alistair begins arguing for god with the idea that belief in god is rational.”
Yet he doesn’t explain how...
Survival at the fittest.....fair enough if the Nature were establish properly.
as Smart person I really want to know how to comprehend Infinity in my single consciousness.
Luke, you cant. Lean on God's understanding
@Luke Walker : Define your understanding of what survival of the fittest means in your comprehension of it please?
Step 1: be dishonest with your self as deep down as possible. Step 2: become immune to facts, evidence and logic. Step 3: find pretentious ways to use pseudo intellectual language to convince yourself and gullible others that your irrationality is actually sophisticated , open minded, and noble. You’re welcome.
Step 1: Be honest with yourself. Step 2: humble yourself. Step 3: repent
Frank ah yes repent.
I've never seen an argument for god which uses truth. Always distortion, sophistry and lies. All arguments for God are designed to give the doubting faithful something to cling to.
i see plenty of justifications for racism
and scientific racism
that had people in zoos
and to this day that same underlying hate on the grounds of less say igmentation is as rampant as ever
with all this science and enlightment about
You must speak to Jordan Peterson
So most people have their mind made up, and have significant confirmation biases. Too bad. I don't see how you can eliminate the possibility. It helps to use modern terminology (God= "the programmer" running the simulation). Faith is an issue. Foundational actors in Abrahamic religions had actual experiences to convince them, not faith. We are stuck with deciding whether what they experienced was genuine, based on how well they communicated their experiences in writing. Unfortunately, the modern scientific mind thinks very differently, hence the problem. So we look for other evidence. The fine tuning argument is a good one, but falls victim to the anthropic principle, and the multiverse construct created to undermine it. So what do we have that is not anthropic? The cubic structure is a common element. The Holy of Holies of the First Temple, the Ka'aba in Mecca, the New Jerusalem of Revelations 21. All cubes. Also the number 7 is predominant, from the Menorah, to the number of times Muslims circle the Ka'aba. There is a huge consciousness investment in these. The number 77 is used as an exclamatory to emphasize 7 on occasion. What I find very interesting, and extremely unlikely, is that the volume of the New Jerusalem from Revelations, multiplied by 77, results in the exact volume of planet Earth. Extraordinary coincidence? Or durable marker? I would suggest if you aren't convinced by transient phenomena experienced by others, aren't convinced by durable phenomena, and are waiting for your own mystical experience, at least admit that you can't eliminate the possibility of that experience happening in the future, and therefore can't eliminate the possibility of something beyond pure materialism.
Well said.
This is such horseshit, in such ugly prose. Embarrassing!
@@johnsmith1474 no it's not
@@helensmith7596 - Empty headed young girl is muted. See ya.
@@johnsmith1474 gutted I liked you. Anyway, don't be so hard on yrself
Thank you so much for this brilliant work.
I just want to say that religions have been changed by their followers and that's why you see them different and inconsistent.
Unfortunately, linking God to religions and understanding God through interpretation of religious people is big mistake instead people need to believe in God and understanding him via his holy books and via their own experiences of god
In fact, there is only one true religion which all about believing in one God and this was the religion of all prophets since Adam.
People need to understand god through his holy books rather than through human interpretation? 🤔
I hate to break it to you, but holy books are written by humans. And there are many ways to interpret them. And…all of the holy books disagree. I would not rely on these texts for anything other than enjoying interesting historical literature.
@@kuribojim3916
Old and new testaments have the revelation that God sent but it had been formed in historical narratives which been written by people, whereas the whole quran book including its narratives been revealed by God and thats why God mentiones quran as the dominant on previous holy books, and that's why quran clarifies some narratives details for sake to show the mistakes in bible narratives!!
So old and new testaments narratives which you like to deal them as historical are not always correct and accurate, many of them have some mistakes and inaccurate details
@@realislam3838 Well, I don't know how you differentiate between the books. The Quran came after the Bible and is, in large part, a plagiarism of it.
Regardless, all "holy books" were obviously written by human beings. The sheer act of scribing the words into legible text is an act undertaken by a human, which necessarily requires said human's interpretation.
Unless you were there in the room when God supposedly spoke to any of the prophets, you're fundamentally relying on texts written and printed by human beings. Fallible human beings. Buyer beware.
What about new testament; is it also plagiarism of old testament (Tnakh)?
@@realislam3838 In broad terms, yes. The three major monotheisms heavily borrow from one another - more specifically Christianity is a branch of Judaism, and Islam is largely a plagiarism of both. There's a clear kinship between them, especially on the textual and historical levels.
God backwords....DOG.....ENOUGH SAID...Well enough said after I say why I said that. Cause dogs are an amazing creature, capable of understanding humans but not only understanding but predicting things, knowing thing before they happen.
Also what about the cats who have predicted deaths in nursing homes.
It's not hard to argue that the Uni must have been created. But why by "God"? It could have been a creator who/which looks/ed nothing like humans and made the Universe in a moment of boredom. Or for any number of other reasons. It could be a creator that having made the Uni, perhaps even by accident, takes no further interest in it. That would get rid of all the ridiculous mumbo-jumbo that accompanies all religions.
Replace the word god with pure infinite consciousness it all fits but the god word jas been misinterpreted by religions.I prefer the non dual understanding its our experiential teuth of our experience.Nothing exists outside of consciousness and never will.
Woo woo