Francis Collins doesn't have any evidence for any God. Just like a child who believes in Santa Clause, Francis Collins believes in God just because he wants there to be a God.
Francis Collins doesn't have any evidence for any God. Just like a child who believes in Santa Clause, Francis Collins believes in God just because he wants there to be a God.
Thankyou. Hate the militant atheism that is being forced upon any educated person who is a monotheist. What is even more sad is that those "scientists" promoting these views actually themselves have not done any ground breaking scientific discoveries. They realized being a UA-cam viral celebrity was easier and more profitable.
@@bluegtturbo scientist and nasa are wasting trillions and trillions of dollars to find out what, how God made his world ? That’s how thiest look at atheist… they aren’t doing anything ! The best thing they came up with was the space station which is still in earths atmosphere lmaoo
Francis Collins doesn't have any evidence for any God. Just like a child who believes in Santa Clause, Francis Collins believes in God just because he wants there to be a God.
3:00 The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can think about the concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist who can ponder (create) the concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, One (1) exists before zero (0) can exist.
Your reasoning is flawed that 'something can come from nothing because nothing is something'. You don't understand the concept of 'nothing', it is a complete absence of anything. So this led to your false conclusion: "Something can come from Nothing".
@@mike7gerald your reasoning is flawed because you're using your incredibly limitated human perception to jump to the massive conclusion that something can't come from nothing. we have no idea whether universally (or multiversally/omniversally) that this is the case. concluding that the universe requires a creator is flawed because it's based on our personification of the universe (the idea that cLoCk rEqUiReS CloCk MaKeR), of which is literally just meaningless banter until it is proven true. us non-claimers don't have to prove that your claims aren't true, because to provide proof that something is not true would mean to provide evidence of somethings positive existence. therefore, if evidence exists for something, then that something literally has to exist, otherwise there would be no evidence that it ever did exist. this means that there is not a SINGLE piece of evidence one can provide to prove the negative claim that something, Santa, God etc. isn't real, because negative claims are a logical fallacy in which "proof" does not exist to confirm the fact that something does not exist... to prove for example that Santa isn't real, you would have to check the ENTIRE universe to make sure Santa isn't hiding somewhere to conclude that this is true. even then, you couldn't be sure whether Santa was cloaked out of your perception, or hiding behind you while you checked, etc.
From the book … Crazy Old Lady … author … Brenda Barrett I stopped striving for enlightenment. I stopped thinking that everyone else knew something I didn't. It never made sense that if God were love that the description in the Old Testament was anything more than a history of a violent people who created a god that could justify their actions. If Jesus brought a new covenant, why did Christians believe in this angry, unforgiving god of Abraham that sired both the Jewish and Muslim religions and who are still warring with each other. Not a popular thought, I know. I was disfellowshipped from the JWs by my very righteous sister when I was twenty-five. Although my divorce had been sanctioned by the church, I was on probation for having had sex outside of marriage.
"If that god is outside the natural world, how does that god interact with the natural world?" Exactly. If there was anything 'reaching' into our reality and controlling things then that would be a detectable and measurable phenomena. All we have are dementors claiming voices in their head. And when you get enough dementors together all saying the same thing (or similar things) then a neurotransmitter is released causing a europhic feeling. And there we are - our very own personal god...in our heads. Who knows us, who loves us, and wants everything that we want. Oh the convenience of it all lol
@@piesho I was thinking something like us and our natural world are inside the video game and God is like the player interacting with us from beyond it
@@outcastpov9366 Got it. But interaction between the natural and the supernatural is just not logically possible. It's like saying that the dead are "living" among us. It's either dead or alive, natural or supernatural; cannot be both at the same time. Can god become natural? The book says he sent himself in the form of his son, but that doesn't make the possibility more credible.
A minute in, Dr. Collins asks, “Did God have a hand in starting that process? I believe he did.” A few thoughts: 1) He uses “God” as a personal name, yet he has not established who or what this god is. 2) He assumes there is a single god, when I dare say he could not provide the kind of evidence for that would be sufficient to prove his assertion in the same way that his work in genetics has been proven. 3) He refers to the god as a “he”. How can a god have a gender? He claims that atheism is the “least logical of the choices”, but by what logic can he show that 1) there is a god, 2) there is one god and not a plurality, and 3) that god is a male? Around 1:45, he says that he finds it most reasonable to conclude that there is a god and he (assuming the gender again) cares about you and me. How is this reasonable? He's a man of science. If he is willing to throw around language of logic and reason, then he ought to be able to demonstrate why his positions are logical and reasonable. At 2:55, he says, “We are still left with this question about ‘Why is there something instead of nothing?’ and ‘How did the universe begin?’ given that I don't think matter has been seen to create itself in the same way that we understood happen 13.7 billion years ago.” His degree is in genetics and medicine. He is not a physicist. Thus, he is speaking outside his professional wheelhouse. I wonder if he has posed these questions to people qualified in the field, such as Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson or Dr. Sean M. Carroll. The kinds of questions Dr. Collins is asking here are no better than the usual material from Dr. William Lane Craig, and Dr. Craig has been soundly schooled in debate by Dr. Carroll. As he keeps talking, it sounds like he wants to eat his cake and have it. He doesn't think science can inform on his god because “God is outside the natural world,” but he still wants his god to be _in_ the natural world to be responsible for things in the Big Bang that we haven't been able to explain (yet). He continues around 4:30 by talking about his god having a plan for creation before he started creating. How does he know this? Is he Platonic, where he thinks there are perfect Forms that all life is destined to attain? He talks about his god's mind. How does the god have a mind if it is “outside the natural world”? Minds are an emergent property of functioning brains. So is his god a physical being with a brain that exists in some space outside the universe? This solves nothing, because then we are just stuck with the same philosophical questions that he thinks justify a god in the first place: Whence did this “outest space” come? How did its sole denizen, whom we call “God”, come to be? It is illogical to think that this outest space always existed, so it must have had a creator even more outsiderest of it. God has a god, it would seem. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Collins in regards to his professional work. But when he crosses into this arena, he is on an even playing field with everyone else (excepting experts in the fields of physics who could and probably have answered his questions).
Consider the following: a. The Hebrews in the Hebrew Bible that the Hebrews put together, claim that they and they alone are the chosen people of 'God'. But, if 'God' does not actually factually exist, exactly whom are they the chosen people of? b. The Roman Catholics in the Roman Catholic Bible that the Roman Catholics put together, claim that they and they alone speak for 'God'. But, if 'God' does not actually factually exist, exactly whom are they speaking for? c. If I write my own Bible that I put together and claim that I am 'God', does that make it true? But, if 'God' does not actually factually exist, exactly whom am I but myself? Personally, I cannot prove 'God' actually factually exists but neither can I prove that 'God' does not actually factually exist. So I try to keep my mind open concerning the existence of 'God'. But, either 'God' truly exists in some form, or 'God' truly does not exist in any form. But, 'if' God actually factually exists in some form, where is any actual evidence, any actual evidence at all, that 'God' exists at all in any form at all?
6:22 a very very emotional "does that satisfy your longing for the truth?". um excuse me, does a longing for the truth constitute a leap of faith to a conclusin which very well may be incorrect? i think absolutely NOT. 6:34 "an urge to do more" does not even remotely prove the existence of a god, it merely proves that we are relentless creatures.... he is making a massssiiive and illogical jump in faith. 6:54 "looking into my own heart" - this describes an emotional reaction as opposed to a logical one. a similar example of an ignorant emotional reaction would be, "these people called me a bunch of bad names so i closed my eyes!". if i emotionally react by closing my eyes, this does absolutely nothing to solve the issue, and come to a resolution. if i logically react based on observations and problem solving skills considering what exactly i should do to remove myself from this area where i am being called names, this is much more effective towards solving this problem, even if it doesn't completely resolve the problem. one thing is for sure, this guy is chock full of emotions :'( boo hoo
Because he understands how the Genome is constructed he can actually say that we were created unlike the atheist most punters wouldn't have a clue and probably Christians for that matter too.
He's not the only person who understand DNA. Others understand it too and not necessarily share Collins' opinion. By the way, what kind of god designs Adam and the bonobo separating them by only 1.3% in DNA? That proximity in DNA should clearly tell us that there's indeed no god, but a common ancestor between humans and bonobos. Even Collins acknowledges that.
Fair interview, congratulations. Just to clarify a bit, Dr. F. Collins (NIH Director, Human Genome project leader, ...) believes in Evolutionary Creation, very different from Creationism and from Intelligent Design. He does accept (of course) modern science in its totality.
But isn't Evolutionary Creation a branch of ID? You are definitely right that more clarification is needed. ID is defined many ways ... I think most people just think it means you believe God was somehow involved, generally as an essential component, in creating mankind (that's how the webster dictionary defines it). Evolutionary Creation falls within that definition, does it not?
@@davidaustin6962 If we're talking about evolution, there's really no Creationism. Of course I (like Dr. Collins) accept modern science in its totality.
@@panchor I wasn't talking about evolution. Evolutionary creationism as a concept is not a subset of evolution, it's not even a part of science. Dr. Collins does accept modern science in its totality but it seems you presume too much what exactly that means. Many non-scientific things like the young earth theory are incompatible with scientific facts and must be rejected, but the scientific method does not insist that the scientist denies the possibility of everything that isn't already scientifically proven.
@@davidaustin6962 Evolutionary creation differs from intelligent design. ID, I think, gives more emphasis on the immanent side of God, arguing for a more active role of God in creation. It's not as if God simply created the process of evolution and stepped back, allowing pure evolutionary forces to take over. That's my impression; I may be wrong. 🙏
@@panchorhow is there no creationism? Evolution talks about the way beings evolved ,not about how beings came to be ,also evolution is unpredictable to us ,in my thinking God is involved in nature’s course that we can’t predict,so God did direct the process of evolution
@@godthecreatoryhvh681 All these fool theists have parked God in Heaven - sipping Chardonnay and having a good time They "love" him soooo much, just want to be with him, just like the prostitute, leech who "loves" the rich Sugar Daddy and just wants to spend some time in his million dollar yacht, eating his rich food, drinking his rich wine and enjoying the good life They don't want God down here sharing in our pain & suffering. They don't want God down here in Ukraine, sharing in the suffering of so many hurting
Never mind that. Ask him about his cover up of covid facts. He denied China's working on the virus that has killed so many. He also conspired with Fauci, to attack any scientist who disagreed with them. His emails that have now been exposed, has made that clear. He is also wrong on man's evolution. It does not show in our DNA, that we share a common ancestor with the Neanderthal. It does show that modern humans appeared on earth 200.000 years ago, and have not changed since. There is, as yet, no answer to how we got here. But it was 'not' through evolution.
Lol who can EXPLAIN that in full detail? Always someone looking to say well this means there's no God lol. I'm not even religious. But I definitely believe there's some type of higher power out there
@@Terry-nr5qn lol that is the opposite of what the poster was saying Religion is just exploiting you - there is no Sugar Daddy in the sky - no crying your way out and living the good life sponging off him BTW if you made a mistake and we all do, we are human, not robots, we are supposed to CORRECT it, not run away & hope some magic man will nicely forgive us Only the victim has the right to forgive
Even Richard Dawkins says that he is part agnostic, and is not 100% sure that God does not exist. He says that quite clearly. He just doesn't believe in God
If as Mr. Collins claims, God is outside of space/time, if it is wholly immaterial, then it is unreasonable to make *any* claims about any properties it may or may not have, including the property of existence.
@mebe84 Yes, God is the personification of ignorance. He says he isn't making a "god of the gaps" argument, but that's exactly what he *is* doing. Later he comments on asking "why" questions instead of "how" questions, but that is a classic petitio principii fallacy. The kind of why questions he is asking assume an agent, so of course his conclusion is that there is an agent.
If God is the personification of ignorance, then naturalism is the personification of arrogance: How could you or anyone else possibly know that space, time, matter and energy are all that exists?
mebe84 Atheism is the belief god does not exist. There are different degrees: some are absolutely certain, some are almost certain (me), while others are doubtful, but thinks it's plausible. To me the most fundamental problem with theism is that 'god' is poorly defined. Some people consider it to be an omnipotent human-like being. There's no evidence something like that exists. Others define it vaguely as some kind of force that underlies or started existence. This definition is so nebulous it's entirely useless. Until there's a tangible, consistent definition and description of what god is, it's an entirely useless idea with no explanatory relevance.
David in Suspenders - Because there's no evidence anything else exists, and if it does it's probably irrelevant to us as humans because we're composed of matter and energy that exists in the space-time continuum. So if there is some or realm, how can we even perceive it and how can it affect us in any kind of way? If such a realm exists, what difference does it make?
Even mathematics depends upon axioms which cannot be proven and terms which cannot be defined, so I would question whether or not every entity must be precisely defined in order to be "useful". Furthermore, if there is an entity that is far beyond us in the qualities of knowledge, power, and so on, then we could not possibly hope to precisely define such a being.
But These data doesn't specify that the designer must be one and only i mean it can be from a god to scientific project to some high dimension beings !!!
Collins refutes ID as an argument, but he never makes it clear ... is that a rejection of the *effectiveness* of ID as an argument in the debate for God, or does he reject ID itself (or in other words, he believes humankind as an Ape-like species would have evolved naturally from the big bang without God, and that God is this being that exists partly outside of this universe who meddles in our affairs only to help us spiritually develop a conscience, become moral beings, and provide for us spiritually)? These are 2 extremely different positions, and for me it is not clear at all to which view he subscribes. In fact, he might be unsure himself where his beliefs lie with respect to God's role in our physical evolution if he insists that ID is bunk. Maybe he has a very narrow definition of ID, and it is that version of ID that he rejects. I really think he needs to be more specific.
"Existence" has a specific meaning: "the fact or state of living or having objective reality" and God does "live" or not have an objective reality. His "reality" is all in the imaginations and in the feelings of those who believe he exists but have no idea what the word "exists" means, such as the author of this video!
Intelligent Design surmises that God has created a universe with certain deficiencies. Most times the universe runs smoothly according to the laws of nature, but occasionally God needs to jump in to create something, say a bacterial flagellum or a mechanism for blood clotting (I am quoting Michael Behe). The problem is that science marches on and tomorrow, or in ten years time we'll have a natural explanation for what puzzles us today. This is the classical God-of-the-gaps, which is not in the interest of religion. Secondly, science operates on the grounds of methodological naturalism, which means that supernatural causation cannot feature in scientific theories. The prime goal in Intelligent Design is to have a scientific 'proof' for the existence of God. Sorry, but science cannot prove (or disprove) the existence of God.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 There are many definitions for ID, In the one you've suggested (that "The prime goal in Intelligent Design is to have a scientific 'proof' for the existence of God") ... this doesn't even appear to be the most common definition for ID. Until today I've never heard of that definition before. Even the Webster Dictionary defines it solely as "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence", and this widely-held definition says nothing about proofs or even evidence. So when Collins says he rejects ID, naturally it is very confusing for those of us who perceive ID as a theory that ultimately God was our Creator (be it through giving little corrective nudges from the big bang until now, or some other way) rather than ID being a claim that God's creative role can be proven. Collins throws around the term ID rather carelessly as if everybody knows exactly what definition he is using, and perhaps he does this on purpose since it has allowed him to ascend the ranks of scientific privilege.
@@lantana4274 lol many soldiers, cops, leaders, scientists, medics and nurses and strong people are Christians till the very end. “WEAK”. I doubt you would have 1/10 of the balls of these heroes have to deal with life.
"With or without Religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil-that takes Religion. " Steven Weinberg, American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics
I disagree about people like ghandi who were religious. Or William Wilberforce. we’re not all born atheist actually because there is actually reserch the proves that there is an innate belief in God in children.
@@damilolataiwo7750 No, that is not what he is saying - No Atheist or child had ever condemned innocent people to brutal hell simply because others don't share their beliefs That's what the Nazis did - they condemned ALL Jews - who they were as people does not matter Only religious people - some, not all of course - are capable of such hate, such callousness Christians and Muslims OPENLY condemn innocent people - old people, children, even babies! babies! pregnant women - to gas chambers in hell simply based on belief - religion Here again, who we are as people does not matter, what we did in life does not matter As for Gandhiji, He was a Hindu, we don't preach this hate based on religion We are ALL God's Children, equal in the eyes of God A Christian or Muslim will choke to death before saying that, having sold their souls to the conversion industry of their religion
@@ramaraksha01 one I do not have to condemn you to hell to prove I am religious . A simple act of prayer does that. at the end of the day if you ask a some Christians about hell the reply will be judge not and you shall not be judge it is still a Christian belief . When a child is introduced to a religion he is simply thought there own definition of God like Islam or Christianity. He is thought to believe what God is to them. And that intrinsic belief is nurtured by that religion is wrong or right way. When a child looses his faith he finds that that definition of God he was exposed to is not totally right. God by definition is the highes value and the essence of manning this can be for a deist or pantheism at the end of the day they still belief in God they do not follow a religious text . Once you eliminate the highest value and essences of meaning in your life they you value nothing but humans always have something that they value like family that has become your God once you value that thing more than anyone else to the point you will die for it . Also , the upbringing of the child counts if he is born in a lebral Christian household he is less likely to actually condemn people to hell unlike the ones from conservative household . Intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity . Does who are intrinsically religious only see it as a framework for there lives according to research this is actually been proven to be good for society. Extrinsic religiosity are those who use there religion to fulfil basic needs and wants like if I want power in a religious state I can become a Muslim to gain that power that one is dangerous for society according to reserch .
Also I have actually seen Christians and Muslims who live together in harmony my friend my parents are Christians my one of my aunt is Muslim we visit her on a regular basis . In some nations Muslim and Christians live in harmony. The fact you quoted ghandi a Hindu is quite interesting beacause in India Hindus and Muslim fight a lot that is why Pakistan had to live India. Due to religion
Yeah, religion has the green light to go ahead and make stuff up because it can't be contested by science... that is surely NOT a pathway to the truth, but it does make some feel warm and fuzzy inside even if it's all just fiction and fantasy.
Francis Collins doesn't have any evidence for any God. Just like a child who believes in Santa Clause, Francis Collins believes in God just because he wants there to be a God.
Understanding how something works ( sometimes) explains why something happens! WHY is there a mountain Here? Plate Tetonics- the earth surface is made of moving plates- when two plates collide- one subsides and pushes the other plate up- forming mountains?
Yes, that's science. That's not the "why" we're exploring here though. In philosophy the "why" being asked here is short hand for "for what reason", or "What is the purpose of ___"? "Why is there a mountain here" would be someone might ask when turning a corner and finding that mountain in their way ... it isn't a request about plate tectonics, it's asking "Why does God hate me"? :)
@@davidaustin6962 You are missing the point! Often there is No Why! - the why is only in our “flawed” minds. “Why” did Adam and Eve Sin?... ....Evolutionary biology clearly says there were No first Man/Woman; ...... ....that humans evolved... ....that term “human” is a arbitrary term in history.... So your definition of “Why” is really invalid!
And part of the purpose maybe was us? Children tortured with an illness before death, is that really necessary I ask the possible intelligence (god) out there? Those who side with a possible god must remember to take the erratic nature and evil nature of all and seriously ask why it could not be different for the better if they had a certain amount of power and knowhow...
That's why many believers who are scientists are Deists rather than Theists. Interesting Collins appears to be a theist, and maybe that's something he struggles with. Most theists rationalize such things as saying God is involved in some way, like to minimize the child's suffering, in some way we don't know is happening - that's where the faith comes into play. As a believer, I won't lie, it's something I struggle with ... like, why did that little spirit end up in the body of a crack baby, and this other one a prince? I can't help but feel a bit of deism, and a belief that somehow God will make it right.
@@davidaustin6962 Being a deist is pretty much being an Atheist. Yeah, sure, you believe in a God that created the universe, but that's all. There's no more interaction whatsoever. What's the difference then to a universe that created itself? They would be indistinguishable of one another. For a consciousness in them, it would feel as lonely in the first one as in the second one, giving that God is not present in both.
@@panchor Then you don't understand Deism. It's akin to when a loving parent has let go of the bicycle to help the kid learn to ride the bike on their own, in fact the parent must do so, but for that brief moment that parent is essentially gone and the kid must rely wholly on what they've learned. Deism is no different ... this earth-life being the time in which we learn and grow without God holding on because independence is what we need to do that. The Deist has a sense of purpose that goes beyond just squeezing the most gratification out if this life (really I don't know what other purpose an Atheist has), like learning to ride the bike, believing there is an afterlife to make the scrapes and bruises worth it, developing relationships that will last an eternity, not just a lifetime, and a belief that although God let go, like the parent who lets go of the bike they believe God did it for our own good, and that like the parent, God is waiting with open arms. You might get correlations with some types of Atheistic beliefs, but it's not the same.
If humans evolved from non humans, then why have original sin or Jesus to atone for our sin?? Since evolution IS REAL, by Mr Collins words- then the basic concepts in the Bible -cannot be true.
But they do offer a way out, lol. Billions will get to just sit about doing nothing, enjoying the good life in Heaven just like prostitutes/gigolos/leeches/freeloaders live down here shamelessly sponging off their rich Sugar Daddies Amazing that NOT ONE EDUCATED PERSON OR THEIST ASKS - What do we DO in Heaven? Is Heaven one vast Retirement Home? Do we all just sit about chatting? About what? our memories of life on earth?
@@outcastpov9366 Depends on what you are looking for & then you are exploited Death Cults target the weak - the weak want the easy lazy life & so that is what they are promised, AFTER Death, of course Amazing that these fools don't realize they are being played
@@outcastpov9366 If your question is - how can I get the easy lazy life sitting around doing nothing while a Sugar Daddy keeps me in comfort? - then yes Christianity & Islam have the answer All the they are saying is that God is like Putin - get down on your knees, beg & grovel and he will reward you If that is not your question - then look elsewhere
We Humans have struggled and suffered for over 200,000 years, and after all this time we finally managed to figure out what happened down to one billionth of a seconds after the creation of our universe. STILL not good enough for Religion!
They really don't care about God - it is the easy lazy life in Heaven is what they are really after & God must be there to GIVE them that & oh yes nicely forgive their mistakes after they shed a few croc tears, help them cheat their victims
Unliveable to hear a person of intelligence that thinks old iron books and handed down story's are true ,plus the arrogance of thinking it is all about us
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
I think Christians have been appealing to this question "why is there something rather than nothing" to try to force the an answer like, because God wanted it to exist. Well, it seems to me that it would be an stupid answer because as God had no choice but existing, and so there would be no answer for, "why was there a God rather than nothing?", so that could also happen with nature, that is, nature had no choice but existing.
Hi, just read your interesting comment. I think the 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' question is valid as we now understand that the universe had a beginning. As such, space, time and matter all came into existence. Logically, whatever caused the universe to come into existence then must be something that is beyond space, time and matter. It must be something that is beyond the natural realm as the natural realm could not bring itself into existence (because it didn't exist before it existed to bring itself into existence!). Therefore this something that brought the universe into existence must be timeless and supernatural (beyond the natural realm). Atheists often try to ask 'if God made the universe, then who made God?' but if the cause of the universe is outside of time therefore this cause is eternal. Hence God is the uncaused first cause. If the universe was eternal than this 'question that Christians ask' would be unnecessary. But since the universe had a beginning, and since everything that has a beginning has a cause, then we can ask 'who or what caused the universe to come into existence?'
Collins just needs to accept his own existence. Adding a nebulous separate being to personal experience only complicates things. Everything that needs explaining still needs to be explained if you pass it on to a god plus endless new questions to be answered about god. Einstein wasn't a deist(creator god).
@@jedi4049 Indeed, god does exist, undoubtedly. Under the roof of your skull where he resides and should be protected by all means because once he leaves these very limited surroundings he is bound to dissolve in thin air :)
"Did God use evolution as a process to bring forth the world? I believe he did!" In other words, we do not need to believe the account of Genesis any more, we can be sure that if a great scientist like Mr Collins believes that God did all this, it must be true! For all those who admire ppl like Mr. Collins, you are blind led by the blind and you will regret it some day, hopefully not too late.
Forgotten + Sunday things, not to take away beauty, what came first the verb or the noun, the actor has to act to become an actor,,and then there’s creation and eternity,,I believe in the one that gives peace
@@bobleclair5665 An actor, and all things we know in this world, are “becoming-things”. They start; they grow. They decay; they come to an end. The Deity is not so. He is not becoming. He always and ever is. An actor acts because there are actions he has yet to perform, and there are words which he has yet to speak. There are things which the actor is yet to be. However, there is nothing God is not. There is nothing outside of him. He cannot step onto a stage because he is already there. He cannot deliver a speech because, if there is speech, he has already spoken it from eternity. Yes, I agree. He is the one who gives peace. He himself is peace. He gives peace by being peace. And we who are becoming bask in the glory of him who is Being.
Collins is desperately making excuses for hanging on to his beliefs. You can tell he feels, for some reason, obligated to promote and profess the existence of a god, but it is obvious he doesn't believe it, he isn't being sincere. I hope one day he musters the courage to tell the truth. It can be tough to do.
Frederick J. First he speaks against the god of the gaps approach...then he immediately employs it. He gives numerous examples of having based his spiritual beliefs on assumptions, rather than withholding his determination until the facts are derived. "Presumption, narrow-minded bias and stupidity!" are the flailing cries of an observer too obtuse to recognize what, to the perceptive, objective observer, is unmistakably obvious.
Collins has given more than ample proof of his sincerity. Even to the satisfaction of the likes of Christopher Hitchens. He went so far as to create the BioLogos Foundation to, in a mighty effort in futility, bring the truth of biological evolution to Darwin hating Evangelicals, brethren in his own flock. His sincerity is not to be judged by your irrelevant, personal sense of unhappiness with what you claim is the inconsistency of his argument. Who the hell are you and your opinions to have anything to do with Collins' personal sense of sincere belief? I'll say it again: What obnoxious presumption and hubris. Keep congratulating yourself -- you're quite the little tin pot god yourself to think you count one whit in this matter of Collins' personal belief. And BTW, I don't need the likes of you to lecture me on the matter of obtuseness, you overbearing twit.
Frederick J. Nice avoidance and switcheroo. So what you're saying is you agree that first Collins speaks against the god of the gaps approach...then he immediately employs it, and that he gives numerous examples of having based his spiritual beliefs on assumptions, rather than withholding his determination until the facts are derived. Even my 6 year old son with Down Syndrome, when he watched this Collins video, pointed that out. And don't be too hard on yourself...it's quite natural and common for insecure people to, at first, attack the person who reveals to them the absurdity of their beloved viewpoint, or especially, their belief. m.ua-cam.com/video/RkZC7sqImaM/v-deo.html
The Dread Pirate Clancy Actually, you were closer with your first guess. Not everyone could conceive ideas as Einstein, or compose like Beethoven, or recognize, as I can, the subtle but tell-tale signs of communicative intent.
Thank God for giving you Francis S. Collins, William Daniel Phillips and such believer scientists to the humanity.
God bless you
I believe in God..but Collins ? The man is a liar.
@@soulman.9835 Why do you think so?
He doesn't force you to believe in something. He just opens the door of possibilities of God's existence.
Francis Collins doesn't have any evidence for any God. Just like a child who believes in Santa Clause, Francis Collins believes in God just because he wants there to be a God.
God is life, God is love, God is REAL.
Amen
How should this convince me to believe ?
@@kizkizaru2158 You just have to believe. No evidence necessary. Just believe.
@Kevin Mathew Evidence for God is all around you. Trees, mountains and bananas. What more proof do you need.
@@DIGITALSCREAMS Trees ,mountains and bananas are evidence of trees, mountains and bananas,simple. 🙂
Unless you are Ray Comfort 🤣
Love You God, One and only One.. Living , intevervening, started..
Francis Collins doesn't have any evidence for any God. Just like a child who believes in Santa Clause, Francis Collins believes in God just because he wants there to be a God.
Thankyou. Hate the militant atheism that is being forced upon any educated person who is a monotheist. What is even more sad is that those "scientists" promoting these views actually themselves have not done any ground breaking scientific discoveries. They realized being a UA-cam viral celebrity was easier and more profitable.
To be fair, there's a lot of money being made through religion too.
@@impattman2199 there are many grifters.
@@bluegtturbo scientist and nasa are wasting trillions and trillions of dollars to find out what, how God made his world ? That’s how thiest look at atheist… they aren’t doing anything ! The best thing they came up with was the space station which is still in earths atmosphere lmaoo
@@malikwrighttBmoreAtl eh to be honest our atmosphere is beyond the moon surprisingly,so we never had a human leave it.😅
@@Angle98411 yea my point exactly but that’s in the Bible that in the last days we would gain exceptional knowledge
I like the video. Doing Arts and Science is knowing God's mind a bit more.
Francis Collins doesn't have any evidence for any God. Just like a child who believes in Santa Clause, Francis Collins believes in God just because he wants there to be a God.
Excellent writer and thinker.
3:00 The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can think about the concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist who can ponder (create) the concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, One (1) exists before zero (0) can exist.
Your reasoning is flawed that 'something can come from nothing because nothing is something'. You don't understand the concept of 'nothing', it is a complete absence of anything. So this led to your false conclusion: "Something can come from Nothing".
@@mike7gerald your reasoning is flawed because you're using your incredibly limitated human perception to jump to the massive conclusion that something can't come from nothing. we have no idea whether universally (or multiversally/omniversally) that this is the case. concluding that the universe requires a creator is flawed because it's based on our personification of the universe (the idea that cLoCk rEqUiReS CloCk MaKeR), of which is literally just meaningless banter until it is proven true.
us non-claimers don't have to prove that your claims aren't true, because to provide proof that something is not true would mean to provide evidence of somethings positive existence. therefore, if evidence exists for something, then that something literally has to exist, otherwise there would be no evidence that it ever did exist.
this means that there is not a SINGLE piece of evidence one can provide to prove the negative claim that something, Santa, God etc. isn't real, because negative claims are a logical fallacy in which "proof" does not exist to confirm the fact that something does not exist... to prove for example that Santa isn't real, you would have to check the ENTIRE universe to make sure Santa isn't hiding somewhere to conclude that this is true. even then, you couldn't be sure whether Santa was cloaked out of your perception, or hiding behind you while you checked, etc.
Great insights! I think with the suit jacket, a mock looks better that the crew neck?
A helpful contribution to important matters for our thinking as believers or unbelievers. Thanks Francis!
Thank you for this
From the book … Crazy Old Lady … author … Brenda Barrett
I stopped striving for enlightenment. I stopped thinking that everyone else knew something I didn't.
It never made sense that if God were love that the description in the Old Testament was anything more than a history of a violent people who created a god that could justify their actions. If Jesus brought a new covenant, why did Christians believe in this angry, unforgiving god of Abraham that sired both the Jewish and Muslim religions and who are still warring with each other. Not a popular thought, I know.
I was disfellowshipped from the JWs by my very righteous sister when I was twenty-five. Although my divorce had been sanctioned by the church, I was on probation for having had sex outside of marriage.
If that god is outside the natural world, how does that god interact with the natural world?
"If that god is outside the natural world, how does that god interact with the natural world?" Exactly. If there was anything 'reaching' into our reality and controlling things then that would be a detectable and measurable phenomena. All we have are dementors claiming voices in their head. And when you get enough dementors together all saying the same thing (or similar things) then a neurotransmitter is released causing a europhic feeling. And there we are - our very own personal god...in our heads. Who knows us, who loves us, and wants everything that we want. Oh the convenience of it all lol
Same way we interact with video game characters maybe lol
@@outcastpov9366 Nope. Video games and us live inside the natural works. There's nothing supernatural inside a computer.
@@piesho I was thinking something like us and our natural world are inside the video game and God is like the player interacting with us from beyond it
@@outcastpov9366 Got it. But interaction between the natural and the supernatural is just not logically possible. It's like saying that the dead are "living" among us. It's either dead or alive, natural or supernatural; cannot be both at the same time. Can god become natural? The book says he sent himself in the form of his son, but that doesn't make the possibility more credible.
A minute in, Dr. Collins asks, “Did God have a hand in starting that process? I believe he did.”
A few thoughts: 1) He uses “God” as a personal name, yet he has not established who or what this god is. 2) He assumes there is a single god, when I dare say he could not provide the kind of evidence for that would be sufficient to prove his assertion in the same way that his work in genetics has been proven. 3) He refers to the god as a “he”. How can a god have a gender?
He claims that atheism is the “least logical of the choices”, but by what logic can he show that 1) there is a god, 2) there is one god and not a plurality, and 3) that god is a male?
Around 1:45, he says that he finds it most reasonable to conclude that there is a god and he (assuming the gender again) cares about you and me. How is this reasonable? He's a man of science. If he is willing to throw around language of logic and reason, then he ought to be able to demonstrate why his positions are logical and reasonable.
At 2:55, he says, “We are still left with this question about ‘Why is there something instead of nothing?’ and ‘How did the universe begin?’ given that I don't think matter has been seen to create itself in the same way that we understood happen 13.7 billion years ago.”
His degree is in genetics and medicine. He is not a physicist. Thus, he is speaking outside his professional wheelhouse. I wonder if he has posed these questions to people qualified in the field, such as Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson or Dr. Sean M. Carroll. The kinds of questions Dr. Collins is asking here are no better than the usual material from Dr. William Lane Craig, and Dr. Craig has been soundly schooled in debate by Dr. Carroll.
As he keeps talking, it sounds like he wants to eat his cake and have it. He doesn't think science can inform on his god because “God is outside the natural world,” but he still wants his god to be _in_ the natural world to be responsible for things in the Big Bang that we haven't been able to explain (yet).
He continues around 4:30 by talking about his god having a plan for creation before he started creating. How does he know this? Is he Platonic, where he thinks there are perfect Forms that all life is destined to attain? He talks about his god's mind. How does the god have a mind if it is “outside the natural world”? Minds are an emergent property of functioning brains. So is his god a physical being with a brain that exists in some space outside the universe? This solves nothing, because then we are just stuck with the same philosophical questions that he thinks justify a god in the first place: Whence did this “outest space” come? How did its sole denizen, whom we call “God”, come to be? It is illogical to think that this outest space always existed, so it must have had a creator even more outsiderest of it. God has a god, it would seem.
I have the utmost respect for Dr. Collins in regards to his professional work. But when he crosses into this arena, he is on an even playing field with everyone else (excepting experts in the fields of physics who could and probably have answered his questions).
How about you what is your field of expertise?
@Mr. Davenport Who told you that there are multiple creators?
@Mr. Davenport So do you agree with him?
@Mr. Davenport What or who could that be single unified intelligence?
@Mr. Davenport I agree. God bless you.
Consider the following:
a. The Hebrews in the Hebrew Bible that the Hebrews put together, claim that they and they alone are the chosen people of 'God'. But, if 'God' does not actually factually exist, exactly whom are they the chosen people of?
b. The Roman Catholics in the Roman Catholic Bible that the Roman Catholics put together, claim that they and they alone speak for 'God'. But, if 'God' does not actually factually exist, exactly whom are they speaking for?
c. If I write my own Bible that I put together and claim that I am 'God', does that make it true? But, if 'God' does not actually factually exist, exactly whom am I but myself?
Personally, I cannot prove 'God' actually factually exists but neither can I prove that 'God' does not actually factually exist. So I try to keep my mind open concerning the existence of 'God'. But, either 'God' truly exists in some form, or 'God' truly does not exist in any form. But, 'if' God actually factually exists in some form, where is any actual evidence, any actual evidence at all, that 'God' exists at all in any form at all?
6:22 a very very emotional "does that satisfy your longing for the truth?". um excuse me, does a longing for the truth constitute a leap of faith to a conclusin which very well may be incorrect? i think absolutely NOT.
6:34 "an urge to do more" does not even remotely prove the existence of a god, it merely proves that we are relentless creatures.... he is making a massssiiive and illogical jump in faith.
6:54 "looking into my own heart" - this describes an emotional reaction as opposed to a logical one.
a similar example of an ignorant emotional reaction would be, "these people called me a bunch of bad names so i closed my eyes!". if i emotionally react by closing my eyes, this does absolutely nothing to solve the issue, and come to a resolution.
if i logically react based on observations and problem solving skills considering what exactly i should do to remove myself from this area where i am being called names, this is much more effective towards solving this problem, even if it doesn't completely resolve the problem.
one thing is for sure, this guy is chock full of emotions :'( boo hoo
Because he understands how the Genome is constructed he can actually say that we were created unlike the atheist most punters wouldn't have a clue and probably Christians for that matter too.
He's not the only person who understand DNA. Others understand it too and not necessarily share Collins' opinion.
By the way, what kind of god designs Adam and the bonobo separating them by only 1.3% in DNA? That proximity in DNA should clearly tell us that there's indeed no god, but a common ancestor between humans and bonobos. Even Collins acknowledges that.
@kamala HarrisS No, it only means that you're not that special.
Fair interview, congratulations. Just to clarify a bit, Dr. F. Collins (NIH Director, Human Genome project leader, ...) believes in Evolutionary Creation, very different from Creationism and from Intelligent Design. He does accept (of course) modern science in its totality.
But isn't Evolutionary Creation a branch of ID? You are definitely right that more clarification is needed. ID is defined many ways ... I think most people just think it means you believe God was somehow involved, generally as an essential component, in creating mankind (that's how the webster dictionary defines it). Evolutionary Creation falls within that definition, does it not?
@@davidaustin6962 If we're talking about evolution, there's really no Creationism. Of course I (like Dr. Collins) accept modern science in its totality.
@@panchor I wasn't talking about evolution. Evolutionary creationism as a concept is not a subset of evolution, it's not even a part of science. Dr. Collins does accept modern science in its totality but it seems you presume too much what exactly that means. Many non-scientific things like the young earth theory are incompatible with scientific facts and must be rejected, but the scientific method does not insist that the scientist denies the possibility of everything that isn't already scientifically proven.
@@davidaustin6962 Evolutionary creation differs from intelligent design. ID, I think, gives more emphasis on the immanent side of God, arguing for a more active role of God in creation. It's not as if God simply created the process of evolution and stepped back, allowing pure evolutionary forces to take over. That's my impression; I may be wrong. 🙏
@@panchorhow is there no creationism? Evolution talks about the way beings evolved ,not about how beings came to be ,also evolution is unpredictable to us ,in my thinking God is involved in nature’s course that we can’t predict,so God did direct the process of evolution
Please Note: God is with the Living & not the Dead
Yes, that is true My friend 😎
@@godthecreatoryhvh681 All these fool theists have parked God in Heaven - sipping Chardonnay and having a good time
They "love" him soooo much, just want to be with him, just like the prostitute, leech who "loves" the rich Sugar Daddy and just wants to spend some time in his million dollar yacht, eating his rich food, drinking his rich wine and enjoying the good life
They don't want God down here sharing in our pain & suffering. They don't want God down here in Ukraine, sharing in the suffering of so many hurting
4:54 Amen!
How does Francis explain the Cambrian explosion?
Never mind that. Ask him about his cover up of covid facts. He denied China's working on the virus that has killed so many. He also conspired with Fauci, to attack any scientist who disagreed with them. His emails that have now been exposed, has made that clear. He is also wrong on man's evolution. It does not show in our DNA, that we share a common ancestor with the Neanderthal. It does show that modern humans appeared on earth 200.000 years ago, and have not changed since. There is, as yet, no answer to how we got here. But it was 'not' through evolution.
Who can POSSIBLY Explain Scientifically what happened in the Earth Oceans of 500 Million Years ago to detail ?
Lol who can EXPLAIN that in full detail? Always someone looking to say well this means there's no God lol. I'm not even religious. But I definitely believe there's some type of higher power out there
we have great mysteries and deep questions. but we only want answers that satisfy our desires. I think we ignore truth because it's painful.
Lol
I agree. The truth of god is a hard pill to swallow, and the message of the athiests to be free from the guilt of sin seems very appealing.
@@Terry-nr5qn lol that is the opposite of what the poster was saying
Religion is just exploiting you - there is no Sugar Daddy in the sky - no crying your way out and living the good life sponging off him
BTW if you made a mistake and we all do, we are human, not robots, we are supposed to CORRECT it, not run away & hope some magic man will nicely forgive us
Only the victim has the right to forgive
amazing Collins has argument with me! 😉👍
We need more scientists like Francis who are not arrogant and 100% sure that God doesn't exist.
Even Richard Dawkins says that he is part agnostic, and is not 100% sure that God does not exist. He says that quite clearly. He just doesn't believe in God
well how's that going?
If as Mr. Collins claims, God is outside of space/time, if it is wholly immaterial, then it is unreasonable to make *any* claims about any properties it may or may not have, including the property of existence.
@mebe84 Yes, God is the personification of ignorance. He says he isn't making a "god of the gaps" argument, but that's exactly what he *is* doing. Later he comments on asking "why" questions instead of "how" questions, but that is a classic petitio principii fallacy. The kind of why questions he is asking assume an agent, so of course his conclusion is that there is an agent.
If God is the personification of ignorance, then naturalism is the personification of arrogance: How could you or anyone else possibly know that space, time, matter and energy are all that exists?
mebe84
Atheism is the belief god does not exist. There are different degrees: some are absolutely certain, some are almost certain (me), while others are doubtful, but thinks it's plausible.
To me the most fundamental problem with theism is that 'god' is poorly defined. Some people consider it to be an omnipotent human-like being. There's no evidence something like that exists. Others define it vaguely as some kind of force that underlies or started existence. This definition is so nebulous it's entirely useless.
Until there's a tangible, consistent definition and description of what god is, it's an entirely useless idea with no explanatory relevance.
David in Suspenders -
Because there's no evidence anything else exists, and if it does it's probably irrelevant to us as humans because we're composed of matter and energy that exists in the space-time continuum.
So if there is some or realm, how can we even perceive it and how can it affect us in any kind of way? If such a realm exists, what difference does it make?
Even mathematics depends upon axioms which cannot be proven and terms which cannot be defined, so I would question whether or not every entity must be precisely defined in order to be "useful". Furthermore, if there is an entity that is far beyond us in the qualities of knowledge, power, and so on, then we could not possibly hope to precisely define such a being.
But These data doesn't specify that the designer must be one and only i mean it can be from a god to scientific project to some high dimension beings !!!
And why it could be many then?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Because it is impossible for something to not exist
Collins refutes ID as an argument, but he never makes it clear ... is that a rejection of the *effectiveness* of ID as an argument in the debate for God, or does he reject ID itself (or in other words, he believes humankind as an Ape-like species would have evolved naturally from the big bang without God, and that God is this being that exists partly outside of this universe who meddles in our affairs only to help us spiritually develop a conscience, become moral beings, and provide for us spiritually)? These are 2 extremely different positions, and for me it is not clear at all to which view he subscribes. In fact, he might be unsure himself where his beliefs lie with respect to God's role in our physical evolution if he insists that ID is bunk. Maybe he has a very narrow definition of ID, and it is that version of ID that he rejects. I really think he needs to be more specific.
"Existence" has a specific meaning: "the fact or state of living or having objective reality" and God does "live" or not have an objective reality. His "reality" is all in the imaginations and in the feelings of those who believe he exists but have no idea what the word "exists" means, such as the author of this video!
Excellent explanation of personal God.👏👏👏👏
How can you reject intelligent design and also believe in a deity 😆
Intelligent Design surmises that God has created a universe with certain deficiencies. Most times the universe runs smoothly according to the laws of nature, but occasionally God needs to jump in to create something, say a bacterial flagellum or a mechanism for blood clotting (I am quoting Michael Behe). The problem is that science marches on and tomorrow, or in ten years time we'll have a natural explanation for what puzzles us today. This is the classical God-of-the-gaps, which is not in the interest of religion.
Secondly, science operates on the grounds of methodological naturalism, which means that supernatural causation cannot feature in scientific theories.
The prime goal in Intelligent Design is to have a scientific 'proof' for the existence of God. Sorry, but science cannot prove (or disprove) the existence of God.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 There are many definitions for ID, In the one you've suggested (that "The prime goal in Intelligent Design is to have a scientific 'proof' for the existence of God") ... this doesn't even appear to be the most common definition for ID. Until today I've never heard of that definition before. Even the Webster Dictionary defines it solely as "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence", and this widely-held definition says nothing about proofs or even evidence. So when Collins says he rejects ID, naturally it is very confusing for those of us who perceive ID as a theory that ultimately God was our Creator (be it through giving little corrective nudges from the big bang until now, or some other way) rather than ID being a claim that God's creative role can be proven. Collins throws around the term ID rather carelessly as if everybody knows exactly what definition he is using, and perhaps he does this on purpose since it has allowed him to ascend the ranks of scientific privilege.
@@lantana4274 Who is weaker then a
person whose narcisstic personality makes him ignore the greateat question: why is there something at all?
@@lantana4274 lol many soldiers, cops, leaders, scientists, medics and nurses and strong people are Christians till the very end. “WEAK”. I doubt you would have 1/10 of the balls of these heroes have to deal with life.
@@meroqero1476 Who's ignoring the question? I believe in things I can see and touch......dipshit🤪
"With or without Religion,
good people can behave well
and bad people can do evil;
but for good people to do evil-that takes Religion. "
Steven Weinberg,
American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics
We are all born Atheists - it is only later that we learn to hate & divide
I disagree about people like ghandi who were religious. Or William Wilberforce. we’re not all born atheist actually because there is actually reserch the proves that there is an innate belief in God in children.
@@damilolataiwo7750 No, that is not what he is saying - No Atheist or child had ever condemned innocent people to brutal hell simply because others don't share their beliefs
That's what the Nazis did - they condemned ALL Jews - who they were as people does not matter
Only religious people - some, not all of course - are capable of such hate, such callousness
Christians and Muslims OPENLY condemn innocent people - old people, children, even babies! babies! pregnant women - to gas chambers in hell simply based on belief - religion
Here again, who we are as people does not matter, what we did in life does not matter
As for Gandhiji, He was a Hindu, we don't preach this hate based on religion
We are ALL God's Children, equal in the eyes of God
A Christian or Muslim will choke to death before saying that, having sold their souls to the conversion industry of their religion
@@ramaraksha01 one I do not have to condemn you to hell to prove I am religious . A simple act of prayer does that. at the end of the day if you ask a some Christians about hell the reply will be judge not and you shall not be judge it is still a Christian belief . When a child is introduced to a religion he is simply thought there own definition of God like Islam or Christianity. He is thought to believe what God is to them. And that intrinsic belief is nurtured by that religion is wrong or right way. When a child looses his faith he finds that that definition of God he was exposed to is not totally right. God by definition is the highes value and the essence of manning this can be for a deist or pantheism at the end of the day they still belief in God they do not follow a religious text . Once you eliminate the highest value and essences of meaning in your life they you value nothing but humans always have something that they value like family that has become your God once you value that thing more than anyone else to the point you will die for it . Also , the upbringing of the child counts if he is born in a lebral Christian household he is less likely to actually condemn people to hell unlike the ones from conservative household . Intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity . Does who are intrinsically religious only see it as a framework for there lives according to research this is actually been proven to be good for society.
Extrinsic religiosity are those who use there religion to fulfil basic needs and wants like if I want power in a religious state I can become a Muslim to gain that power that one is dangerous for society according to reserch .
Also I have actually seen Christians and Muslims who live together in harmony my friend my parents are Christians my one of my aunt is Muslim we visit her on a regular basis . In some nations Muslim and Christians live in harmony. The fact you quoted ghandi a Hindu is quite interesting beacause in India Hindus and Muslim fight a lot that is why Pakistan had to live India. Due to religion
Francis , why Christianity ? If you had same view about god but we’re born in Pakistan, Iraq iran etc you’d believe in the Koranic version of god .
His god is the god of this world
how do get something from nothing posit god.
That the "god of the gaps". Collins believes in God but not in the "God of the gaps".
Yes! Just like science can’t comment on what was here before the Big Bang because it’s like saying “what’s north of the North Pole.
Yeah, religion has the green light to go ahead and make stuff up because it can't be contested by science... that is surely NOT a pathway to the truth, but it does make some feel warm and fuzzy inside even if it's all just fiction and fantasy.
TRUE
Collins is the proof the human creates gods. He is pushing god behind things we dont yet understand.
Francis Collins doesn't have any evidence for any God. Just like a child who believes in Santa Clause, Francis Collins believes in God just because he wants there to be a God.
Understanding how something works ( sometimes) explains why something happens!
WHY is there a mountain Here?
Plate Tetonics- the earth surface is made of moving plates- when two plates collide- one subsides and pushes the other plate up- forming mountains?
Yes, that's science. That's not the "why" we're exploring here though. In philosophy the "why" being asked here is short hand for "for what reason", or "What is the purpose of ___"? "Why is there a mountain here" would be someone might ask when turning a corner and finding that mountain in their way ... it isn't a request about plate tectonics, it's asking "Why does God hate me"? :)
@@davidaustin6962
You are missing the point!
Often there is No Why! - the why is only in our “flawed” minds.
“Why” did Adam and Eve Sin?...
....Evolutionary biology clearly says there were No first Man/Woman; ......
....that humans evolved...
....that term “human” is a arbitrary term in history....
So your definition of “Why” is really invalid!
@@oskarngo9138 you clearly don't even know what I was saying. And I couldn't have been more clear. Oh well, I tried.
@@davidaustin6962
Many things have NO “for what reason”!
...Again it is just brain under-development!
And part of the purpose maybe was us? Children tortured with an illness before death, is that really necessary I ask the possible intelligence (god) out there? Those who side with a possible god must remember to take the erratic nature and evil nature of all and seriously ask why it could not be different for the better if they had a certain amount of power and knowhow...
That's why many believers who are scientists are Deists rather than Theists. Interesting Collins appears to be a theist, and maybe that's something he struggles with. Most theists rationalize such things as saying God is involved in some way, like to minimize the child's suffering, in some way we don't know is happening - that's where the faith comes into play. As a believer, I won't lie, it's something I struggle with ... like, why did that little spirit end up in the body of a crack baby, and this other one a prince? I can't help but feel a bit of deism, and a belief that somehow God will make it right.
@@davidaustin6962 Being a deist is pretty much being an Atheist. Yeah, sure, you believe in a God that created the universe, but that's all. There's no more interaction whatsoever. What's the difference then to a universe that created itself? They would be indistinguishable of one another. For a consciousness in them, it would feel as lonely in the first one as in the second one, giving that God is not present in both.
@@panchor Then you don't understand Deism. It's akin to when a loving parent has let go of the bicycle to help the kid learn to ride the bike on their own, in fact the parent must do so, but for that brief moment that parent is essentially gone and the kid must rely wholly on what they've learned. Deism is no different ... this earth-life being the time in which we learn and grow without God holding on because independence is what we need to do that. The Deist has a sense of purpose that goes beyond just squeezing the most gratification out if this life (really I don't know what other purpose an Atheist has), like learning to ride the bike, believing there is an afterlife to make the scrapes and bruises worth it, developing relationships that will last an eternity, not just a lifetime, and a belief that although God let go, like the parent who lets go of the bike they believe God did it for our own good, and that like the parent, God is waiting with open arms. You might get correlations with some types of Atheistic beliefs, but it's not the same.
If humans evolved from non humans, then why have original sin or Jesus to atone for our sin?? Since evolution IS REAL, by Mr Collins words- then the basic concepts in the Bible -cannot be true.
Of which concept(s) do you speak?
"Putting God ahead of Humanity is a terrible thing"
ua-cam.com/video/66CeQb4EVOI/v-deo.html
Just as scientists cannot answer why there is something rather nothing, so religion cannot answer why there is suffering.
But they do offer a way out, lol. Billions will get to just sit about doing nothing, enjoying the good life in Heaven just like prostitutes/gigolos/leeches/freeloaders live down here shamelessly sponging off their rich Sugar Daddies
Amazing that NOT ONE EDUCATED PERSON OR THEIST ASKS - What do we DO in Heaven? Is Heaven one vast Retirement Home? Do we all just sit about chatting? About what? our memories of life on earth?
I think some religions do have answers
@@outcastpov9366 Depends on what you are looking for & then you are exploited
Death Cults target the weak - the weak want the easy lazy life & so that is what they are promised, AFTER Death, of course
Amazing that these fools don't realize they are being played
@@ramaraksha01 umm...ok?
@@outcastpov9366 If your question is - how can I get the easy lazy life sitting around doing nothing while a Sugar Daddy keeps me in comfort? - then yes Christianity & Islam have the answer
All the they are saying is that God is like Putin - get down on your knees, beg & grovel and he will reward you
If that is not your question - then look elsewhere
I think if a god (or gods) actually existed, we wouldn't be having these conversations.
Why?
genius
We Humans have struggled and suffered for over 200,000 years, and after all this time we finally managed to figure out what happened down to one billionth of a seconds after the creation of our universe. STILL not good enough for Religion!
They really don't care about God - it is the easy lazy life in Heaven is what they are really after & God must be there to GIVE them that & oh yes nicely forgive their mistakes after they shed a few croc tears, help them cheat their victims
Unliveable to hear a person of intelligence that thinks old iron books and handed down story's are true ,plus the arrogance of thinking it is all about us
That’s fine... but then don’t use that assumed god to then go and justify bigotry and corruption of public education.
Collins said nothing, he had no clue about what he was saying
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
I think Christians have been appealing to this question "why is there something rather than nothing" to try to force the an answer like, because God wanted it to exist. Well, it seems to me that it would be an stupid answer because as God had no choice but existing, and so there would be no answer for, "why was there a God rather than nothing?", so that could also happen with nature, that is, nature had no choice but existing.
Hi, just read your interesting comment.
I think the 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' question is valid as we now understand that the universe had a beginning. As such, space, time and matter all came into existence. Logically, whatever caused the universe to come into existence then must be something that is beyond space, time and matter. It must be something that is beyond the natural realm as the natural realm could not bring itself into existence (because it didn't exist before it existed to bring itself into existence!). Therefore this something that brought the universe into existence must be timeless and supernatural (beyond the natural realm).
Atheists often try to ask 'if God made the universe, then who made God?' but if the cause of the universe is outside of time therefore this cause is eternal. Hence God is the uncaused first cause.
If the universe was eternal than this 'question that Christians ask' would be unnecessary. But since the universe had a beginning, and since everything that has a beginning has a cause, then we can ask 'who or what caused the universe to come into existence?'
Collins just needs to accept his own existence. Adding a nebulous separate being to personal experience only complicates things. Everything that needs explaining still needs to be explained if you pass it on to a god plus endless new questions to be answered about god. Einstein wasn't a deist(creator god).
If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence
Existing proves it. No need to worry.
@@jedi4049 Indeed, god does exist, undoubtedly. Under the roof of your skull where he resides and should be protected by all means because once he leaves these very limited surroundings he is bound to dissolve in thin air :)
Who made God?
Evolution is not very accurate btw.
How do you know?
"Did God use evolution as a process to bring forth the world? I believe he did!" In other words, we do not need to believe the account of Genesis any more, we can be sure that if a great scientist like Mr Collins believes that God did all this, it must be true!
For all those who admire ppl like Mr. Collins, you are blind led by the blind and you will regret it some day, hopefully not too late.
God is a verb
Do not verbs require a subject? An action proves there must be one acting.
Forgotten + Sunday things, not to take away beauty, what came first the verb or the noun, the actor has to act to become an actor,,and then there’s creation and eternity,,I believe in the one that gives peace
@@bobleclair5665 An actor, and all things we know in this world, are “becoming-things”. They start; they grow. They decay; they come to an end.
The Deity is not so. He is not becoming. He always and ever is.
An actor acts because there are actions he has yet to perform, and there are words which he has yet to speak. There are things which the actor is yet to be.
However, there is nothing God is not. There is nothing outside of him. He cannot step onto a stage because he is already there. He cannot deliver a speech because, if there is speech, he has already spoken it from eternity.
Yes, I agree. He is the one who gives peace. He himself is peace. He gives peace by being peace. And we who are becoming bask in the glory of him who is Being.
Dog savior
If God/gods exist... Well, if God/gods exist, then we wouldn't needing be here still talking about it.
Tom Lee That doesn't make any sense.
Why not?
Brilliant. What he said makes a lot of sense.
eerrrmmm
Collins is desperately making excuses for hanging on to his beliefs. You can tell he feels, for some reason, obligated to promote and profess the existence of a god, but it is obvious he doesn't believe it, he isn't being sincere. I hope one day he musters the courage to tell the truth. It can be tough to do.
Complete rubbish. What a presumptuous example of narrow minded bias and stupidity.
Frederick J. First he speaks against the god of the gaps approach...then he immediately employs it. He gives numerous examples of having based his spiritual beliefs on assumptions, rather than withholding his determination until the facts are derived. "Presumption, narrow-minded bias and stupidity!" are the flailing cries of an observer too obtuse to recognize what, to the perceptive, objective observer, is unmistakably obvious.
Collins has given more than ample proof of his sincerity. Even to the satisfaction of the likes of Christopher Hitchens. He went so far as to create the BioLogos Foundation to, in a mighty effort in futility, bring the truth of biological evolution to Darwin hating Evangelicals, brethren in his own flock.
His sincerity is not to be judged by your irrelevant, personal sense of unhappiness with what you claim is the inconsistency of his argument. Who the hell are you and your opinions to have anything to do with Collins' personal sense of sincere belief?
I'll say it again: What obnoxious presumption and hubris. Keep congratulating yourself -- you're quite the little tin pot god yourself to think you count one whit in this matter of Collins' personal belief. And BTW, I don't need the likes of you to lecture me on the matter of obtuseness, you overbearing twit.
Frederick J. Nice avoidance and switcheroo. So what you're saying is you agree that first Collins speaks against the god of the gaps approach...then he immediately employs it, and that he gives numerous examples of having based his spiritual beliefs on assumptions, rather than withholding his determination until the facts are derived. Even my 6 year old son with Down Syndrome, when he watched this Collins video, pointed that out. And don't be too hard on yourself...it's quite natural and common for insecure people to, at first, attack the person who reveals to them the absurdity of their beloved viewpoint, or especially, their belief. m.ua-cam.com/video/RkZC7sqImaM/v-deo.html
The Dread Pirate Clancy Actually, you were closer with your first guess. Not everyone could conceive ideas as Einstein, or compose like Beethoven, or recognize, as I can, the subtle but tell-tale signs of communicative intent.
Beware of Wolves in sheep's clothing.
confirmation bias all over the place
Francis Collins - educated and intelligent man, persuaded by unfalsifiable and incoherent arguments
Religion, what a joke!!
Smart men like him are also somehow duped into believing supernatural.
I suppose that means stupid people cannot be duped into believing the supernatural.
Why even propose such a silly theory?
Though he discards the 'god of the gaps' argument, he goes on to employ the same argument on a grander scale. Wierd!