@thomascromwell6840 OK. But nearly all questions are questions we've been debating for millenia. What's the foundation of ethics? What's the foundation of knowledge? How do freedom and equality relate in the political realm? Which is more important? When does human life start? What is a human being etc etc. Even modern questions are basically just rehashing these questions....we will be debating them till humanity dies out.
Imagine...being surprised that humans are still debating God, something that we cannot perceive directly with our senses and something that created the entirety of the Universe with complexity beyond our imagination. To say that the lack of a conclusion on an inquiry of this magnitude is evidence for delusion is asinine.
In context, she was describing the "design argument" and how the argument itself is logically false. She did not point out that begging the question is one of the argument's logical fallacies, but I don't think she was improperly using it as much as she was constructing a "straw man". That is the mistake she's making in my opinion.
Some questions don't deserve an answer though. Saying what's the point of life is the same as saying what's the point of ice melting? Under the right circumstances it just happens. Sorry there is no special meaning behind something that just happens. Humans have evolved so much over the last 200,000 years that we can ask questions about anything and expect a meaningful answer to every question. But some questions are just dumb. Like what's the point of two rocks slamming together making a sound? Or what's the point of some people being born deaf? Questions like this are pointless.
2:43 Is it normative in competitive debate to stoop to gutter level ad hominem tactics? Furthermore, by her own definition of delusion it would be the prerogative of her side to present evidence of God not existing, not merely of God being unnecessary to explain certain kinds of evidence. All her arguments could be granted and in no way deny the possibility of God which means you can't say there is a persistent delusion in the mind of every theist. Also not sure how she is able to see the future in regards to how people will think or speak of this in a hundred years or so. If the speaker has this ability maybe the Hebrew Prophets did too? The only argument she even mentioned against God's existence is the problem of evil/suffering, but the thesis here doesn't even stipulate whether God is loving or not. So would Chloe find belief in God not at all delusional if the theist says 'sure, God's a big meanie but he still exists'? It's also not a deductive argument even if one is arguing for a good, loving God, as Plantinga has shown already.
There is typically one Oxford Union committee member on each side of the debate. These committee members are typically the first speakers in the debate and it is their job to introduce the speakers on the opposing side. It is tradition that they (jokingly) roast their Oxford Union committee counterpart on the opposing side. (In other words, the guy she roasted from the committee then went on to roast her as per tradition.)
@@TimDavies5 Ah, okay. The way she set it up with the Harvey Specter quote and so on made it sound like her own idea, but I did hear him do the same and I guess it makes sense even if I dislike the tradition.
@@u4iadreams It seems you misunderstood or didn't read my comment. Please feel free to reread it and perhaps don't resort to ad hominem immediately in a comment where I critique someone else for doing the same, the irony is a bit rich.
@@zacdredge3859 Still breathing through the mouth? " it would be the prerogative of her side to present evidence of God not existing" is demanding disproving a negative. You, youtube commenter, cannot prove that there *isn't* a teapot orbiting the sun whereas I can *say* that there is one and it is the source of all divinity and you can't change my mind unless you can disprove this thing that hasn't been proven to be there. Ad hominems are what morons deserve. The good news is that you can change this by not being one.
It was written in Hanuman Chalisa, “Yug Sahasra Yojana Par Bhanu, Leelyo taahi Madhura Phal jaanu”. It does mean that Hanuman has travelled a far distance such as Yug x Sahasra x Yojana to meet Bhanu, the sun thinking it to be a sweet fruit, Yug x Sahasra x Yojana = 12,000 x 1,000 x 8 miles = 96,000,000 miles. Where 1 mile = 1.6 Kilometers. 96,000,000 miles x 1.6 kilometers = 153,600,000 Kilometers to Sun. This is exactly the distance calculated by NASA to reach Sun from the Earth
Isaac Newton's view of reality was a significant breakthrough to how the universe and gravity are perceived today. Newton did provide a mathematical representation for what gravity might do but he could not understand how it was caused. He discovered though, that there is thing between planets that affects their motion and it shares with how objects around us move also. Later Einstein General Relativity gives rise to spacetime which provides a better view of what gives rise to Gravity ==> the distortions in space-time caused by uneven distribution of mass and energy. Newton did admit that he didn't know what caused gravity and this is what he actually said about the matter in his letter to Richard Bentley in 1693 ' “You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider of it.” In his series of replies to Richard Bentley this is what Newton concluded with. So please put some respect on Isaac Newton. He made tremendous contributions to Humanity and dismissing his viewpoints without the full context will mislead many viewers.
he descovered a therory... he didnt make it... he guessed and bumped around in the complexly created beautiful designed creation... AND SAID hey look an apple fell. SUPPOSE YOU take credit for painting the MONA LISA... yea sure some people will believe you... Then you announce that it willed itself into existence over millions of years to fabricate itself in copies like atheist do. some how nothing exploded in a big bang... and all of that energy scattered farts and dust and metals and lifeless things that said... in a million years i want to be an amoeba. DOESN'T THAT SOUND LIKE IT GOES AGAINST THE GUESS ABOUT SCIENCE that says looks like energy depletes and cant come from nothing. ATHEIST AND GOD DENIERS ARE SO STUPID THEY HAVE TO LITERALLY PRETEND TO BE INTELLIGENT AND WANT ATTENTION LIKE A SILLY Belligerent dingle berry that hangs on to an elephants but hair.
My takeaway is that if Newton was wrong, then Einstein is almost certainly wrong too. And that relative to the infinite questions, Einstein and Newton are not significantly more intelligent than an earthworm. However, they are geniuses at making weapons. The self-assigned job of scientists is (1) to build weapons and (2) hopefully to cure climate change (a problem created by technology) so climate extinction doesn't happen before we blow ourselves up with the tools of science or get extinguished by AI. That scientists can do. But figure out the infinite universe? I think it's a delusion to believe science can answer such questions.
Plenty of parents love their kids and provide good moral teaching and direction, but then their kids go and do dumb things, sometimes very evil and hurtful things, despite what their parents taught them. Similarly, God created us and loves us, and has given us rules to live by, but we still keep doing dumb, hurtful, and sometimes evil things. That’s why bad things keep happening even though we have a loving Creator. If you ask my son to prove that I love him, he will be able to point to my words and my behavior toward him, but there is no science that will be able to prove my love. Ultimately, there is an element of trust. Similarly, we Christians have God’s word in the Bible and Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross as what we point to as evidence for His love. It’s not a blind faith, there is evidence. But yes, there is some element of trust in that evidence. Science can’t prove love for anything, but that doesn’t mean love isn’t real. If you’re looking for science to answer all of life’s big questions, you’re missing a lot.
@@gabrielwickander -Moral argument ( god justifies morality) -Cosmological argument ( Everything has cause and god is the best explanation for the cause of the universe) - Transcendental argument ( God justifies the Transcendental categories i.e morality, time) Pick your poison
@@razoredge6130 people like meyers and tour look silly already, they can only look even sillyer when they show that life came about by natural means, by chance - as i said god doesn't allow evidence, you have to be one densest religist not to realise that.
If you claim to have *knowledge* of a god, then you are *Gnostic* If you *believe* there is a god you're a *theist* So it depends if you are answering a question about knowledge claim or a question about belief.
It has never been about religion. It has always been about government intervention into ideology. Nothing stops these people to put science as new religion. And I am agnostic
Hope you watched rest of the parts of this debate . These argument that she made are based on superficial knowledge she has about the relegion she didn't know them that's why putting science ahead of all . I was laughing at her because I am a Hindu and our religion has described a lot of things about universe and god and creation of everything that most physicist found to be inspiring their work . So you can't put the argument that religion is against science or vice versa. The religion can be science that our ancestors discovered and we built onto it . Some wrong finding of past will be ruled of some finding of future will find its roots in past .
I think the Religion of Science is far more dangerous than any other religion. Science is already by far the most powerful institution in human society, yet seeks even more power: the cultural power of the Pope and the Ayatollah on top of the power of nuclear weapons, medicine, energy, and AI. Please just cure cancer before I catch it, don't blow up Earth, and leave the spirit world to the Ayatollah.
You would be surprised to discover that those who "love" God also love sin. There are rules and exceptions as always. You can only wonder who he really is, the one who claims to be in a certain way.
Few thoughts on this speaker 1. Simply because she has a question on whether God does exist and some have had such questions and thoughts doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Her question on existence on God is not a proof that God doesn't exist. That's a huge mental flaw from philosophical thinker. Just because someone doubts the earth is spherical won't make the earth flat. Our thoughts don't define or have power to settle such a debate. 2. Evolution is a theory. It is not a model. We have not proved evolution. We have not seen something from basic life forms to something better. Furthermore we are talking of life forms when talking of evolution we are even yet to talk of galaxies and the planets and the solar system we currently occupy. And that still is based on theories. So calling God idea delusional is not only bias it is just being unscientific in the very highest sense. We have not enough evidence yet to back that up. 3. Religion is rational. Science is only rational on the things it can test. We start from an hypothesis and then come up with a theory and then test that theory using testable scientific laws. There are many unknown things in science for now and that won't make you call science irrational. Simply because we cannot answer exhaustively about a certain subject doesn't make that discipline irrational. Religion tends to answer questions of purpose of living, where evil came from and whether there will be justice for all we see. It instills values and trust on higher being than ourselves. Maybe you can call it a theory. Religion is not against science and invention cause these inventions and discoveries we do won't solve the questions of who we are, where did evil come from and whether it will end, why do we die and so forth.
For your second point saying something is “just a theory” shows you misunderstand what theory in science means. If something is a thoery (and/or a law) that means there is mountains of evidence proving that thing exists, if there is some evidence provided for the contrary than the theory/law is modified or thrown out (the latter not happening to evolution yet of course). Secondly evolution doesn’t cover galaxies at all so i have no idea why you bring it up but since you have, the little we have directly observed about space is what we derive all the theories about it, in the cases where we haven’t it’s because there was some math issue (ie black holes). Thirdly, calling god a delusion isn’t unscientific nor is it scientific. God by his very nature is metaphysical so unless you can provide a sample of god or any sort of physical evidence to his existence a god can neither be proven nor disproven, the diestic god anyways. Lastly, to your last point fittingly, thats what philosophy is for, religion may be part of philosophy but it isn’t one in the same
On no. 2, Darwin's theory of evolution has been debunked by the Cambrian explosion of so many different species in one specific time frame which shatters his theory of one main species branching out into different species. What is evident is there is evolution within each species from simple to complex as it adapts to its environment. There is no jumping from one species to another which even Darwin doubted ever happened.
Uh, Rex, I'd say God is both metaphysical and physical because (He) is present in all his creation in these two types of existence which are not static and finished forms but are in continuous vibration in varying frequencies according to their created nature and purpose. Rocks and solid objects have the lowest vibration, plants and animals existing at slightly higher frequencies, and man as the highest frequency endowed with will and creative intelligence. Finally, all of God's creation is gifted with the innate drive to seek perfection as is possible within their own species and for man to be as Godlike as possible to be truly in God's image and likeness as he was created to be. Get it?
Lol no. The basic tenet of Philosophy is proof of your argument. We didn't see the whole debate, just her opening, where she states her stance. God does not exist here unless her opponents actually proved otherwise. Failure to do so, is proof of the absence of god. "The burthen of proof always lies with the affirmative." If you fail to prove that "There is a god", there god doesn't exist. Extrapolate this to court, if the plaintiff fails to prove the truth of their claim against the defendant, the defendant is not guilty. Extend this even further to statistical analysis of results in scientific research, your hypothesis holds ONLY IF your p value is below 0.05. If it's not, the null hypothesis holds. i.e. Rats make methane. P>0.1 means: Rats don't make methane. This is a principle consistent in virtually all fields because then without proof all that remains is purely speculation. 2.(a) Your comment strikes me as you not being a scientist, or not being very well versed in Science, because there's a plethora of proof of evolution in action. The corona virus is a prime example, as is AMR, as is the Australian cane toad, as is Sickle Cell Anemia, as it Burkitt's Lymphoma in West Africa... I could go on and on and on forever because the examples are endless. Yes, evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. Because it carries with it scores of significant proof that remains reproducible and observable to date. A Hypothesis DOES NOT. Lastly, you seem to misunderstand what the theory of evolution means: it is not restricted to basic life forms to something better. That is NOT the theory of evolution. Evolution rests on two tenets: a) adaptation to outdo competitors, that results in better species aka. 'struggle of the fittest' and b) natural selection of organisms with the above quality. Evidence of examples of this is beyond the scope of this comment but books abound with them. Even humans are still evolving. Basic life forms do not prove or disprove evolution - they're merely where it started. The Miller-Urey experiment already proved this in 1952. Evolution is a process of the natural selection of the fittest/best adapted. Which is what happened to basic life forms, the most adapted kept getting selected until today, which is still the principle living organisms STILL live by. Those who don't adapt, die, or get assimilated: like your cells assimilated mitochondria to provide energy for them. Klebsiella has adapted to be more resistant and lethal than any other bacteria, killing most(about 50-100% of) humans who contract it. People who were less adapted to fight coronavirus unfortunately succumbed to the disease, those who didn't developed immunity and we survive today. Natural selection of the fittest. That's the principle of evolution. 2(b) Calling belief in god Delusional is not unscientific. It's quite directly a projection of the very principle of the scientific method: "For a hypothesis to be proven correct, evidence of the contrary must cease to exist." Unless you can deliver unfalsifiable evidence of "god does exist," scientifically, her assertion is absolutely correct scientifically because there is no evidence of god's existence, (which constitutes proof of falsifiability, thus nullifying the hypothesis that god exists), and she explained why at length. All arguments put forward have been debunked by philosophers already, and no new theory has come up to verify the affirmative (God exists.) Without that, an assertion/hypothesis follows Freud into the field of pseudoscience because it's just based on Confirmation Bias. Karl Popper clearly distinguished the two with the requirement for falsifiability. Which "God exists." fails to hold up to because there's overwhelming falsifying evidence of that affirmative. To prove that, there needs to be no evidence of falsifiability. ie. No chance that god doesn't exist. (Which is why before declaring his theory correct, Einstein waited almost 5 years for a full moon before establishing the factuality of his Theory of Relativity. He was looking for falsifiability of the theory, which was absent, effectively verifying his theory. Sigmund Freud on the other hand was Deluded, performing psychoanalysis even on people whose symptoms it worsened despite clear evidence, which is exactly what the lady defines Delusion as, believeing something false even in the presence of evidence of the contrary. Believing in God is the other side of the Sigmund Freud coin of delusion, in that case. Unless you're able to prove it's unfalsifiability. 3.(a) This statement is incorrect. You seem to conflate two very distinct concepts: 1. Science (which is a discipline based on the theory if falsifiability ) and scientific hypotheses (which are unproven ideas subject to pertinent experiment) 2. Theory and Hypothesis(Again as above): A Theory is supported and substatiated by evidence, while a Hypothesis has NOT been tested and is netiher true nor false. Science cannot be irrational. That is assured by its reliance of falsifiability which is impossible to discredit, because how else would you prove something beyond any doubt without using the scientific method? I'm interested in hearing an answer that discredits this. 3(b) SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES on the other hand, can be falsifiable and irrational (though rarely, unless they're formulated by people with insufficient knowledge on the subject,) and that's the purpose of the scientific method. It weeds out all irrational and falsifiable hypotheses, impartially. Ways to verify the credibility of a theory based on falsifiability exist in spades, and a hypothesis can RARELY fly under the radar unless in a case of deliberate tampering of results. In which case, that has everything to do with the moral compass of those involved and zero to do with science. Because when science gets involved, it will still uncover the falsehoods. Elizabeth Bik has made this her life's work, and has led to Scientific Journals retracting over 1000 articles for falsehoods simply by scrutinising them with the Scientific Method. It is impartial. 3(c) Unfortunately, rationality is proven by evidence. Faith is inherently irrational because it is belief in something despite evidence of the contrary. The bible itself repeates this countless times particularly in the new testament. By this token, religion is inherently irrational, and you can see the proof of this with the advancement of time and sciencific knowledge inversely correlating with religion. The more science advances, the lesser the followers of religion. As Bertrand Russel predicted, "Religion is something left of the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away with the advancement of reason and science." Current global statistical trends on Religion couldn't reflect that more. 3(d) Many schools of Philosophy do the same thing, starting with Existentialism. And they do that much better, without the attendant evils religions bring in their train. Morality is not contingent on Religion. Ayn Rand, has written extensively on this, as have many Philosophers. Discussing this is beyond the scope of this comment. Lastly, Religion is NOT a theory as it has no substantiating evidence for it's claims. It could only be considered a constellation of hypotheses at best, because it does nothing but build stories about the possibilities of what we currently don't know. Every religion has its own hypotheses. None are testable. None are provable. Some are a bit similar. Most are babrbaric. So in essencez religion is intrinsically Irrational. It is simply man's attempt to explain what's currently unknown by making up hypotheses. The lady explained that perfectly with Newton's example. The more Science finds answers to things, the lesser following religion maintains. People thought schizophrenia was a demonic possession. We know it's not. The Aztecs thought the sun was powered by human blood and sacrificed scores of people, we know that's not true. The examples are endless... But the facts remain.
@@rexregum2793thank you! A theory and a hypothesis are two very different things, and for something to be considered a theory it must be backed by scores of evidence. Unlike a hypothesis which is just a hunch.🫂
Is This is what we get from Oxford? As a fifteen-year-old, I can easily identify the issues and mistakes the lady has made in the past 10 minutes. (that's how bad her argument was).To be fair, she doesn’t even consider the opposition’s position or their argument fully. If I were there, I could easily refute her arguments using simple philosophy and common sense.
Starting out the debate with a series of cheeky ad hominems was a poor choice, and I’m surprised to see it take place so unapologetically in a forum as esteemed as Oxford
Ah yes. Intelligent design, fine tuning, New Testament historicity, consciousness, mathematics, objective morality, the genesis of life, and even evolution do not count as “rational evidence” for God. This lady has used the most recycled arguments and wasted her opportunity to say something meaningful.
@@declup i'm an artist, i have plenty of meaning in my world, if god inspires my art then he has robbed me of meaning, he doesn't need me he might as well do the art himself - if you pray your team wins and they win, the team is redundant, and it's cheating. there is no god.
@@HarryNicNicholasI think you’re looking at it as a complete black and white. Let’s take the teams example, if we pray our team wins and it wins, it simply means that god allowed/ catalysed the conditions for our players to perform a at their best. It doesn’t take anything away from you nor god. Similarly as an artist, god created the situation for inspiration, not the inspiration itself. God provides us with the capability, the action remains ours.
Let me ask you a benchmark question that is a good separator for which theists have the critical-thinking capacity to meaningfully engage with: Given that the universe exists as the way it is, the likelihood that the universe exists as the way it is is: A. 0.00000001% B. 0.000000000000001% C. 100%
Another one: Given we only have a sample set of 1 universe to observe, the probability of any other universe forming a different way is: A. 0.1234566789% B. 0.987654321% C. Un-calculable/undefined D. 0%
There is plenty of evidence that God exists (fine tuning, first cause, origin of life, objective morality, contingency, religious experiences, supposed resurrection of Jesus). There is also plenty of evidence that God does not exist (existence of suffering and evil, divine hiddenness, etc). What there is NOT is proof. But we don't base our lives solely on things we can prove. It is arrogant and naive to think otherwise. We base our lives on the metaphysical, historical and scientific assumptions which we hold to and the things which present themselves to us as being manifestly true. For me, I consider the evidence for God to outweigh the evidence against God (at an intellectual level), but far more importantly is my subjective perception that theism (and Christianity in particular) makes sense of the world we live in far more than any other worldview I've come across. To me, Jesus presents himself to me in a way that is self-authenticating and manifestly true, and which touches all the big questions which human beings have to wrestle with to survive and to thrive.
you're another dope eh? god HIMSELF doen't leve evidence, MY free will is paramount, you should know that, these guys like meyers and tour making up crap to "prove god exists" are going to look even dumber than they already do when once again it turns out life came about by natural means - you CANNOT have any evidence of god - god DOESN'T ALLOW IT.
if god needs to turn the dials to be fine tuned for life, whose laws of physics is he using? god should be able to make life out of bubble gum, and saying the chances of life are so remote that god needs to intervene is just saying god wanted humans but was more likely to FAIL to produce then, god's odd should 1:1 not bzillions to one against. jeez, what college are you at?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the phrases "self-authenticating" and "manifestly true". I don't think I've ever personally encountered anything I'd describe that way myself. But maybe that's because the two phrases, for you, mean something other than "undoubtable". Is that the case? Would you mind trying to explain a bit more your interpretation of the phrases?
None of these are evidence. Evidence can’t be legit if they use logical fallacies. And each of these arguments use either argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance, or ad populum, expertise fallacy, etc. The best position to hold about God is simple, you don’t know, because no one knows.
She's correct to critique the false philosophical chain of "it seems like the universe is finely tuned, therefore God exists." However, this is not the strongest form of the fine tuner argument. The strongest form can be made more properly by saying, "it seems like the universe is finely tuned, therefore there is probably an intelligent designer, therefore God probably exists." The "probably" is the important qualifier, and this is what makes the argument inductive, as she correctly states. However, the inductive nature of the argument is no reason to discount it beyond consideration, for is it not inductive arguments that are used to settle trials in courts the world over in aims to arrive at the truth?
You have to prove that it's finely tuned and then you have to prove intent and then you have to calculate a creators probability. None of those have been done and will not be done until there is enough evidence. Imagine the universe is a horse. It is finely tuned to exist and not explode. Can we truly say it had a creator? Did someone finely tune the horse's genetics? Do we have evidence of intent simply from the existence of a horse? The fine tuning argument is a very human and subjective notion that places value and intent upon the universe without evidence of either.
I did not agree on this point. Becouse world is tuned so perfectly that we are exist today. How can't be possible that in this ∞ universe earth is finely tuned by itself and we exist today In this ∞ universe, there is some % might be possible universe itself tuned finely in one corner of the ∞ universe, that we are exist today You can't deny that in this ∞ universe.. there is a possibility in the ∞ combination one such combination can be tuned so perfectly that we are exist today. 0.00...∞..01 % can be possibility that why only humans exists.. or if there was small mismatch in tuning say 0.000...∞..01%. we would have also not existed. It's just permutations and combinations in this ∞ universe I think I am able to put my point properly
Just because the existence of God is being debated for over a "long" period of time with no definite conclusion being reached does not mean that God does not exist. The timeframe in which a topic is being debated over is irrelevant to the truth concerning the topic.
Fourteen lokas. In the Puranas and in the Atharvaveda, there are 14 worlds, seven higher ones (Vyahrtis) and seven lower ones (Pātālas), viz. bhu, bhuvas, svar, mahas
As per hindu Mythology, Svarga loka 'heaven' also known as Indra loka and swaloka is ruled by the king of devatas 'gods', Indra. According to the Vishnu Purana, the distance between earth and heaven is hundred thousand yojana that is equivalent to 8 hundred thousand kilometers.
A soul is a soul. Incredible thing Science is...... is what science is. You really need both. Like a fridge and a washing machine. Jacket and pants. They don't really conflict.
can you tell me what the heck a soul does? cos it seems to me it's just a non existent copy of a brain invented to explain how we get to heaven while our body doesn't move. no one seems to know what a soul is, what it does and certainly you can;t explain how it works - cos it's imaginary.
@@georgearavos2914 -- I only intended a bit of playfulness, George. Your analogy makes sense; but you do compare science and souls (or their relation anyway) to fridges and washing machines. And the notion that my soul might be a washing machine is a pretty amusing one. But pointing out the silliness of an interpretation of your point isn't a critique. Or, at least, I didn't mean it that way. That's why I added the smiley emoticon.
All science is, is the study of the natural world, we could know everything about the natural world and it still wouldnt take away from the almost certain chance that God exists. The fact that the world is rational and we can study it, as Albert Einstein said, the most imcomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.
can you tell me hat god actually does, cos as far as i'm aware god doen't work in space travel, energy production, he's not needed to get your car going, or to fly your aeroplanes, he's not even in a manual for a cooker or a microwave oven - tell me what does god actually do? and he can only heal one person a t a time - jesus healed a leper - humans cured leprosy, and polio, and measles, chicken pox, smallpox, hepatitis and on and on. god is crap even when he's healing folks.
If we were to arrive at a full and complete understanding of the natural world and yet it's origin or nature remained inexplicable, *then* you'd be in a position to *begin* talking about God in a serious way. Up until that point you're just hedging your bets based on cultural conditioning and ignorance, which doesn't tell you anything about anything. Science may "just" be the study of the natural world, but don't forget God is "just" a story we've been telling ourselves. There's nothing to suggest that it manifests in any way beyond that realm. We have no idea whether the natural world is self contained, cyclical, ever lasting etc or not and so you have zero grounds to make the ludicrous claim that there's an "almost certain chance" that God exists. We evolved an ability to comprehend the world on scales relative to us because it imparted a survival advantage, but it seems apparent that the farther we pass beyond that scale the more counter intuitive nature seems to become and so perhaps it's not ultimately intelligible...we just don't know yet. Either way, you can't leverage comprehensibility to infer God.
By no means certain that a god exists. I don't understand, because you think the world is rational that means there must be a god? If evolution has endowed us with the ability to be rational, one can assume it is useful for survival, or it's at the very least a by-product of some other facet of the brain, where there is a more direct evolutionary benefit.
@@PianoDentist That is just one of the reason I am certain God exists, God is the best explanation why there is something rather than nothing, why we live in orderly world governed by mathetical laws, the precision with which the universe exists, the existence, consciousness, rationality, the intrinsic moral worth of human beings, the existence of moral duties and obligations, the fact everything cant be contingent, and the fact we cant have infinite series of past causes which means there is a first cause. These all lead me to be certain God exists. Many people run from God, because its hard to humble ourselves and realize there is something greater than us. Also I dont believe evolution is true like you, I agree with David Berlinski that evolution is false. If you have seen the odds of the human genome forming, the odds are beyond impossible. I know i am talking to an atheist, so nothing will resonate with someone like you.
Where is Hitler? Where is president Lincoln? Where is wind? Where is the air? They are in history, they are is around! But you can not see! Why you ask where is God?
According to the Hindu Puranas, there are fourteen worlds in the universe - the seven upper and the seven lower. The seven upper worlds are Bhuh, Bhavah, Swah, Mahah, Janah. Tapah, and Satyam; and the seven nether worlds are Atala, Vitala, Sutala, Rasatala, Talatala, Mahatala, and Patala.
You will be astonished to that millions of years ago we hindu know the distance between Sun & Earth and, if You Read ( Hanuman Chalisa) it say Yug Sahastra Yojan Per Bhanu means the distance (According to the calculation presented in Hanuman Chalisa Distance between Sun and Earth = 12000 x 1000 yojanas = 96 million miles = 153.6 million kms, which is much closer to the calculation of the modern scientists.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness
We have either God created everything and left evidence in Writing about How and Why, or an inexplicable explosion that left nothing, but an excuse/reason for Not believing in God. A Genuine question, how many people who’re the greatest Critics of God, have actually read the Bible with an open mind & heart?
As per hindu mythology God Brahma Created Universes as ordered by God Vishnu, n Vaishnava literature, Vaikuntha is described as the highest realm above the fourteen lokas (worlds), and the place where the devotees of Vishnu go upon achieving liberation. It is guarded by the twin deities, Jaya and Vijaya, the dvarapalakas, or gatekeepers of Vaikuntha.
God exists Cause when everyone fails they ask for help and anyhelps comes in form of anything that is sent by the God for that moment. How All Planets rotates in exact manner without any support. In hindu Mythology in ( Hanuman Chalisa) wrote the distance between Sun and Earth
Dear friends it equals "A group of stones of different colors discussing whether human exists or not". We are not intelligent enough. Discussion is a good way to find answer but we will never the answer to this question. Human talks on human perception. Yes, I agree all the gods created by Human is somehow somewhat wrong 😂
There was a time when science (or atleast scientists) knew their place. The Arts; Philosophy and literature have become a joke and as a result, science has grown arrogant. I've seen this phenomena exacerbate in the halls of highschools, when students of science would portray themselves as superior to those of the Arts. The same stick that we use to measure the science is used to meausre Philosophy and literature. Philosophy and literature has been reduced to mere professors, and this in part is due to social media and technology. Why read books when i can listen to podcasts? Better yet, why read books when someone's already done that and i could just use their interpretation? This is how the ability to think critically gets reduced to mere professors and institutions.
Science can describe the physical forces and how they operate. We can uncover beautiful equations which describe how different processes work. But it can't ever tell us what is powering those processes to work in the first place. 1+1 = 2 we all know that, but someone has to literally do the work to add 1 and 1 to make 2. It doesn't happen by itself.
I think you're wrong: Numbers and mathematics have a separate existence which transcends physics. For example, are you saying that the number 2 doesn't exist if there's nobody around to add 1 + 1 together? Suppose if in this universe, in the very distant future when almost all matter has decayed, there is only one particle left. Does this mean that the number 2 and all larger numbers suddenly cease to exist? If that's true, how is it possible that today we can posit and prove the existence of enourmous numbers such as TREE(3) or Graham's number that have no possible physical manifestation in our universe?
I did not agree on this point. Becouse world is tuned so perfectly that we are exist today. How can't be possible that in this ∞ universe earth is finely tuned by itself and we exist today In this ∞ universe, there is some % might be possible universe itself tuned finely in one corner of the ∞ universe, that we are exist today You can't deny that in this ∞ universe.. there is a possibility in the ∞ combination one such combination can be tuned so perfectly that we are exist today. 0.00...∞..01 % can be possibility that why only humans exists.. or if there was small mismatch in tuning say 0.000...∞..01%. we would have also not existed. It's just permutations and combinations in this ∞ universe I think I am able to put my point properly
Psalms 14:1 (To the chief Musician, H5329 A Psalm of David.) H1732 The fool H5036 hath said H559 in his heart, H3820 There is no God. H430 They are corrupt, H7843 they have done abominable H8581 works, H5949 there is none that doeth H6213 good. H2896
All these arguments about the existence of God are all focused on the God presented in the bible which is a very flawed, very human, primitive idea of God by Moses in his Genesis story which of course become moot and useless arguments about a God that is not there except in the mind of Moses. Today's God can be found in " Conversations with God" on this same channel, as an audiobook "produced" by Neale Donald Walsch as "co-author" which has actually been in this same channel for quite a number of years, and have already reached and enjoyed by millions of viewer/ !isteners worldwide in all major languages. How these conversations started is a gem in itself cuz Neale was venting his angry, venemous, irreverent accusations at an unresponsive, invisible, imaginary(?) deity in the form of a letter addressed to the Almighty as his only form of release for his frustrations and actually got a response. Tune in on these conversations and get a big, delightful and liberating surprise!
Ain't is showing off too much? I mean she is reading from the paper but pretending as if she is talking live. Literally too much show off due to less preparation.
even if god did not exist, the idea of god is a belief, it doesn't have to be a fact to bring together millions and billions of people and lift their lives up as it provides an idea of support. at the core, only this firmness that "god" provides prevails
Yes. We see how belief in God brings people together. It brings the Christian Protestants together to fight against the Christian Catholics in Northern Ireland. It brought together the Christians in Nazi Germany to genocide the Jews. It brings the Jews together to fight against the Muslim who were brought together in their belief of their God. We have countless other examples of how even believing in the same undemonstrated God people having conflicts and wars with each other. Shouldn’t you demonstrate that the God You believe actual exists first before coming together?
Are all things creatures of market forces, though? And are cause and effect so clearly clear? Ask any ten physicists about cause and effect, and just try to get a single unqualified, comprehensive answer out of them.
@@declup I don’t believe everything is. However, I believe much of what occurs is a result of these forces, and people misappropriate outcomes to God rather than human agency.
Imagine someone on trial for something that they didn’t do. The person has demonstrable evidence that they are innocent. The person hires good counseling but they are worried. That’s because you are the judge jury and executioner. You have made it very clear that NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND the person is guilty. Well that’s you and your position when it comes to your God belief. Now imagine the reverse. Say you are on trial for something you didn’t do. Would you want someone that thinks like you judging you? Someone who already believes you are guilty and nothing will ever change their mind. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
@@SalemK-ty4tiimagine you're in a world where you must always tell the truth about what a person is, and you're a fat ugly cat lady who always smells a fish sticks. 🙃 Every ancient Society came up with a belief of God or gods, and kept those beliefs until Electric Refrigeration was a thing, The fallacies of fallacies is a thing, we humans are like every living thing, we were made to survive until we can make more of ourselves, our reality is a fallacy, we can only see a limited amount in the electromagnetic spectrum, we were not necessarily designed to know the truth! God is a social lubricant that science cannot replace... Undeniable rights don't work without the anchor of a higher power and I like my rights. 🗽
In particular, i said only that everything or every single thing in the creation is God Allah a part, if it stands in the kindness, that God Allah bless. if worst, it has own by demon, the forgetten, the thirsty... About science depends to God Allah, again, if its true kindness is a God Allah too if worst, it's a demon own... God doesn't depends to science but science is.... Be wise... His Words, written or not written, send by His prophets are the science... Law of Moses in Taurah, those are science... The gospel by Christ is the science too and the koran send to Mohammad is science too, good science... Voodoo and magic are the science too, told by the forgetten, the curse, the sad ever ending, the very very sad... 🌐🇬🇧❤️
Thank god i am not a student of Oxford. 😂😂😂😂 The most pathetic and disgusting debate. God is a delusion. Horrible. Over smart is really dangerous. Period.
not a very eloquent speaker, thought seemed all over the place and speech was incoherent, expected so much more, forcibly using "relatable" examples and constant erratic hand movements do not add quality to arguments at all unless well-analyzed
Maybe she didn't heard about the name of Srinivas Ramanujan indian mathematician . Until you don’t know how to make mobile phone then it’s created by nature 😂, but question come how create God ? Silence shows you path not this so society. 🙏💙
What is the most important endeavour of your life right now? So what is needed to make that happen? Then what are the significant forces that would drive these factors to bring your ambition into reality? What factors are not necessary and could be abandoned? Deduct them one by one. Keep deducting until you are left with one root cause to your succes as a human....left with one thing? That, ladies and gentleman, is your god, that is your theos, that is what you worship in your heart of hearts. Don't deny it, you know it's true. Everyone has a "god" even the atheist. Everyone has that peak force/material object that sits atop their pyramid of beliefs, a single factor thay think their life would collapse without. Everyone worships what is at the apex of their pyramid, there's no such thing as atheism.
they're all bollocks i bet. all you can ever do is show that things have a natural origin, you cannot show that god had a hand in making or designing anything, god, if he were real, has spent the last 2000 years preserving my free will by hiding - do people like meyers and tour think they can over ride god? what do they expect? "here is proof of god where's my nobel"? the BEST they can hope for is to look stupid. god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary). on my channel you can listen to my dull stories about guitars.
Only too late will the "atheists" learn that God is only discoverable by those who seek Him and those who call out to Him. This smug position of the wily skeptic who raises an eyebrow and looks into evidence only to discredit it will get them nowhere. And if theyre fine with that, well, so is God, and He has Pascals wager on His side. But it is getting very wearying to watch how they think that the fundamental relationships of this universe can be investigated and understood only through cold, detached logic. I shudder to think of what these "atheists" coo in the ears of their lovers.
If you truly believe in Pascal's Wager, then you must be worshipping over 3000 deities. Sounds exhausting. Seems like you have disbelief in 2999 gods, and we atheists have disbelief in just 1 more. Its not a stretch to add 1 more to the pantheon
@@ahellman21 Well, gee, theres an argument I havent heard at least a dozen times before from an "atheist". The multiplicity of gods is due to the predilection humans have to anthropomorphize things, not any basis in reality. There can only be one Creator. He doesnt need a committee. Stop and think about things once in a while and you may find you begin to understand.
Pascals wager prompts you to believe in the most punishing god, cause if it happens to be punished for your disbelief, it is your best option to avoid the harshest punishment if he happens to be real. Also one person here Alex O Connor has an theology degree and by own account prayed and wished god exists, to no avail. How much do you expect someone to search for god that he reveals himself tp someone? Surely he did more than the majority of believers tofind god and nothing. Of course you could say he lies, but so could I say you lie that you believe in god. You just want to feel morally superior and act as if god exists. So... to not act on bad faith, accept that god doesn't reveal himself to this poor soul who searched his life for god.
@@DundG The Wager does not prompt you to believe in the most punishing God, it would just be a better bet if that were the case. Consider this analogy: What is the result of a fetus that develops improperly in the womb? Is it punished to the extreme in this world? Or does it just face challenges and hardships that others dont? How severe its tests will be in this world depend on many things, but in any case we know it would be better for it to be fully prepared. Its not necessary for its tests to be in the extreme for it to be a better strategy. Likewise with Pascal. I am aware of Alex O'Connors account of his search for God. How much do I expect someone to search, you ask? Well its not up to me. But its an interesting question so Ill offer some thoughts. In the book The Seven Valleys, the Persian Prophet Baha'u'llah describes the nature of mans journey toward God. Regarding the first valley, The Valley of Search, He states, "The steed of this Valley is patience; without patience the wayfarer on this journey will reach nowhere and attain no goal. Nor should he ever be downhearted; if he strive for a hundred thousand years and yet fail to behold the beauty of the Friend, he should not falter." To our Western sensibilities, with our expectations of instant relief and overnight delivery, this seems absurd. But consider: if there is a Creator, He knows the reality of all things and therefore is the only one who can specify the rules that apply. In almost all scriptures, God has expressed a desire for relationship with His creatures. Since He is the constant one and He gave us free will, it stands to reason that it is we who should find our way to Him (there was a poster one could buy in the 1970s that said, "If you feel far from God, which one do you think moved?"). So it could be agreed that the search for God becomes the primary purpose of our entire existence. Is that how we conduct our lives? Or do we seek our comfort zone and hope God is in there somehow? Ive read many accounts of mystics who prayed and fasted for as much as forty days and nights in order to draw closer to Him. If that all seems too unfair to us, then perhaps it is because we really dont care whether we find Him, but we want to invoke Pascals Wager just in case. Im reminded of a friend who I once asked, "Have you found a job yet?" His father interjected, "No, but hes willing to accept any job offer from anyone who knocks on the front door!" In other words, how hard do we seek God? Where do we seek Him? Again we read in the Seven Valleys about Majnun, a man who seeks his beloved Layli. One day his friends found him sifting his hands through the sand. They asked, "What are you doing?" He said, "I seek for Layli." They cried, "Alas for thee! Layli is of pure spirit, yet thou seekest her in the dust?!" He responded, "I seek her everywhere, haply I may find her." Its highly unlikely to find God in places that dont reflect Him, like nightclubs, marinas, or golf courses. Its unlikely to find Him in pursuits that dont suggest His values, like backpacking, pubcrawling, or gaming. There are many activities and environments that are commonly known to be associated with spirituality and devotion (and no, I dont include synagogues, churches, or mosques). Service, volunteering, community work, relief work, the list is exhaustive. I would suggest that it is likelier you will find Him in those than in the others I mentioned earlier - but there are no absolutes here. We can also ask, why does one search for God? Curiosity? Desperation? Resignation? Skepticism? Or maybe just hoping that he wont find him so he can tell everyone he tried and God is just not there? I called out to HIm twice in my life. The first was through fear and anger. I imagined His response was to laugh at me and ignore me. Several years later, it was through a deep and honest realization that I was living a life devoid of purpose and was powerless and clueless to change it. The answer came in less than a day. Now I know that is entirely anecdotal and does not constitute testable evidence. But Im certain that how we ask and why we ask can certainly influence the efficacy or the response. Having said all that, you may say, yeah, I did all those things, but still didnt get an answer. So, you either accept what Baha'u'llah wrote and be patient, or you give up and go it alone. That does not, however, invalidate the possibility that these things are true, it only proves that you gave up trying. There is also this astonishing passage from another of Baha'u'llah's works, the Book of Certitude. "But, O my brother, when a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading to the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse and purify his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth." As for feeling morally superior, that is hardly the case. The moment I do that, I am guilty of judging you, and therefore become morally inferior. Besides, Baha'u'llah continues that last passage with this clear warning: "[The seeker] should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the celestial Concourse. And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul's ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire."
I Own Life personal (living) concerate House or home, Dry Grass Leaf House, plam Tree Dry Leaf House, Below I Own personal Life like Creative (money Currany English Language ,mony road Side Boards, hole planét
"Why are we still debating after all this time?"
She's a philosophy student and she's asking that question....
It's a rhetorical question.
@thomascromwell6840 OK. But nearly all questions are questions we've been debating for millenia.
What's the foundation of ethics? What's the foundation of knowledge? How do freedom and equality relate in the political realm? Which is more important? When does human life start? What is a human being etc etc.
Even modern questions are basically just rehashing these questions....we will be debating them till humanity dies out.
Imagine...being surprised that humans are still debating God, something that we cannot perceive directly with our senses and something that created the entirety of the Universe with complexity beyond our imagination. To say that the lack of a conclusion on an inquiry of this magnitude is evidence for delusion is asinine.
I expect speakers to use "beg the question" improperly on cable news. I do not expect that at Oxford Union.
In context, she was describing the "design argument" and how the argument itself is logically false. She did not point out that begging the question is one of the argument's logical fallacies, but I don't think she was improperly using it as much as she was constructing a "straw man". That is the mistake she's making in my opinion.
Science can only answer the "How" and not the "Why"
What if there is no why? What if we only ask why because we are desparate to find meaning?
Why?
Some questions don't deserve an answer though. Saying what's the point of life is the same as saying what's the point of ice melting? Under the right circumstances it just happens. Sorry there is no special meaning behind something that just happens. Humans have evolved so much over the last 200,000 years that we can ask questions about anything and expect a meaningful answer to every question. But some questions are just dumb. Like what's the point of two rocks slamming together making a sound? Or what's the point of some people being born deaf? Questions like this are pointless.
@@alinktotheblast40not, it is not just happiness.
Or use "that is" to target, not a multitude of pondering and contemplation.
2:43 Is it normative in competitive debate to stoop to gutter level ad hominem tactics?
Furthermore, by her own definition of delusion it would be the prerogative of her side to present evidence of God not existing, not merely of God being unnecessary to explain certain kinds of evidence. All her arguments could be granted and in no way deny the possibility of God which means you can't say there is a persistent delusion in the mind of every theist.
Also not sure how she is able to see the future in regards to how people will think or speak of this in a hundred years or so. If the speaker has this ability maybe the Hebrew Prophets did too?
The only argument she even mentioned against God's existence is the problem of evil/suffering, but the thesis here doesn't even stipulate whether God is loving or not. So would Chloe find belief in God not at all delusional if the theist says 'sure, God's a big meanie but he still exists'?
It's also not a deductive argument even if one is arguing for a good, loving God, as Plantinga has shown already.
There is typically one Oxford Union committee member on each side of the debate. These committee members are typically the first speakers in the debate and it is their job to introduce the speakers on the opposing side. It is tradition that they (jokingly) roast their Oxford Union committee counterpart on the opposing side. (In other words, the guy she roasted from the committee then went on to roast her as per tradition.)
@@TimDavies5 Ah, okay. The way she set it up with the Harvey Specter quote and so on made it sound like her own idea, but I did hear him do the same and I guess it makes sense even if I dislike the tradition.
The absolute mouth-breathing nature of demanding someone disprove a negative. Go look up the space teapot and understand your absurdity.
@@u4iadreams It seems you misunderstood or didn't read my comment. Please feel free to reread it and perhaps don't resort to ad hominem immediately in a comment where I critique someone else for doing the same, the irony is a bit rich.
@@zacdredge3859 Still breathing through the mouth? " it would be the prerogative of her side to present evidence of God not existing" is demanding disproving a negative. You, youtube commenter, cannot prove that there *isn't* a teapot orbiting the sun whereas I can *say* that there is one and it is the source of all divinity and you can't change my mind unless you can disprove this thing that hasn't been proven to be there.
Ad hominems are what morons deserve. The good news is that you can change this by not being one.
It was written in Hanuman Chalisa, “Yug Sahasra Yojana Par Bhanu, Leelyo taahi Madhura Phal jaanu”. It does mean that Hanuman has travelled a far distance such as Yug x Sahasra x Yojana to meet Bhanu, the sun thinking it to be a sweet fruit, Yug x Sahasra x Yojana = 12,000 x 1,000 x 8 miles = 96,000,000 miles. Where 1 mile = 1.6 Kilometers. 96,000,000 miles x 1.6 kilometers = 153,600,000 Kilometers to Sun. This is exactly the distance calculated by NASA to reach Sun from the Earth
yap yap yap hanuman chalisa wasnt the first one to calculate the distance between sun and earth
Isaac Newton's view of reality was a significant breakthrough to how the universe and gravity are perceived today. Newton did provide a mathematical representation for what gravity might do but he could not understand how it was caused. He discovered though, that there is thing between planets that affects their motion and it shares with how objects around us move also. Later Einstein General Relativity gives rise to spacetime which provides a better view of what gives rise to Gravity ==> the distortions in space-time caused by uneven distribution of mass and energy.
Newton did admit that he didn't know what caused gravity and this is what he actually said about the matter in his letter to Richard Bentley in 1693
' “You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider of it.”
In his series of replies to Richard Bentley this is what Newton concluded with. So please put some respect on Isaac Newton. He made tremendous contributions to Humanity and dismissing his viewpoints without the full context will mislead many viewers.
he descovered a therory... he didnt make it... he guessed and bumped around in the complexly created beautiful designed creation... AND SAID hey look an apple fell. SUPPOSE YOU take credit for painting the MONA LISA... yea sure some people will believe you... Then you announce that it willed itself into existence over millions of years to fabricate itself in copies like atheist do. some how nothing exploded in a big bang... and all of that energy scattered farts and dust and metals and lifeless things that said... in a million years i want to be an amoeba. DOESN'T THAT SOUND LIKE IT GOES AGAINST THE GUESS ABOUT SCIENCE that says looks like energy depletes and cant come from nothing. ATHEIST AND GOD DENIERS ARE SO STUPID THEY HAVE TO LITERALLY PRETEND TO BE INTELLIGENT AND WANT ATTENTION LIKE A SILLY Belligerent dingle berry that hangs on to an elephants but hair.
No one is dismissing gravity friend.
My takeaway is that if Newton was wrong, then Einstein is almost certainly wrong too.
And that relative to the infinite questions, Einstein and Newton are not significantly more intelligent than an earthworm. However, they are geniuses at making weapons.
The self-assigned job of scientists is (1) to build weapons and (2) hopefully to cure climate change (a problem created by technology) so climate extinction doesn't happen before we blow ourselves up with the tools of science or get extinguished by AI. That scientists can do.
But figure out the infinite universe? I think it's a delusion to believe science can answer such questions.
@@JM-us3frread what he is trying to say
Plenty of parents love their kids and provide good moral teaching and direction, but then their kids go and do dumb things, sometimes very evil and hurtful things, despite what their parents taught them. Similarly, God created us and loves us, and has given us rules to live by, but we still keep doing dumb, hurtful, and sometimes evil things. That’s why bad things keep happening even though we have a loving Creator.
If you ask my son to prove that I love him, he will be able to point to my words and my behavior toward him, but there is no science that will be able to prove my love. Ultimately, there is an element of trust. Similarly, we Christians have God’s word in the Bible and Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross as what we point to as evidence for His love. It’s not a blind faith, there is evidence. But yes, there is some element of trust in that evidence. Science can’t prove love for anything, but that doesn’t mean love isn’t real. If you’re looking for science to answer all of life’s big questions, you’re missing a lot.
well said.
There is no evidence that god exists, nor is there any evidence that god does not exist. Therefore, I'm an agnostic.
There is.
@@razoredge6130 Please, enlighten me.
@@gabrielwickander -Moral argument ( god justifies morality)
-Cosmological argument ( Everything has cause and god is the best explanation for the cause of the universe)
- Transcendental argument ( God justifies the Transcendental categories i.e morality, time)
Pick your poison
@@razoredge6130 people like meyers and tour look silly already, they can only look even sillyer when they show that life came about by natural means, by chance - as i said god doesn't allow evidence, you have to be one densest religist not to realise that.
If you claim to have *knowledge* of a god, then you are *Gnostic*
If you *believe* there is a god you're a *theist*
So it depends if you are answering a question about knowledge claim or a question about belief.
It has never been about religion. It has always been about government intervention into ideology. Nothing stops these people to put science as new religion.
And I am agnostic
Hope you watched rest of the parts of this debate . These argument that she made are based on superficial knowledge she has about the relegion she didn't know them that's why putting science ahead of all . I was laughing at her because I am a Hindu and our religion has described a lot of things about universe and god and creation of everything that most physicist found to be inspiring their work . So you can't put the argument that religion is against science or vice versa. The religion can be science that our ancestors discovered and we built onto it . Some wrong finding of past will be ruled of some finding of future will find its roots in past .
I think the Religion of Science is far more dangerous than any other religion. Science is already by far the most powerful institution in human society, yet seeks even more power: the cultural power of the Pope and the Ayatollah on top of the power of nuclear weapons, medicine, energy, and AI.
Please just cure cancer before I catch it, don't blow up Earth, and leave the spirit world to the Ayatollah.
You are agnostic what pronouns do you use 😂😂😂or have
Brilliant lady!
Those who love sin hate God n reality.
You would be surprised to discover that those who "love" God also love sin. There are rules and exceptions as always. You can only wonder who he really is, the one who claims to be in a certain way.
I sin less than most Christians. I guess I'm a righteous Atheist ⚛️
Different religions have different sins tho.
Invite SADHGURU and he would smash everyone through his ideas, intellect and experience!
He have more important work to do
No to attend this kind of bullshit
Exactly.
@@sudhakardubey6622 not the person who just started his sentence with "He have" telling us the oxford union debates are BS
Nah he wouldn't. These debaters are much more talented.
@@thepotatoman3252 they are talented to do no sense
Few thoughts on this speaker
1. Simply because she has a question on whether God does exist and some have had such questions and thoughts doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Her question on existence on God is not a proof that God doesn't exist. That's a huge mental flaw from philosophical thinker. Just because someone doubts the earth is spherical won't make the earth flat. Our thoughts don't define or have power to settle such a debate.
2. Evolution is a theory. It is not a model. We have not proved evolution. We have not seen something from basic life forms to something better. Furthermore we are talking of life forms when talking of evolution we are even yet to talk of galaxies and the planets and the solar system we currently occupy. And that still is based on theories. So calling God idea delusional is not only bias it is just being unscientific in the very highest sense. We have not enough evidence yet to back that up.
3. Religion is rational. Science is only rational on the things it can test. We start from an hypothesis and then come up with a theory and then test that theory using testable scientific laws. There are many unknown things in science for now and that won't make you call science irrational. Simply because we cannot answer exhaustively about a certain subject doesn't make that discipline irrational.
Religion tends to answer questions of purpose of living, where evil came from and whether there will be justice for all we see. It instills values and trust on higher being than ourselves. Maybe you can call it a theory. Religion is not against science and invention cause these inventions and discoveries we do won't solve the questions of who we are, where did evil come from and whether it will end, why do we die and so forth.
For your second point saying something is “just a theory” shows you misunderstand what theory in science means. If something is a thoery (and/or a law) that means there is mountains of evidence proving that thing exists, if there is some evidence provided for the contrary than the theory/law is modified or thrown out (the latter not happening to evolution yet of course). Secondly evolution doesn’t cover galaxies at all so i have no idea why you bring it up but since you have, the little we have directly observed about space is what we derive all the theories about it, in the cases where we haven’t it’s because there was some math issue (ie black holes). Thirdly, calling god a delusion isn’t unscientific nor is it scientific. God by his very nature is metaphysical so unless you can provide a sample of god or any sort of physical evidence to his existence a god can neither be proven nor disproven, the diestic god anyways. Lastly, to your last point fittingly, thats what philosophy is for, religion may be part of philosophy but it isn’t one in the same
On no. 2, Darwin's theory of evolution has been debunked by the Cambrian explosion of so many different species in one specific time frame which shatters his theory of one main species branching out into different species. What is evident is there is evolution within each species from simple to complex as it adapts to its environment. There is no jumping from one species to another which even Darwin doubted ever happened.
Uh, Rex, I'd say God is both metaphysical and physical because (He) is present in all his creation in these two types of existence which are not static and finished forms but are in continuous vibration in varying frequencies according to their created nature and purpose. Rocks and solid objects have the lowest vibration, plants and animals existing at slightly higher frequencies, and man as the highest frequency endowed with will and creative intelligence. Finally, all of God's creation is gifted with the innate drive to seek perfection as is possible within their own species and for man to be as Godlike as possible to be truly in God's image and likeness
as he was created to be. Get it?
Lol no. The basic tenet of Philosophy is proof of your argument. We didn't see the whole debate, just her opening, where she states her stance. God does not exist here unless her opponents actually proved otherwise. Failure to do so, is proof of the absence of god. "The burthen of proof always lies with the affirmative." If you fail to prove that "There is a god", there god doesn't exist. Extrapolate this to court, if the plaintiff fails to prove the truth of their claim against the defendant, the defendant is not guilty. Extend this even further to statistical analysis of results in scientific research, your hypothesis holds ONLY IF your p value is below 0.05. If it's not, the null hypothesis holds. i.e. Rats make methane. P>0.1 means: Rats don't make methane. This is a principle consistent in virtually all fields because then without proof all that remains is purely speculation.
2.(a) Your comment strikes me as you not being a scientist, or not being very well versed in Science, because there's a plethora of proof of evolution in action. The corona virus is a prime example, as is AMR, as is the Australian cane toad, as is Sickle Cell Anemia, as it Burkitt's Lymphoma in West Africa... I could go on and on and on forever because the examples are endless. Yes, evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. Because it carries with it scores of significant proof that remains reproducible and observable to date. A Hypothesis DOES NOT. Lastly, you seem to misunderstand what the theory of evolution means: it is not restricted to basic life forms to something better. That is NOT the theory of evolution. Evolution rests on two tenets: a) adaptation to outdo competitors, that results in better species aka. 'struggle of the fittest' and b) natural selection of organisms with the above quality. Evidence of examples of this is beyond the scope of this comment but books abound with them. Even humans are still evolving. Basic life forms do not prove or disprove evolution - they're merely where it started. The Miller-Urey experiment already proved this in 1952.
Evolution is a process of the natural selection of the fittest/best adapted. Which is what happened to basic life forms, the most adapted kept getting selected until today, which is still the principle living organisms STILL live by. Those who don't adapt, die, or get assimilated: like your cells assimilated mitochondria to provide energy for them. Klebsiella has adapted to be more resistant and lethal than any other bacteria, killing most(about 50-100% of) humans who contract it. People who were less adapted to fight coronavirus unfortunately succumbed to the disease, those who didn't developed immunity and we survive today. Natural selection of the fittest. That's the principle of evolution.
2(b) Calling belief in god Delusional is not unscientific. It's quite directly a projection of the very principle of the scientific method: "For a hypothesis to be proven correct, evidence of the contrary must cease to exist." Unless you can deliver unfalsifiable evidence of "god does exist," scientifically, her assertion is absolutely correct scientifically because there is no evidence of god's existence, (which constitutes proof of falsifiability, thus nullifying the hypothesis that god exists), and she explained why at length. All arguments put forward have been debunked by philosophers already, and no new theory has come up to verify the affirmative (God exists.) Without that, an assertion/hypothesis follows Freud into the field of pseudoscience because it's just based on Confirmation Bias. Karl Popper clearly distinguished the two with the requirement for falsifiability. Which "God exists." fails to hold up to because there's overwhelming falsifying evidence of that affirmative. To prove that, there needs to be no evidence of falsifiability. ie. No chance that god doesn't exist. (Which is why before declaring his theory correct, Einstein waited almost 5 years for a full moon before establishing the factuality of his Theory of Relativity. He was looking for falsifiability of the theory, which was absent, effectively verifying his theory. Sigmund Freud on the other hand was Deluded, performing psychoanalysis even on people whose symptoms it worsened despite clear evidence, which is exactly what the lady defines Delusion as, believeing something false even in the presence of evidence of the contrary. Believing in God is the other side of the Sigmund Freud coin of delusion, in that case. Unless you're able to prove it's unfalsifiability.
3.(a) This statement is incorrect. You seem to conflate two very distinct concepts:
1. Science (which is a discipline based on the theory if falsifiability ) and scientific hypotheses (which are unproven ideas subject to pertinent experiment)
2. Theory and Hypothesis(Again as above): A Theory is supported and substatiated by evidence, while a Hypothesis has NOT been tested and is netiher true nor false.
Science cannot be irrational. That is assured by its reliance of falsifiability which is impossible to discredit, because how else would you prove something beyond any doubt without using the scientific method? I'm interested in hearing an answer that discredits this.
3(b) SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES on the other hand, can be falsifiable and irrational (though rarely, unless they're formulated by people with insufficient knowledge on the subject,) and that's the purpose of the scientific method. It weeds out all irrational and falsifiable hypotheses, impartially. Ways to verify the credibility of a theory based on falsifiability exist in spades, and a hypothesis can RARELY fly under the radar unless in a case of deliberate tampering of results. In which case, that has everything to do with the moral compass of those involved and zero to do with science. Because when science gets involved, it will still uncover the falsehoods. Elizabeth Bik has made this her life's work, and has led to Scientific Journals retracting over 1000 articles for falsehoods simply by scrutinising them with the Scientific Method. It is impartial.
3(c) Unfortunately, rationality is proven by evidence. Faith is inherently irrational because it is belief in something despite evidence of the contrary. The bible itself repeates this countless times particularly in the new testament. By this token, religion is inherently irrational, and you can see the proof of this with the advancement of time and sciencific knowledge inversely correlating with religion. The more science advances, the lesser the followers of religion. As Bertrand Russel predicted, "Religion is something left of the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away with the advancement of reason and science." Current global statistical trends on Religion couldn't reflect that more.
3(d) Many schools of Philosophy do the same thing, starting with Existentialism. And they do that much better, without the attendant evils religions bring in their train. Morality is not contingent on Religion. Ayn Rand, has written extensively on this, as have many Philosophers. Discussing this is beyond the scope of this comment.
Lastly, Religion is NOT a theory as it has no substantiating evidence for it's claims. It could only be considered a constellation of hypotheses at best, because it does nothing but build stories about the possibilities of what we currently don't know. Every religion has its own hypotheses. None are testable. None are provable. Some are a bit similar. Most are babrbaric. So in essencez religion is intrinsically Irrational. It is simply man's attempt to explain what's currently unknown by making up hypotheses. The lady explained that perfectly with Newton's example. The more Science finds answers to things, the lesser following religion maintains. People thought schizophrenia was a demonic possession. We know it's not. The Aztecs thought the sun was powered by human blood and sacrificed scores of people, we know that's not true. The examples are endless... But the facts remain.
@@rexregum2793thank you! A theory and a hypothesis are two very different things, and for something to be considered a theory it must be backed by scores of evidence. Unlike a hypothesis which is just a hunch.🫂
'Filling knowledge gaps with using gods' was a good arguements , let hear forward what speakers in queue have to say.
Why is noal harari has not been invited ,his description of how God and religion came into place could've been a very good insight to this debate
Intelligent gays are not allowed 😂😂
Science relies on the faith that the future will behave like the past. Where does this faith come from for athiests?
I would say science gambles that the future will behave like the past.
They discussed about their faith in club nights and their meeting happen in German fetish club 😂
Is This is what we get from Oxford?
As a fifteen-year-old, I can easily identify the issues and mistakes the lady has made in the past 10 minutes. (that's how bad her argument was).To be fair, she doesn’t even consider the opposition’s position or their argument fully. If I were there, I could easily refute her arguments using simple philosophy and common sense.
Incredible.. otherworldly!!
I would love to attend one of these debates
Starting out the debate with a series of cheeky ad hominems was a poor choice, and I’m surprised to see it take place so unapologetically in a forum as esteemed as Oxford
Its a tradition 😊
The most irrelevant things always became tradition 😂
Oxford should remove the motto . They are not worth it
Ah yes. Intelligent design, fine tuning, New Testament historicity, consciousness, mathematics, objective morality, the genesis of life, and even evolution do not count as “rational evidence” for God. This lady has used the most recycled arguments and wasted her opportunity to say something meaningful.
What example of meaningfulness do you have in mind?
@@declup i'm an artist, i have plenty of meaning in my world, if god inspires my art then he has robbed me of meaning, he doesn't need me he might as well do the art himself - if you pray your team wins and they win, the team is redundant, and it's cheating. there is no god.
@@HarryNicNicholasI think you’re looking at it as a complete black and white. Let’s take the teams example, if we pray our team wins and it wins, it simply means that god allowed/ catalysed the conditions for our players to perform a at their best. It doesn’t take anything away from you nor god. Similarly as an artist, god created the situation for inspiration, not the inspiration itself.
God provides us with the capability, the action remains ours.
Let me ask you a benchmark question that is a good separator for which theists have the critical-thinking capacity to meaningfully engage with:
Given that the universe exists as the way it is, the likelihood that the universe exists as the way it is is:
A. 0.00000001%
B. 0.000000000000001%
C. 100%
Another one:
Given we only have a sample set of 1 universe to observe, the probability of any other universe forming a different way is:
A. 0.1234566789%
B. 0.987654321%
C. Un-calculable/undefined
D. 0%
There is plenty of evidence that God exists (fine tuning, first cause, origin of life, objective morality, contingency, religious experiences, supposed resurrection of Jesus). There is also plenty of evidence that God does not exist (existence of suffering and evil, divine hiddenness, etc). What there is NOT is proof.
But we don't base our lives solely on things we can prove. It is arrogant and naive to think otherwise. We base our lives on the metaphysical, historical and scientific assumptions which we hold to and the things which present themselves to us as being manifestly true.
For me, I consider the evidence for God to outweigh the evidence against God (at an intellectual level), but far more importantly is my subjective perception that theism (and Christianity in particular) makes sense of the world we live in far more than any other worldview I've come across. To me, Jesus presents himself to me in a way that is self-authenticating and manifestly true, and which touches all the big questions which human beings have to wrestle with to survive and to thrive.
you're another dope eh? god HIMSELF doen't leve evidence, MY free will is paramount, you should know that, these guys like meyers and tour making up crap to "prove god exists" are going to look even dumber than they already do when once again it turns out life came about by natural means - you CANNOT have any evidence of god - god DOESN'T ALLOW IT.
if god needs to turn the dials to be fine tuned for life, whose laws of physics is he using? god should be able to make life out of bubble gum, and saying the chances of life are so remote that god needs to intervene is just saying god wanted humans but was more likely to FAIL to produce then, god's odd should 1:1 not bzillions to one against. jeez, what college are you at?
the list is not evidence of god, it's a list that you can only say "i don't know" to. even scientists aren't that arrogant.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the phrases "self-authenticating" and "manifestly true". I don't think I've ever personally encountered anything I'd describe that way myself. But maybe that's because the two phrases, for you, mean something other than "undoubtable". Is that the case? Would you mind trying to explain a bit more your interpretation of the phrases?
None of these are evidence. Evidence can’t be legit if they use logical fallacies. And each of these arguments use either argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance, or ad populum, expertise fallacy, etc. The best position to hold about God is simple, you don’t know, because no one knows.
She's correct to critique the false philosophical chain of "it seems like the universe is finely tuned, therefore God exists." However, this is not the strongest form of the fine tuner argument. The strongest form can be made more properly by saying, "it seems like the universe is finely tuned, therefore there is probably an intelligent designer, therefore God probably exists." The "probably" is the important qualifier, and this is what makes the argument inductive, as she correctly states. However, the inductive nature of the argument is no reason to discount it beyond consideration, for is it not inductive arguments that are used to settle trials in courts the world over in aims to arrive at the truth?
You have to prove that it's finely tuned and then you have to prove intent and then you have to calculate a creators probability. None of those have been done and will not be done until there is enough evidence.
Imagine the universe is a horse. It is finely tuned to exist and not explode. Can we truly say it had a creator? Did someone finely tune the horse's genetics? Do we have evidence of intent simply from the existence of a horse?
The fine tuning argument is a very human and subjective notion that places value and intent upon the universe without evidence of either.
Proof for fine tuning?
I think there is actually proof for unintelligent/inefficient tuning in the human body.
I did not agree on this point. Becouse world is tuned so perfectly that we are exist today.
How can't be possible that in this ∞ universe earth is finely tuned by itself and we exist today
In this ∞ universe, there is some % might be possible universe itself tuned finely in one corner of the ∞ universe, that we are exist today
You can't deny that in this ∞ universe.. there is a possibility in the ∞ combination one such combination can be tuned so perfectly that we are exist today. 0.00...∞..01 % can be possibility that why only humans exists.. or if there was small mismatch in tuning say 0.000...∞..01%. we would have also not existed.
It's just permutations and combinations in this ∞ universe
I think I am able to put my point properly
@@chetanhabeeb5996 Why do you equate existence of humans with fine tuning?
Hubris?
@@hieroprotoganist3440 I did not say anything about humans, specifically, in my comment. Therefore, the critique fails.
In the beginning, Man created God in his own images and likeness.
Correct now man decided he doesn’t need good 😂
Debate over problem solved 😂
Its pure arrogance to believe we know everything.
Well dressed does not mean well read!
And smugness doesn't mean knowledge. Say why she's wrong instead of just saying she's wrong.
Just because the existence of God is being debated for over a "long" period of time with no definite conclusion being reached does not mean that God does not exist. The timeframe in which a topic is being debated over is irrelevant to the truth concerning the topic.
Fourteen lokas. In the Puranas and in the Atharvaveda, there are 14 worlds, seven higher ones (Vyahrtis) and seven lower ones (Pātālas), viz. bhu, bhuvas, svar, mahas
As per hindu Mythology, Svarga loka 'heaven' also known as Indra loka and swaloka is ruled by the king of devatas 'gods', Indra. According to the Vishnu Purana, the distance between earth and heaven is hundred thousand yojana that is equivalent to 8 hundred thousand kilometers.
A soul is a soul. Incredible thing Science is...... is what science is. You really need both. Like a fridge and a washing machine. Jacket and pants. They don't really conflict.
can you tell me what the heck a soul does? cos it seems to me it's just a non existent copy of a brain invented to explain how we get to heaven while our body doesn't move. no one seems to know what a soul is, what it does and certainly you can;t explain how it works - cos it's imaginary.
I'm curious. In your analogy, which is the soul and which is science -- the fridge or the washing machine?
-- Edit --
:)
@@declup you really just want to hear your own voice? Nothing real to say?
@@georgearavos2914 -- I only intended a bit of playfulness, George. Your analogy makes sense; but you do compare science and souls (or their relation anyway) to fridges and washing machines. And the notion that my soul might be a washing machine is a pretty amusing one. But pointing out the silliness of an interpretation of your point isn't a critique. Or, at least, I didn't mean it that way. That's why I added the smiley emoticon.
@declup ps [(it makes no difference which is the washing machine etc)whispered assertively]
We are the gods which make our earth like heaven or hell whichever ones likes
All science is, is the study of the natural world, we could know everything about the natural world and it still wouldnt take away from the almost certain chance that God exists. The fact that the world is rational and we can study it, as Albert Einstein said, the most imcomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.
can you tell me hat god actually does, cos as far as i'm aware god doen't work in space travel, energy production, he's not needed to get your car going, or to fly your aeroplanes, he's not even in a manual for a cooker or a microwave oven - tell me what does god actually do? and he can only heal one person a t a time - jesus healed a leper - humans cured leprosy, and polio, and measles, chicken pox, smallpox, hepatitis and on and on. god is crap even when he's healing folks.
If we were to arrive at a full and complete understanding of the natural world and yet it's origin or nature remained inexplicable, *then* you'd be in a position to *begin* talking about God in a serious way. Up until that point you're just hedging your bets based on cultural conditioning and ignorance, which doesn't tell you anything about anything.
Science may "just" be the study of the natural world, but don't forget God is "just" a story we've been telling ourselves. There's nothing to suggest that it manifests in any way beyond that realm. We have no idea whether the natural world is self contained, cyclical, ever lasting etc or not and so you have zero grounds to make the ludicrous claim that there's an "almost certain chance" that God exists.
We evolved an ability to comprehend the world on scales relative to us because it imparted a survival advantage, but it seems apparent that the farther we pass beyond that scale the more counter intuitive nature seems to become and so perhaps it's not ultimately intelligible...we just don't know yet. Either way, you can't leverage comprehensibility to infer God.
By no means certain that a god exists. I don't understand, because you think the world is rational that means there must be a god? If evolution has endowed us with the ability to be rational, one can assume it is useful for survival, or it's at the very least a by-product of some other facet of the brain, where there is a more direct evolutionary benefit.
@@PianoDentist That is just one of the reason I am certain God exists, God is the best explanation why there is something rather than nothing, why we live in orderly world governed by mathetical laws, the precision with which the universe exists, the existence, consciousness, rationality, the intrinsic moral worth of human beings, the existence of moral duties and obligations, the fact everything cant be contingent, and the fact we cant have infinite series of past causes which means there is a first cause. These all lead me to be certain God exists. Many people run from God, because its hard to humble ourselves and realize there is something greater than us. Also I dont believe evolution is true like you, I agree with David Berlinski that evolution is false. If you have seen the odds of the human genome forming, the odds are beyond impossible. I know i am talking to an atheist, so nothing will resonate with someone like you.
@@gsp3428 Only sound reasoning will resonate with me, even if the conclusions jar with me. You have not demonstrated that in your post.
Not a single original thought
And not a single reasonable counterargument to those cliche thoughts.
Where is Hitler? Where is president Lincoln? Where is wind? Where is the air? They are in history, they are is around! But you can not see! Why you ask where is God?
Bro why she gotta burn him like that 😭
who god?
Because of him she can’t go to club 😂
According to the Hindu Puranas, there are fourteen worlds in the universe - the seven upper and the seven lower. The seven upper worlds are Bhuh, Bhavah, Swah, Mahah, Janah. Tapah, and Satyam; and the seven nether worlds are Atala, Vitala, Sutala, Rasatala, Talatala, Mahatala, and Patala.
The reason poor people don't have a God is because they would remove that God should it exist and take it seat.
Bro you're barely literate, I don't think this video is for you. Didn't understand a thing you wrote/speech to text
cry
Not when the science is not only not good science, it's not even scientific 🧐🚫🔬
You will be astonished to that millions of years ago we hindu know the distance between Sun & Earth and, if You Read ( Hanuman Chalisa) it say Yug Sahastra Yojan Per Bhanu means the distance (According to the calculation presented in Hanuman Chalisa
Distance between Sun and Earth = 12000 x 1000 yojanas = 96 million miles = 153.6 million kms, which is much closer to the calculation of the modern scientists.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness
So... it's gods fault for us to be a pain in your ass 😂
Have mercy of them Lord!
LMAO, next!
lol, my money is on satan, he's a much nicer fellow than god. and god is losing, pew polls and gallup - bye bye god.
Only ten mins??? What was she trying to accomplish here? Does this speaker have long full debates?
She can’t because she have to go club a that’s why she is in hurry😂
When too smart goes wrong 😑
God is not evil for allowing evil, humans are evil because of the devil. “God doesn’t make the world this way, we do” -Rorschach
Planet Peterson should be here debating
i am still alive. Do i not?
- God protects mi
We have either God created everything and left evidence in Writing about How and Why, or an inexplicable explosion that left nothing, but an excuse/reason for Not believing in God. A Genuine question, how many people who’re the greatest Critics of God, have actually read the Bible with an open mind & heart?
Digging in Your Heart Get All Answers Easily
As per hindu mythology God Brahma Created Universes as ordered by God Vishnu, n Vaishnava literature, Vaikuntha is described as the highest realm above the fourteen lokas (worlds), and the place where the devotees of Vishnu go upon achieving liberation. It is guarded by the twin deities, Jaya and Vijaya, the dvarapalakas, or gatekeepers of Vaikuntha.
The fact is God Is
Here arguments are poor, any person can destroy here. There cannot be any designer because this universe is so imperfect.
I've just realised that philosophy, just like comedy, does make me laugh. An act of five minutes was enough to prove the non-existence of God.
God exists Cause when everyone fails they ask for help and anyhelps comes in form of anything that is sent by the God for that moment. How All Planets rotates in exact manner without any support. In hindu Mythology in ( Hanuman Chalisa) wrote the distance between Sun and Earth
Animated. The voice and the gesticulations.
"since the beginning of time"
Namaste 🙏🙏🙏
The biggest issue some believe in a Super being or beings some don't. I choose to.
Dear friends it equals "A group of stones of different colors discussing whether human exists or not". We are not intelligent enough. Discussion is a good way to find answer but we will never the answer to this question. Human talks on human perception. Yes, I agree all the gods created by Human is somehow somewhat wrong 😂
God can be replaced by science.
First let science decide place of hydrogen then decide to take place of god
An existence of a elemental anomaly does not mean that God does exist.
Her voice😮
There was a time when science (or atleast scientists) knew their place. The Arts; Philosophy and literature have become a joke and as a result, science has grown arrogant. I've seen this phenomena exacerbate in the halls of highschools, when students of science would portray themselves as superior to those of the Arts. The same stick that we use to measure the science is used to meausre Philosophy and literature. Philosophy and literature has been reduced to mere professors, and this in part is due to social media and technology. Why read books when i can listen to podcasts? Better yet, why read books when someone's already done that and i could just use their interpretation? This is how the ability to think critically gets reduced to mere professors and institutions.
She's gorgeous 😍🥰
Science can describe the physical forces and how they operate. We can uncover beautiful equations which describe how different processes work. But it can't ever tell us what is powering those processes to work in the first place. 1+1 = 2 we all know that, but someone has to literally do the work to add 1 and 1 to make 2. It doesn't happen by itself.
I think you're wrong: Numbers and mathematics have a separate existence which transcends physics.
For example, are you saying that the number 2 doesn't exist if there's nobody around to add 1 + 1 together? Suppose if in this universe, in the very distant future when almost all matter has decayed, there is only one particle left. Does this mean that the number 2 and all larger numbers suddenly cease to exist?
If that's true, how is it possible that today we can posit and prove the existence of enourmous numbers such as TREE(3) or Graham's number that have no possible physical manifestation in our universe?
This is so embarrassing
I like Chloe's chic bathrobe.
Me to broo
Underneath her bathroom she wear party suit because she getting late to attend the club 😂
No arguments will ever change the fact that their is GOD people think they are so smart lol makes me laugh and sad
I did not agree on this point. Becouse world is tuned so perfectly that we are exist today.
How can't be possible that in this ∞ universe earth is finely tuned by itself and we exist today
In this ∞ universe, there is some % might be possible universe itself tuned finely in one corner of the ∞ universe, that we are exist today
You can't deny that in this ∞ universe.. there is a possibility in the ∞ combination one such combination can be tuned so perfectly that we are exist today. 0.00...∞..01 % can be possibility that why only humans exists.. or if there was small mismatch in tuning say 0.000...∞..01%. we would have also not existed.
It's just permutations and combinations in this ∞ universe
I think I am able to put my point properly
Psalms 14:1 (To the chief Musician, H5329 A Psalm of David.) H1732 The fool H5036 hath said H559 in his heart, H3820 There is no God. H430 They are corrupt, H7843 they have done abominable H8581 works, H5949 there is none that doeth H6213 good. H2896
I wonder if her freewill to choose which side of the debate she opt'd for 🤦♂️
All these arguments about the existence of God are all focused on the God presented in the bible which is a very flawed, very human, primitive idea of God by Moses in his Genesis story which of course become moot and useless arguments about a God that is not there except in the mind of Moses. Today's God can be found in " Conversations with God" on this same channel, as an audiobook "produced" by Neale Donald Walsch as "co-author"
which has actually been in this same channel for quite a number of years, and have already reached and enjoyed by millions of viewer/ !isteners worldwide in all major languages. How these conversations started is a gem in itself cuz Neale was venting his angry, venemous, irreverent accusations at an unresponsive, invisible, imaginary(?) deity in the form of a letter addressed to the Almighty as his only form of release for his frustrations and actually got a response. Tune in on these conversations and get a big, delightful and liberating surprise!
How Many Days Live = If Sun Remove From Solar Planets?
You guys should have had sadhguru on the debate
Ain't is showing off too much? I mean she is reading from the paper but pretending as if she is talking live. Literally too much show off due to less preparation.
Who in you is taking ?
even if god did not exist, the idea of god is a belief, it doesn't have to be a fact to bring together millions and billions of people and lift their lives up as it provides an idea of support. at the core, only this firmness that "god" provides prevails
Yes. We see how belief in God brings people together.
It brings the Christian Protestants together to fight against the Christian Catholics in Northern Ireland. It brought together the Christians in Nazi Germany to genocide the Jews. It brings the Jews together to fight against the Muslim who were brought together in their belief of their God.
We have countless other examples of how even believing in the same undemonstrated God people having conflicts and wars with each other. Shouldn’t you demonstrate that the God You believe actual exists first before coming together?
1 Point - God Believers Being Good Human
If not Believe Equal Value Like A Animal
Replace the idea of God with Capitalism/Market forces, people find all sorts of ways to mystify what clearly are human cause and effect.
Are all things creatures of market forces, though? And are cause and effect so clearly clear? Ask any ten physicists about cause and effect, and just try to get a single unqualified, comprehensive answer out of them.
@@declup I don’t believe everything is. However, I believe much of what occurs is a result of these forces, and people misappropriate outcomes to God rather than human agency.
Wasn't Darwin himself religious?
God is a belief of something more then us ! Something we can strive to be like ! I would be a believer no matter what you all say. !
Imagine someone on trial for something that they didn’t do. The person has demonstrable evidence that they are innocent. The person hires good counseling but they are worried. That’s because you are the judge jury and executioner. You have made it very clear that NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND the person is guilty. Well that’s you and your position when it comes to your God belief.
Now imagine the reverse. Say you are on trial for something you didn’t do. Would you want someone that thinks like you judging you? Someone who already believes you are guilty and nothing will ever change their mind. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
@@SalemK-ty4tiimagine you're in a world where you must always tell the truth about what a person is, and you're a fat ugly cat lady who always smells a fish sticks. 🙃
Every ancient Society came up with a belief of God or gods, and kept those beliefs until Electric Refrigeration was a thing,
The fallacies of fallacies is a thing, we humans are like every living thing, we were made to survive until we can make more of ourselves, our reality is a fallacy, we can only see a limited amount in the electromagnetic spectrum, we were not necessarily designed to know the truth! God is a social lubricant that science cannot replace...
Undeniable rights don't work without the anchor of a higher power and I like my rights. 🗽
Haha okay keep on with you religious fairy tales
@@bengeurden1272 I think you meant this for someone else. I don’t believe any gods exist.
@SalemK-ty4ti it was a reply to the other poster
In particular, i said only that everything or every single thing in the creation is God Allah a part, if it stands in the kindness, that God Allah bless. if worst, it has own by demon, the forgetten, the thirsty... About science depends to God Allah, again, if its true kindness is a God Allah too if worst, it's a demon own... God doesn't depends to science but science is.... Be wise... His Words, written or not written, send by His prophets are the science... Law of Moses in Taurah, those are science... The gospel by Christ is the science too and the koran send to Mohammad is science too, good science... Voodoo and magic are the science too, told by the forgetten, the curse, the sad ever ending, the very very sad... 🌐🇬🇧❤️
Her pause the sound in every second is so irritating
Oxford ! We don’t give a damm about your debates.Handle your own country so called Great Britain nothing great left in it.
Thank god i am not a student of Oxford. 😂😂😂😂 The most pathetic and disgusting debate. God is a delusion. Horrible. Over smart is really dangerous. Period.
not a very eloquent speaker, thought seemed all over the place and speech was incoherent, expected so much more, forcibly using "relatable" examples and constant erratic hand movements do not add quality to arguments at all unless well-analyzed
Maybe she didn't heard about the name of Srinivas Ramanujan indian mathematician . Until you don’t know how to make mobile phone then it’s created by nature 😂, but question come how create God ? Silence shows you path not this so society. 🙏💙
She looks like bit high 🎉🎉🎉
Nice try but we all know that you pray in secret.
What is the most important endeavour of your life right now?
So what is needed to make that happen?
Then what are the significant forces that would drive these factors to bring your ambition into reality?
What factors are not necessary and could be abandoned? Deduct them one by one.
Keep deducting until you are left with one root cause to your succes as a human....left with one thing?
That, ladies and gentleman, is your god, that is your theos, that is what you worship in your heart of hearts. Don't deny it, you know it's true.
Everyone has a "god" even the atheist. Everyone has that peak force/material object that sits atop their pyramid of beliefs, a single factor thay think their life would collapse without. Everyone worships what is at the apex of their pyramid, there's no such thing as atheism.
👎🏻
On my channel you'll find The Four Best Arguments For God's Existence - The Answers We Get When We Take The Matter Seriously
they're all bollocks i bet. all you can ever do is show that things have a natural origin, you cannot show that god
had a hand in making or designing anything, god, if he were real, has spent the last
2000 years preserving my free will by hiding - do people like meyers and tour think they can over ride god?
what do they expect? "here is proof of god where's my nobel"? the BEST they can hope
for is to look stupid.
god is hidden, he won't let you find him. it's HIS rules sillies. (and he's mainly imaginary).
on my channel you can listen to my dull stories about guitars.
All these arguments have been debunked hundreds of times, she's being incredibly hypocritical. She wants to be cosmic skeptic so bad lol
Only too late will the "atheists" learn that God is only discoverable by those who seek Him and those who call out to Him. This smug position of the wily skeptic who raises an eyebrow and looks into evidence only to discredit it will get them nowhere. And if theyre fine with that, well, so is God, and He has Pascals wager on His side. But it is getting very wearying to watch how they think that the fundamental relationships of this universe can be investigated and understood only through cold, detached logic. I shudder to think of what these "atheists" coo in the ears of their lovers.
If you truly believe in Pascal's Wager, then you must be worshipping over 3000 deities. Sounds exhausting.
Seems like you have disbelief in 2999 gods, and we atheists have disbelief in just 1 more. Its not a stretch to add 1 more to the pantheon
@@ahellman21 Well, gee, theres an argument I havent heard at least a dozen times before from an "atheist". The multiplicity of gods is due to the predilection humans have to anthropomorphize things, not any basis in reality. There can only be one Creator. He doesnt need a committee. Stop and think about things once in a while and you may find you begin to understand.
Pascals wager prompts you to believe in the most punishing god, cause if it happens to be punished for your disbelief, it is your best option to avoid the harshest punishment if he happens to be real.
Also one person here Alex O Connor has an theology degree and by own account prayed and wished god exists, to no avail. How much do you expect someone to search for god that he reveals himself tp someone? Surely he did more than the majority of believers tofind god and nothing.
Of course you could say he lies, but so could I say you lie that you believe in god. You just want to feel morally superior and act as if god exists. So... to not act on bad faith, accept that god doesn't reveal himself to this poor soul who searched his life for god.
@@DundG The Wager does not prompt you to believe in the most punishing God, it would just be a better bet if that were the case. Consider this analogy: What is the result of a fetus that develops improperly in the womb? Is it punished to the extreme in this world? Or does it just face challenges and hardships that others dont? How severe its tests will be in this world depend on many things, but in any case we know it would be better for it to be fully prepared. Its not necessary for its tests to be in the extreme for it to be a better strategy. Likewise with Pascal.
I am aware of Alex O'Connors account of his search for God. How much do I expect someone to search, you ask? Well its not up to me. But its an interesting question so Ill offer some thoughts. In the book The Seven Valleys, the Persian Prophet Baha'u'llah describes the nature of mans journey toward God. Regarding the first valley, The Valley of Search, He states, "The steed of this Valley is patience; without patience the wayfarer on this journey will reach nowhere and attain no goal. Nor should he ever be downhearted; if he strive for a hundred thousand years and yet fail to behold the beauty of the Friend, he should not falter." To our Western sensibilities, with our expectations of instant relief and overnight delivery, this seems absurd. But consider: if there is a Creator, He knows the reality of all things and therefore is the only one who can specify the rules that apply. In almost all scriptures, God has expressed a desire for relationship with His creatures. Since He is the constant one and He gave us free will, it stands to reason that it is we who should find our way to Him (there was a poster one could buy in the 1970s that said, "If you feel far from God, which one do you think moved?"). So it could be agreed that the search for God becomes the primary purpose of our entire existence. Is that how we conduct our lives? Or do we seek our comfort zone and hope God is in there somehow? Ive read many accounts of mystics who prayed and fasted for as much as forty days and nights in order to draw closer to Him. If that all seems too unfair to us, then perhaps it is because we really dont care whether we find Him, but we want to invoke Pascals Wager just in case.
Im reminded of a friend who I once asked, "Have you found a job yet?" His father interjected, "No, but hes willing to accept any job offer from anyone who knocks on the front door!" In other words, how hard do we seek God? Where do we seek Him? Again we read in the Seven Valleys about Majnun, a man who seeks his beloved Layli. One day his friends found him sifting his hands through the sand. They asked, "What are you doing?" He said, "I seek for Layli." They cried, "Alas for thee! Layli is of pure spirit, yet thou seekest her in the dust?!" He responded, "I seek her everywhere, haply I may find her." Its highly unlikely to find God in places that dont reflect Him, like nightclubs, marinas, or golf courses. Its unlikely to find Him in pursuits that dont suggest His values, like backpacking, pubcrawling, or gaming. There are many activities and environments that are commonly known to be associated with spirituality and devotion (and no, I dont include synagogues, churches, or mosques). Service, volunteering, community work, relief work, the list is exhaustive. I would suggest that it is likelier you will find Him in those than in the others I mentioned earlier - but there are no absolutes here.
We can also ask, why does one search for God? Curiosity? Desperation? Resignation? Skepticism? Or maybe just hoping that he wont find him so he can tell everyone he tried and God is just not there? I called out to HIm twice in my life. The first was through fear and anger. I imagined His response was to laugh at me and ignore me. Several years later, it was through a deep and honest realization that I was living a life devoid of purpose and was powerless and clueless to change it. The answer came in less than a day. Now I know that is entirely anecdotal and does not constitute testable evidence. But Im certain that how we ask and why we ask can certainly influence the efficacy or the response. Having said all that, you may say, yeah, I did all those things, but still didnt get an answer. So, you either accept what Baha'u'llah wrote and be patient, or you give up and go it alone. That does not, however, invalidate the possibility that these things are true, it only proves that you gave up trying.
There is also this astonishing passage from another of Baha'u'llah's works, the Book of Certitude. "But, O my brother, when a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading to the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse and purify his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth."
As for feeling morally superior, that is hardly the case. The moment I do that, I am guilty of judging you, and therefore become morally inferior. Besides, Baha'u'llah continues that last passage with this clear warning: "[The seeker] should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the celestial Concourse. And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul's ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire."
Kiddies
Lol what.
Come to india for evidence especially himachal or uttrakhand 🫶
I Own Life personal (living) concerate House or home, Dry Grass Leaf House, plam Tree Dry Leaf House,
Below
I Own personal Life like Creative (money Currany English Language ,mony road Side Boards, hole planét
God of the Gaps but scientists like to use Science of the Gaps in the same way! They cancel out.