Father George Coyne Interview (4/7) - Richard Dawkins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- This is the full uncut interview with Father George Coyne which was omitted from Richard Dawkins' television program "The Genius of Charles Darwin" for Channel 4 in the UK. See more videos like this at richarddawkins.net - We will be releasing many more uncut interviews from "The Genius of Charles Darwin" on DVD soon through RichardDawkins....
I kind of like George Coyne. He's the kind of religious speaker that you can genuinely have an intelligent, thought provoking conversation with. He identifies himself as a Catholic and the Bible is his holy book, but he thinks like a pantheist and acknowledges the importance of logical thought. I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but I respect him for doing a far, far better job than most of making sense of the subject.
oskrrr92 theologically and scientifically
These are just two losers, that's all.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... ua-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/v-deo.html
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
The most thoughtful and rational priest ever!
No, he's a loser much like Dawkins.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... ua-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/v-deo.html
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block ha ha - bless.
clearly you don't know that many Priests are scientists. I take offense at this insinuation that Priests are not thoughtful or rational, total nonsense.
This interview is fantastic!
It's just with two losers.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... ua-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/v-deo.html
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
One of the only talks with Dawkins that i actually am interested in what the other side has to say. I like Coyne
Father George Coyne is bloody marvelous!
I wish that all people with such passionate and polar world views could discuss, share, and explain their ideas and beliefs as patiently and openly like these two guys.
This man held his own against Dawkins
" I thought you were an atheist? I gave it up for Lent"
I love the mention of aristotle's first mover theory...
He has so much in common with deists and atheists, he practices such a watered down version of Christianity. He probably didn't have these views when he went to seminary, but his religion has had to give so much ground, he doesn't want to think he wasted most of his life. He agrees with Dawkins about most things then says "I refuse to admit I've been duped", and all this extra work to be able include God in these explanations
George clearly hasn't heard of Occam's razor.
It's good to see Fr. George and Richard have a charitable debate. There has to be a prime mover.
Wow, I could listen to Father George Coyne all day.
He's a loser like Dawkins.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... ua-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/v-deo.html
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Dawkins did not "nail him" on that point because Coyne stated very clearly that he was speaking of the philosopher's god and that he was not speaking scientifically. Satisfaction, or the lack thereof, is a completely acceptable basis for rejection in a philosophical line of thought.
Dawkins has said elsewhere that the argument for God he finds most compelling or most challenging is the fine tuning of the universe in a very specific way that is conducive to life (in 'the four horsemen'). Father Coyne is clearing up Dawkins doubts about atheism.
the reason everything is perfect for us being here is because we're here.
this has got to be without doubt one of the most civil, intelligent debates ive seen with Richard Dawkins, and one of the best defences ive heard for faith in a creator. tbh i really respect george's point of view for combining creationism/faith with facts and science. . . if only all ppl of faith could be a rational as him. faith is the unexplainable dead end of science. . . e.g the human psyche is so complicated that well never know the truth for centurys and in THIS i could accept a creator
youre trully right..this guy is a real bright fella
@KINGofkings49er As a Catholic, I really love Fathers view, I have always felt this way...it makes me sad to see evangical's who take things so literal
I really respect his "intellectual honesty". It would have been so easy for him to use some obscure speculative theory in theoretical physics to make his case, and by using his background in astronomy it would have been easy to defend. Instead he chooses to be honest with the flaws in his faith.
That is so rare in those kind of talks.
excellent comment! I as well regard Coyne as an atheist.
I agree. Coyne's unusually polite, but this video is about ideas, and let's not be distracted merely because he has good manners.
He flatters us atheists by actually understanding many of our arguments, and that's VERY rare for a theist. But again and again he justifies his faith with entirely made-up stuff. He just can't summon up the courage to follow the logic of what he comes close to saying: The quality and quantity of evidence for the existence of any god has diminished to nothing.
Yes, he's a good guy, but I don't think he speaks honestly--at least not to himself. Coyne is smart and knowledgeable enough to have figured out that all evidence for his faith has evaporated during the last 400 years. But it would take a truly remarkable act of courage for him to BE honest, and not merely SEEM honest. He seems to be what William Dennett calls a "closet atheist," whose circumstances and experiences (as you say) force him to delude himself. The question is: Does he realize this?
Coyne is a scientist who is interested in Christian history and a Christian philosophy and who emphasises tradition so much that he's not willing to completely give up faith. He therefore created a framework in which for him faith and science can co-exist. Many sceptical religious people create such a framework to avoid the conflicting questions but I think more and more of these sceptics will become Atheists with coming generations.
I do notice (not certain if it is his focus) that Father Coyne keeps bringing up different "gods" .. "that is the god of " ... all while talking about "god" ... this is an amazing swizzle stick of logic which goes to prove one thing. If you want to "believe" then you will find a way. Father Coyne is a joy. His status is sad.
yea, he is almost there. at some points it almost seemed like he could have just taken god out of the picture all together. but he did say that faith is too deep inside him. he even admited that his believing because of his background was kinda weak. it seemed kinda like richard knew how deep in he was faith wise. i think he was just glad they agreed on a lot of things in terms of how to explain things in the universe.
This was an interesting conversation. I think both religious scholars and scientists are still left pondering and thinking of how the universe came to be. For a long time to come this debate between creationists and evolutionists will continue to flourish.
@Damienf77 Does that not fit with the fictional story of Noah? I think that for the character described in Mr. Coynes bible that moodiness is a reasonable attribute. What really suprises me is that despite this he still feels comforted by the idea of his (as you so eloquently put it) replacement father.
"God works through evolution" - Father George Coyne :-)
Yep, he's a loser like Dawkins.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... ua-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/v-deo.html
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@1fotcn I think he meant that God does not directly design the universe (hence God not being a designer). God is continuously creating the universe by letting the universe takes its own course (through evolution and other natural processes). And Coyne called God a he or she in the previous video (at the end). I think it is just easier not to assume God is a man, but just to call it he. Coyne is a very bright and respectable person.
this Fr. George Coyne seems intriguing.
I wish more Catholic priests and Catholics themselves were like him. It would seem like a less absurd faith structure then.
I think its important though for scientists to be philosophically versed as this George fellow is.
Philosophy allows for rational scientists to realize the limits of their material, experimental form of knowledge to understand all things in existence. But also it opens for them a world of human perspectives on such things as values
@Jugglable They are perfect. If you disagree, point out an instance, real or imagined, in which they do not apply.
Father Coyne is the best theologian I've come across, as he shows 'some' degree of rationality. However, he just doesn't fully apply his reasoning and is blinded by delusion. He has the 'God' hypothesis embedded in his mind. How can we ever shake religion from the world when even the most rational of priests can't expel this hypothesis??!!
I admire Dawkins' patience and fully support his foundation.
The trouble with the 'everything is fine tuned to permit our existance' is a nice idea but doesn't mean anything because if conditions weren't suitable for life no-one would be around to think about it!
I wasn't seeing it at first, but he seems to separate his faith from his reason w/o any problems.
This is his way of coping with the world.
It's like he realizes his faith rests on nothing but accepts it, also using/accepting science because he's too smart not to.
That's pretty impressive, being able to take in the purely philosophical aspect of religion, leaving the crap, not letting it get in the way of reason.
But that's also why he can't rationalize as well as Dawkins on the subject.
I don't think he's saying that it's necessarily the widely agreed upon "God of faith". Just that he is still the God who is detached from the universe, which causes a person to require faith to believe that he exists. I think that's the part everyone agrees upon, but a lot of people take it way further than that. (Putting faith in waaay too many places.)
This is amazing.
@PorkFrog It's not about giving a "make-over", it's about satisfying a need for fundamental truth and meaning, that "creates" the loving god, a point of view which is neither verifieable nor falsifiable, but it is a fundamental part of our reasoning, so therefore it remains true to ourselves.
yes so true. I am also an atheist and must admit he is the most intelligent theist I have ever heard speak.
(1) The weakness in your ontological argument or any other variation of that argument is that it's a priori reasoning and it does not help if you try to disguise it with modal logic where possible necessity and epistemic necessity can easily be mixed, especially in the English language. At best this establishes some consistency within your believes in case one accepts your first premise (rational thinkers would probably not do that).
@Jugglable So then you cannot say this at all. You cannot say "everything that begins has a cause" because you are admitting that there never was "nothingness", therefore existence itself cannot be said to have a beginning, even if space-time has a "beginning". By the way, what physcists mean by "nothing" is not "nothing".
it's amazing what such an intelligent mind can convince itself of. all due respect of course. i like him. which is rare among people who present this position.
They're both losers.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... ua-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/v-deo.html
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
This man's a Spinozan, and a very refreshing one at that.
The problem with the argument of "God of the Gaps" is that it starts from the conclusion; "God must exists because we are here..."
Well, in order for us to conceive of a God, the universe must be as it is.
The argument is circular, not falsifiable, not testable, and therefore not rational.
I believe the term "day" as translated from the hebrew bible has a somewhat ambiguous meaning in relation to the temporal. It does not have a specific parallel to the english language.
George seems like an intelligent man. I don't agree with him, but I respect his position. I certainly can't criticize him; I feel my perceptions are as valid as his, if not less so.
After a sentence like "God sustains everything in existence" he says "This is philosophy, not science". Well, I don't know what kind of philosophy he is talking about but the kind that is respected and has stood the test of time is the kind that applies the scientific method and rules of logic to it's notions. How is a statement like "God sustains everything in existence" even to be understood? It's senseless babble, not philosophy.
Right, the question I wish we would ask ourselves next is "is fit sufficient for belief." Is the fact that religious belief doesn't contradict science a good enough reason to be religious? Of course not... evidential fit is a necessary, but not a sufficient criteria for belief, yet we act as though "fit" lends all the justification we need for a belief to be rational.
That is a truly rational faith, I must recognise that even tough I'm an atheist.
It's refreshing to hear a not completely insane religious person
He is a loser, so is Dawkins.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... ua-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/v-deo.html
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
i whole heartedly agree. I would love to listen to his sermons! (atheist here)
@mgollogly1 "because the question is always 'who moved the prime mover'."
The question is self defeating. "Prime" means "first." So asking what is before the first mover is like asking what is south of the south pole.
Richard allowes him to speak without constant interjections because he makes an intelligent case when he is speaking. Perhaps Father Coyne could help bridge the gap that exists between Atheists/Agnostics and Theists. I doubt very much that he could completely fill the void himself, but the religious movement needs more intelligent, thought provoking speakers such as he. I am an Atheist and I was impressed by his way of handling complex questions without taking the easy, must have faith argument.
@greyeyed123 "one cannot say space-time was "caused", because that is nonsensical."
It is not nonsensical. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The spacetime continuum began to exist, and therefore has a cause. It must be a spaceless, timeless cause.
@Mystagogia87 Some examples. Miracles: believe in virgin birth and resurrection. I think in his introducing comments to the question Coyne himself admits that these might be conflicting a scientific view. A second example would be the soul and afterlife: soul doesn't survive death but Coyne believes he does, in evolution humans are the first and only species to survive death.
Father Coyne is an example of what happens with religion as science encroaches upon religious belief. God becomes more and more vague until he might as well not exist. It's like the people who say "God is Love." Well Love is already love, so there's no need to call it God its already something existant.
In Johanine Christianity they designated the Logos (reason/divine order) Is embodied in Jesus who is God.
A similar claim was made of Plato, of Empedocles and of Pythogoras. They were all sons of God.
By doing so it established a reverent attitude to a particular teacher and their teaching.
Platonism already had established that the gods were principles. A whole branch of early Christianity that eventually became orthodox was Neo-Platonism.
Finnally a religious person who is well read and have som grasp in science, philosphy and religion on youtube. Even though I'm an atheist. I have some admiration for father Coyne.
'The God of philosophy is not satisfying'
and then Coyne, an otherwise brilliant man, goes on to give the anthropomorphic 'God', 'a God who loves, a God who gets angry'
Just because something is not satisfying is no reason to give it a make-over to satisfy us
[cont]
You're misunderstanding the analogy. The north poll, within the context of a two dimensional framework of longitude and latitude, cannot be said to have a "cause" (point at which all favored directions south originate) within that two dimensional framework. We are in space-time. In exactly the same way, one cannot say space-time was "caused", because that is nonsensical. Moreover, if you wish to say out the earth formed "caused" the north poll, fine, but that was NATURAL, not supernatural.
He goes on to say that the evidence he is talking about is the analysis and understanding of the contents of scripture. To analyse, understand and test the truth of the content of scripture and any written text you have to apply the scientific method and extract evidence by means of it. There is no other way to extract evidence from any written text. So he seems to say that he can see the truth of the text just by reading it, which is absurd.
as an athiest I really like Fr Coyne. I like the fact that he does not betray all he knows to be true through scinece about the universe. He seems to be tagging his religious beliefs on to this as a good way to live, which is fair enough for him I suppose
@Jugglable If by "universe" you mean existence, then you have no grounds to make the claim that it began to exist. Space-time, matter, and energy "began" to exist, although "began" is not altogether correct. Space-time is required for causation. Simultaneity requires space-time also. There is no such thing as simultaneity without space-time, and no causation without space-time. Nothing that is not a part of space-time can "cause" anything, by definition.
I would love to see Fr.Coyle debate With Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind ,their evolution = atheist arguments etc would be hard to hold up .
@Jugglable The problem is that "I just think it's better to have will" is irrelevant. So is intelligence. The Logical Laws ARE NECESSARY for both will and intelligence, hence THEY ARE MORE ESSENCIAL. In fact, they are SO essencial that they are the only things that are by definition necessary. I could just as easily say it is better to be taller than shorter, better to be thinner than fatter, etc, but ALL of things are also contingent on the Logical Laws--hence, they are the essence.
I can't see how Fr Coyne can marry up the idea of an all loving god with evolution, which, in the animal kingdom is extremely harsh and bloody, even within our own species, going back hundreds of thousands of years humans have struggled for existence. It's clear we have gradually evolved into the creatures we are today.
I completely agree, Fr. Coyne is a major relief from all the ridiculous fundamentalists you hear about. I'm currently studying theoretical physics and I also study a bit of philosophy in my spare time bc (like you mentioned) it reminds me of the limitations of science and that it is not a moral or philosophical doctrine but an attempt to explain natural phenomenon. I'm all those things and I'm also a christian, who holds very similar beliefs as Fr. Coyne.
"there has to be SOMEONE who started the whole process"
why someone ,, i can't stand when people think they can put something like that out there as if it's gonna be accepted by people.
he's claiming what version of the "beginning" is real.
@greyeyed123 "Space-time, matter, and energy "began" to exist, although "began" is not altogether correct. Space-time is required for causation. Simultaneity requires space-time also."
Yes. So spacetime began to exist right at the moment it was caused.
"Nothing that is not a part of space-time can "cause" anything, by definition."
Well, you need to give an argument for that.
at the end of the day its just talking at length about your invisible friend
dang father coyne is pretty cool
Not that I believe that, but no. Thats like saying a battery interferes with the function of a clock.
Well said!
Who wasn't religious in the medieval period? Witches? Heretics?
For Ockham to study philosophy at any university way back when, he would have been required to ascribe to a religion.
I'd also draw your attention, if ever so briefly, to the fact we're talking about a man in the 14th century. As a man who clearly advocated ontological parsimony, were Ockham asked whether he were religious in the 21st Century, I suppose his position may be rather different, granted all we know today.
@InnocenceExperience - Constants are responsible for the conditions of you universe. The use of the word conditions still gives a valid point.
i thought that he was too easy on him on some points but at the same time, i think i would have too. i mean, coyne does seem to have some good ideas about science and religion and where they should be. i like that he doesnt seem to like the whole intelligent design movement.
OMG OMG!
He's talking about the MULTIVERSE!!!
The argument is a parody to show where you can get with possibility in modal logic depending on the premise. For example: It is possible that there is a being that does not exist in all worlds but in the world it exists it is the most excellent being. There is no maximally excellent being anymore. Similarly you could refuse the "maximally excellent" premise by arguing that the properties you apply to that being contradict each other, e.g. omniscience and omnipotence, omniscience and free will.
@Jugglable You cannot say that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" because you are admitting there is no beginning AT ALL for EXISTENCE ITSELF. You cannot talk about things beginning to exist, and then talk about existence itself having no beginning. The two concepts are diametrically and logically opposed.
@Mystagogia87 The main argument from Thomas Aquinas I know is the cosmological argument which is exactly the argument we already discussed. Other arguments from him say that there is a high level of perfection in the universe, there must be a highest level of perfection and that is God. One more says that all natural bodies die and that's a sign of intelligent guidance which can only be God. How do you get from the possibility that God exists to God does exist?
Agreed -- George is charming and has actually advanced the scientific method (he's had published several academic paper). His personal beliefs are odd...but these louts do unbelief a huge disservice by attacking him so rudely.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🌌 Father Coyne believes God works through evolution and continuously sustains the universe with creativity and dynamism.
01:29 🌐 Coyne reasons for the existence of a necessary being, but finds the philosophical God insufficient as it lacks attributes of love and revelation.
04:23 🕳️ Father Coyne views invoking God to explain fine-tuning in the universe as the "God of the gaps" fallacy and asserts it is not a scientific issue.
06:19 🌌 The multiverse theory is suggested as an explanation for fine-tuning, but Coyne raises concerns about its verifiability and falsifiability as a scientific concept.
08:18 📜 Coyne avoids using scientific arguments that invoke gaps, while Dawkins points out that historically, evidence for God often relied on such gaps.
@Jugglable Exactly what "contingent on" means. The Logical Laws are necessary. X=X is necessarily true. X is Y and X is not why cannot both be true. And X is and X is not cannot both be true. These things are the essence of everything.
The problem with a priori reasoning: You are explaining this to a sceptic, which means I do not start from the assumption that God exists but I start from the default position for claims about existence. I have no rational reason to think that it is possible that there is a world in which a contingent God exists or that it is possible for Got to be maximally great. Any rational thinker that has doubts about the conclusion of your onthological argument will have the same doubts about the premise.
Richard was dreaming of softball that day 🥎
Both are losers no matter what they dream.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... ua-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/v-deo.html
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block What does this God look like, elements? and does why do you think he created animals that eat each other?
Yes but he does with elegance and intelligence, and seems happy (seen him in Bill Maher's Religulous), so he must be doing something right.
QFT (quantum field theory) throws a big wrench in the middle of the idea of God interacting with our material natural world. It would have been interesting to see how Coyne would have responded to the implications of QFT.
Yeah... you're probably right. I intrepreted "philosophical" in a academic way. As far as I know the "prime mover" argument has been refuted both in philosophy and in physics.
But I guess it is related to the catholic churchs fondness of scholastic thinking.
@Jugglable If you didn't understand my response, I'm saying that God is contingent. If the universe is not the "necessary being", I can easily agree. The only things necessary are the Law of Identity, the Law of Noncontradiction, and the LEM. If god were to exist, even he would be contingent upon those. But seeing as we already HAVE those, and know they would apply to anything, in any possible universe, in both things existing and nonexisting...why do we need god?
@StephenRoddy No, in the video the lights go off a couple times.
Nice, Dawkins points out that Father Coyne is a good skeptical thinker, why not be skeptical about god(s) too?
I think he is hard to classify because his beliefs are a bit confusing. He doesn't believe in an engineering God that would tinker with the world or set cosmological constants, yet he does believe God does things in the world. What does that mean exactly? Does God interact with the world or not?
@Jugglable Are you using wikipedia again? That which something is, it is. Both x is y and x is not y cannot be true. And for LEM, either x is x, or x is not x, but NOT BOTH. These laws apply to everything, including a hypothetical god, and cannot be contingent in any way.
@Jugglable What profound truths are found in creation myths (or Genesis specifically) that cannot be found in literature generally? I think you are misusing the word "profound". These are basic truths of the human condition, and are true insofar as they are applicable to all people in all times--which is why new ones can be created at any point in the future. Specific creation myths can also have elements that are NOT true at all, but subtextually included as "profound truths".
@Chris197980CH There is no conflict, that's the point. Throughout the interview Fr. Coyne says that his faith does not conflict with science because faith is "OUTSIDE" of science. Faith and science do and can co-exist but you have to TRULY understand faith and then choose to either accept or reject it. Atheists obviously reject - which is perfectly fine, but be sure you really understand what you are rejecting.
If you did, you wouldn't be saying they can't co-exists.
@Jugglable The Logical Laws. What have we been discussing all this time? I named them several times, and explained them twice. The Logical Laws are truth itself because they are the basis of all things true. They are in no way limited, flawed, nor imperfect. That is why they are the essence.
It's like if they have the same point of view, but one simple difference in the oppinion about how the things started, together with the way they were raised made one to be a father and the other to be an active atheist, thats kind of funny.
I'll give him credit for calling out and dismissing the God of the Gaps argument. It's such a convenient "proof" for theists, but Coyne won't take the bait (at least in this case). His prime mover is just another GotG, but people tend to give it more credit because it's rooted in more traditional philosophy. I'd say he's batting about a .300 so far. Impressive for a man with a white collar.
Why does there have to be a beginning and end? Every debate talks about these events, but none address the possibility that there may not have been a beginning or end. Time can be manipulated through motion and whether or not it affects particles at a quantum level constantly is still under debate and research. To have a beginning and an end, time must remain constant and exist as an ultimate law, which it does not (In theory, I suppose I should say.).
@Jugglable Elvis is both man and spirit, and the perfect, all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent creator of the universe could be none other than the perfection of Elvis. Have you never listened to Elvis records and felt the power of the King? Elvis the man was simply a manifestation of the everlasting spirit of the Universe, Elvis. Elvis has NEVER left the building, for the building is our universe and his creation. Your metaphysics works perfectly with Elvis.
The question is what kind of laws, men of religion would be willing to make, (or not make), if they were given the reign to do so, according to their religion. The rest is just eloquence.
@Jugglable Again, we've both already agreed existence has always existed in some form. The Logical Laws (all of them together, not just one) are the basis of that existence. There is no "creating" involved, just change. They are necessary for existence to exist, they are necessary for themselves to exist, they are necessary for everything. They a perfect. They meet all the qualifications you demanded, and now you deny them. Why? Intellectual honesty demands you accept them.
Coyne brings up the multi universe theory like it's a scientific explanation and then goes on to acknowledge it's unfalsifiable and untestable and has to admit that it isn't science to him. Why didn't he just say that to begin with? It's not science, it's just an interesting intellectual exercise.