Good science and good spiritually definitely share the same space...but there is plenty of bad science that doesn't jive with good religion, and there's plenty of bad spirituality that doesn't jive with good science. So discernment is the key
@@yrok244 that's the issue. Making things philosophical or metaphorical doesn't affect the truth. If there is no god found in the empty spaces of an atom, then there isn't any there
A nice way to bring the Pantheists and Atheists on board..😛 In case of the Pen one doesn't need to care about the source and the process. Without knowing about the source and the process one can still JUST use the pen. But one/couple of question will make the it absolute necessity to think and ponder on the source and process. The pen was created by a conscious mind. The pen was created by someone wanting/willing to make it. More importantly the pen was created for a purpose. So what is purpose of Human beings? Do we even have a purpose or is it even necessary to attach a purpose to ourselves? Our life is meaningless or one can say it is useless to have such a consciousness and don't bother to ask these questions. It is the most important subject any conscious mind can ask. May Allah guide us.
Thats a nice way of looking at it. The way I see it is I do not define a line between religion and faith as I believe every religion is founded in Allah/God, combine all the beliefs and it paints a picture that is literally described in every scientific theory to date. Allah/God is very real we just divided our understanding of the being. For example I believe Muhammad and Jesus are depictions of the same person and maybe Muhammad may have been the reincarnated soul of Jesus. Combining them all tells us the truest picture of Allah/God and how Allah/God correlates with us. At the end of it all you sort of realize that you cannot look at anyone who believes with a linear line of thought any different as if they know Allah/God then that is truly the point of it all. It has led me to respect all religions because I know if it exists then it all derives from Allah/God and I have no business dividing it up in my mind and placing a limitation on a being that is without limitation. I do truly feel sadness for the being because I know if it was me and I had given so much to the people I created and they denied my existence then I would not be as graceful, patient and understanding as Allah/God has shown us all to be. This has also led me to know the suffering every single chosen person be it Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Husayn Ibn Ali etc was done simply for a love of Allah/God and love of their people who follow them. We need every religion to validate sacrifices made by these people and to honor them rather than questioning what is a peaceful way of life. And your right, may Allah truly guide us.
Very well done. This addresses some obvious and essential points that so often get overlooked in the impassioned arguements for one side or the other. I often find myself listening to such arguements and thinking, "No, but that doesn't answer the question, you're still only addressing part of the problem!" (Such as answering what triggered the Big Bang or what came before it). Thanks for this.
The existence of God can be confirmed within the first 3 verses of Genesis (old text) which is an exact description of sonoluminescence an aspect of physics most people doesn't even know happens today. In a 2000 year old book it described an atomic reaction between water and sound. Everything after was a reaction to this action so the Big Bang may have been a repeating action in which through other aspects of physics the energy of the light created became so great it exploded and caused a Quantum reaction that resulted into what is here now. Just a thought.
Fantastic. Recently scientist have discovered that the expansion of the universe has increased in speed - something totally contrary to Newtonian physics. Based on Newton's observations objects that are in motion tend to stay in motion unless another force is at play, i.e. friction. The vacuum of space has no friction so all objects should be traveling at the same speed that they started with. The only thing that could accelerate this speed would be a other force. They've given this force the Letter G to identify it.
The rivalry between science and religion is manmade. Religion and theism can coexist with science, just as long as we don't look at religion as a science or turn science into a religion. Faith should be practices and expressed privately, and respected. I bet a lot of people (theists and atheists included) didn't know that many scientists (I've actually read the majority of them) are not atheist or even agnostic.
Maybe it is not sharing of space, but rather they are complementary. Science is great for answering many what, and some how and where questions, but it fails to answer most of the why questions. God's existence is necessary for there to be an answer to the whys.
Very beautiful and well thought. More people should follow these questions and open-mindedness. Bravo!Follow the wonderful Rupert Sheldrake, Tom Campbell and even Deepak. Long live Elon !!!
Though God has the power to do things that cannot be explained, he wants humans to find and learn about them, thus, science comes in. This also explains why we are more complex compared to other living being (this is just my believe)
"Uncertainty is an innate fundamental characteristic of our system" That is why we need to know the characteristics of God. For it is He who created us with this "uncertainty".
Priest: human history is 10 thousand years old. Scientist darwinist: human history is 13.6 billions years old. Einstein: You both are right! (Time dilation)
You exist and you are self aware is a pretty compelling piece of evidence since nothing you rely on in science can explain why nor can it tell you why you have an imagination or why the solution for Pi is a non-repeating infinite number. Explain infinity and your imagination without inciting the supernatural or the name of God. Truth is your imagination is equally as supernatural as skeptics think God is. So why should he have to prove anything when he already did.
A hypothesis (conjecture) that isn't falsifiable ("GOD") is useless. "A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist." [Matt Dillahunty] "If you can't show it, you don't know it." [AronRa] "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." [Michael Shermer]
@@martinwilliams9866: "... you can't show not God." > Right! That's why it's called an *unfalsifiable hypothesis* ! _"It's a meaningless panacea when we invent a god that can do anyhting & be anyhting ... It serve an answer to every question & _*_an explanation for nothing_*_ ."_ [Matt Dillahunty]
@@martinwilliams9866: "Not God is also an unfalsifiable hypothesis ..." > Why? Your God(dess) just has to show/prove himself/herself/themself. That shouldn't be too difficult for him/her/them. Isn't he/she/they all-knowing & all-powerful?
-So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. - Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. - (To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou [art] God. - And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart. - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. - The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed. - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. - But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. - Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: - But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. - Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. - He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. - Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
4:47 Yes, the god-believer and the atheist ARE that far apart. The atheist believes that something made of quanta, energy, or phenomena we know of may have started our universe. The god-believer believes that some supernatural being which is not physically possible created this universe based on scriptures of nomads 1000's of years ago. Big difference.
Lol. 1000 years from now, all the religious people will read your comment and laugh at you. If you are so sure about your beliefs, try surviving your death, when time comes
@@fahimullah8490 I can laugh at you now, but I don't have a god to report to. In your mind, you laugh at people like me, so your god will see you as incompassionate and will punish you, as deems fit.
Even the nomads understood the existence of God. But modern people got issues. Pathetic situation now. Laugh at whoever you want to. The God fearing poor nomad is a way better person than a God daring modern man. You are not as tall as the mountains that you should walk with pride. I am afraid that even this pandemic did not instill fear of death in some people.
OK Atheism is a belief God does not exist. You must have faith God exists to deny his existence and have the claim be valid, it cannot be a non-belief if you are capable of believing something even small things. To validate it as a legitimate position all the elements you deny exist must exist otherwise by self admission it is not a valid position and thus proves Atheism is invalid. Read the first 3 versus of Genesis and then look up sonoluminescence. How exactly can you explain a 2000 year old book describes an aspect of physics most do not even know happens particularly an atomic reaction between water and sound? Also there is the small detail that Atheism is ONLY 2.4% of the U.S. the rest believes in God so the burden of proof is not on the people who believe in him that falls to the 2.4% who believe he doesn't. So YOU must PROVE he doesn't exist. For more of a thought experiment answer why infinity exists (observed in the solution for Pi being a non-repeating infinite number) and why you have an imagination without inciting the name of God or the supernatural. The truth is your imagination is equally as supernatural as you think God is. As for the qualities of God combine every religion and it tells you. There is no right and wrong religion all of them are correct but must be combined to get the truest picture of God and how he correlates with us.
But that's the problem, and the problem many like you that say dont seem to get. You think a God who is not within space, time and matter should be proved with observational data of space time and matter. So you can prove God in the scientific sense, just as though you can't prove what started the big bang THEORY, as these are not observable science. Which is why we move on to his characteristics to best rationalize why he works in with the world we see around us.
@@shroomoid9403 existence of god is a source question, science is a process which can answer questions about process. It's two different realms. A source B process you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A A's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A
Maybe one day science will provide evidence for the existence of a god(s) and show that they do both in fact exist in the same place but currently science exists in the space that can be measured and tested and god conveniently exist everywhere else. It will always be god of the gaps until the gaps or god are shown to be gone.
he explained that the uncertainty was on a subatomic level, saying that if it can be uncertain by design at that level, then there is possibility of uncertainty by design in other aspects of science
What if God is Source, process, and system with the illusion of separation (Maya) created to obscure the truth of reality on all levels. Why doe Source have to be distinct from the others? "When he himself reveals himself, Brahma brings into manifestation That which can never be seen. As the seed is in the plant, as the shade is in the tree, as the void is in the sky, as infinite forms are in the void- So from beyond the Infinite, the Infinite comes; and from the Infinite the finite extends. The creature is in Brahma, and Brahma is in the creature: they are ever distinct, yet ever united. He Himself is the tree, the seed, and the germ. He Himself is the flower, the fruit, and the shade. He Himself is the sun, the light, and the lighted. He Himself is Brahma, creature, and Maya. He Himself is the manifold form, the infinite space; He is the breath, the word, and the meaning. He Himself is the limit and the limitless: and beyond both the limited and the limitless is He, the Pure Being. He is the Immanent Mind in Brahma and in the creature. The Supreme Soul is seen within the soul, The Point is seen within the Supreme Soul, And within the Point, the reflection is seen again. Kabîr is blest because he has this supreme vision!
God is not a religious God. But if we still want to refer to a God, then God is the Cosmos that is everything and creates everything and has always existed with contractions and expulsions of great mysterious energy. So... no silly Big Bang theory. The Cosmos is not ruled by a religious God. The Cosmos is God.
The only touchpoints to religion are in our real world. Therefore denying the real world is a heretical and blasphemous denial of God's work. Or is, is not.
God is conceive as the source of Life. Science is mind knowledge, Science and God are words in English language. Religion is people’s belief of a higher being, and common practices of a certain group. .... Consciousness conceives there is a beginning in time. Science belief has the Big Bang concept/theory. Western Religion claimed In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Science and Religion can not proved what was in the beginning. In the beginning is only in our consciousness.
I completely disagree. Though it's fashionable in TEDx talks to call religion and science compatible, they are in fact opposite in their methodologies In science, knowledge starts with observation leading to investigation, rigorous testing, verification and review... only then is a conclusion warranted which is always subject to revision and correction. Science is not married to a conclusion but only to evidence. This is intellectual honesty of the highest order. Religion does the opposite. It starts with assumed conclusions and then proceeds to look for anything it can to support it. It's methodology consists of revelation, faith, indoctrination, emotion and authoritarianism. More importantly religion's conclusions are absolute and never subject to review or change. This is bias confirmation of the highest order. You could not invent two more polar opposite methods of acquring knowledge.
Being opposite in methodology doesn't have anything to do with validity... If something is correct it is correct independent of how the conclusion was made...
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards. Other numbers: Jews - over 20% of total Nobel Prizes winners Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers - 10,5% of total Nobel Prizes winners
No though partly true what you say, it is not at all what he saying, he is saying that they can work together to create a much deeper meaning. Such as to give purpose to why things exist. Science will tell you how things came about, religion and philophsy will tell you why things came about. No where does he say that religion should be considered the same as science, he is just stating that neither of them overwrite each other.
His arguments and explanation don’t sit with me. Claiming ideas with solidity when at best they’re theories. IE: “before the Big Bang there was no time, no space, no matter.” Hoping we don’t ask such pertinent questions is basically the whole circular argument of god itself. Also to hold tight to the theory of no matter or anti matter before the Big Bang is insanely presumptuous. So a huge basis of his layout to map towards his conclusion is flawed. I dunno. Believe what you want but at best we are all “agnostic”
You can probably test whether the love hormone is active yes. but is that All that qualifies to say "in love with" ? It's unclear whether length matters.
Mr Paladin you're explaining it from a religious perspective while the God mentioned in this video is more general and does not meet any specific religious criteria.
existence of god is a source question, science is a process which can answer questions about process. It's two different realms. A source B process you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A B's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A, therefore no it does / doesn't exist claims can be made.
What does it actually matter whether god or gods exist or not? If believing in sth makes your life more bearable just keep believing in it. If you think it doesnt make any difference either way don't believe it. This guy is just bullshitting by playing with words.
existence of god is a source question, science is a process which can answer questions about process. It's two different realms. A source B process you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A B's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A, therefore no it does / doesn't exist claims can be made.
No claims there, just commonl sense and rational reasoning. A robot cant create the first ever robot, something in the universe cant create the exsistence of the universe.
@@samuelchambers5761 "outside of time, space, material" once again, how convenient. Why doesn't he reveal himself in a physical sense so it's obvious to non-believers that he is real? Or does he just like to make a game of it?
existence of god is a source question, science is a process which can answer questions about process. It's two different realms. A source B process you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A B's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A, therefore no it does / doesn't exist claims can be made.
This man is on the Chemistry faculty? Oh god. Firstly, his “three parts of a system” are completely bogus. A “Source” is not part of a system. If there is a source, it’s outside of the system. Part 3 is “System”. Really. System is one part of a system? Brilliant! He says “We all must give an explanation...that lies outside of what we know...” A UC Davis Chemistry professor said that. In what part of the system of science does one give an explanation based on what is not known? Someone please keep this man away from our children.
1) he didn't say system was a part of the system. But more of the final product 2) “We all must give an explanation...that lies outside of what we know...” does not state *ANYWHERE* to explain science in the realm of the unknown. 3) SoMeOnE pLeAsE kEeP tHiS mAn AwAy FrOm OuR cHiLdReN. what an overreaction.
@@sawomirdurawa6221 can you give better terms to describe what he meant? Because I know he was right on the source being a different realm from a process.
existence of god is a source question, science is a process which can answer questions about process. It's two different realms. A source B process you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A B's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A, therefore no it does / doesn't exist claims can be made.
@@mbdg6810 EVERY decision I make is based upon the amount and quality of evidence. Science is about asking questions to get answers. Religion is about accepting answers without questioning.
Why does every Ted X speaker talk with the same inflections and cadence and even mannerisms? So annoying. They must all study other Ted X speakers in their preparation. Wish they would just do their own thing. Rant over.
"That kind of knowledge is too much for me;
it’s so high above me that I can’t reach it."
Psalm 139:6
Science is Gods way of showing us how his universe works
That's a good way of looking at it
Well said
The most common explanation I hear.
I like that
Good science and good spiritually definitely share the same space...but there is plenty of bad science that doesn't jive with good religion, and there's plenty of bad spirituality that doesn't jive with good science.
So discernment is the key
An example of bad science that doesnt jive with good religion, please
Walkin on the gray line!
@@user-zb8tq5pr4x human science.. trying to explain somethings that cant be explained with materialism for eg. Our conciousness
@@khonyeleaglefergumedov9175 and how do you know it can't be explained? Just because we can't do it yet, doesn't mean it cant be done
This is the stupidest comment on here
my catholic science teacher once said, " religion is the *why, science is the how* "
_"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."_ [Tim Minchin]
Yeah sure
Did you ever question the why part? And if not, why not?
To Me God and Science are not separate
One can't exist without the other
As Hitchens would say: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Between the protons and electrons an atom is mostly empty space. Plenty of room in there for God.
.
So you think god is in the space between electrons and protons😂
@@XwezzyO I think it’s more of a metaphor and less of an actual proposal.
@@yrok244 that's the issue. Making things philosophical or metaphorical doesn't affect the truth. If there is no god found in the empty spaces of an atom, then there isn't any there
Excellent point Wil!!!
Love this, im a Christian who's a believer in a creator, a savior and who believes in most science as well. This was said very well.
my upmost salute to bryan..may u have a wonderful life ever..deepest thanks..
A nice way to bring the Pantheists and Atheists on board..😛
In case of the Pen one doesn't need to care about the source and the process. Without knowing about the source and the process one can still JUST use the pen.
But one/couple of question will make the it absolute necessity to think and ponder on the source and process.
The pen was created by a conscious mind.
The pen was created by someone wanting/willing to make it.
More importantly the pen was created for a purpose.
So what is purpose of Human beings?
Do we even have a purpose or is it even necessary to attach a purpose to ourselves?
Our life is meaningless or one can say it is useless to have such a consciousness and don't bother to ask these questions.
It is the most important subject any conscious mind can ask.
May Allah guide us.
Thats a nice way of looking at it. The way I see it is I do not define a line between religion and faith as I believe every religion is founded in Allah/God, combine all the beliefs and it paints a picture that is literally described in every scientific theory to date. Allah/God is very real we just divided our understanding of the being.
For example I believe Muhammad and Jesus are depictions of the same person and maybe Muhammad may have been the reincarnated soul of Jesus. Combining them all tells us the truest picture of Allah/God and how Allah/God correlates with us. At the end of it all you sort of realize that you cannot look at anyone who believes with a linear line of thought any different as if they know Allah/God then that is truly the point of it all.
It has led me to respect all religions because I know if it exists then it all derives from Allah/God and I have no business dividing it up in my mind and placing a limitation on a being that is without limitation.
I do truly feel sadness for the being because I know if it was me and I had given so much to the people I created and they denied my existence then I would not be as graceful, patient and understanding as Allah/God has shown us all to be. This has also led me to know the suffering every single chosen person be it Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Husayn Ibn Ali etc was done simply for a love of Allah/God and love of their people who follow them. We need every religion to validate sacrifices made by these people and to honor them rather than questioning what is a peaceful way of life.
And your right, may Allah truly guide us.
For the love of God or whatever you believe in, someone please fix the floorboards! Creak creak creak...
Very well done. This addresses some obvious and essential points that so often get overlooked in the impassioned arguements for one side or the other. I often find myself listening to such arguements and thinking, "No, but that doesn't answer the question, you're still only addressing part of the problem!" (Such as answering what triggered the Big Bang or what came before it). Thanks for this.
The existence of God can be confirmed within the first 3 verses of Genesis (old text) which is an exact description of sonoluminescence an aspect of physics most people doesn't even know happens today. In a 2000 year old book it described an atomic reaction between water and sound. Everything after was a reaction to this action so the Big Bang may have been a repeating action in which through other aspects of physics the energy of the light created became so great it exploded and caused a Quantum reaction that resulted into what is here now.
Just a thought.
I don't know about you, but this guy just proved God to me. :)
whact some teds on near death experiences it's amazing ;)
God is amazing
Fantastic. Recently scientist have discovered that the expansion of the universe has increased in speed - something totally contrary to Newtonian physics. Based on Newton's observations objects that are in motion tend to stay in motion unless another force is at play, i.e. friction. The vacuum of space has no friction so all objects should be traveling at the same speed that they started with. The only thing that could accelerate this speed would be a other force. They've given this force the Letter G to identify it.
Is the religious dogma that often accompanies a belief in God useful or harmful to humans. Can religious dogma and science share the same space?
Science is decoding what God has Encoded.
The rivalry between science and religion is manmade. Religion and theism can coexist with science, just as long as we don't look at religion as a science or turn science into a religion. Faith should be practices and expressed privately, and respected. I bet a lot of people (theists and atheists included) didn't know that many scientists (I've actually read the majority of them) are not atheist or even agnostic.
So interesting, but the floor creaking!!!!
i love this talk
This was great. Thank you
Very well done, Bryan. Thank you.
Bryan is just killing time while Scotty warms up the transporter.
Maybe it is not sharing of space, but rather they are complementary. Science is great for answering many what, and some how and where questions, but it fails to answer most of the why questions. God's existence is necessary for there to be an answer to the whys.
But God does not answer any why's
Very beautiful and well thought. More people should follow these questions and open-mindedness. Bravo!Follow the wonderful Rupert Sheldrake, Tom Campbell and even Deepak. Long live Elon !!!
Deepak Chopra? 😂😂😂😂
Deepak ?!? Seriously ?? !
Though God has the power to do things that cannot be explained, he wants humans to find and learn about them, thus, science comes in. This also explains why we are more complex compared to other living being (this is just my believe)
"Uncertainty is an innate fundamental characteristic of our system"
That is why we need to know the characteristics of God. For it is He who created us with this "uncertainty".
god and science? Sure. Religion and science? Most definitely not.
You are proposing Scientology
@@samanthacanales3183 Scientology is a religion..
Brilliant guy...
Priest: human history is 10 thousand years old.
Scientist darwinist: human history is 13.6 billions years old.
Einstein: You both are right! (Time dilation)
Human history is only 1 million years old. Fix your comment.
14.6 billion is the age of the universe
Generous! Love it!
Amazing talk... Loved it....
He switched. He smuggled quantum uncertainty into macroscopic territory driving out the concept of the unknown. This if you take him literally.
Hello Tedx Talks. where can I find the scripts?
Very well done!
God cannot share my space, but he can force his way in by weight of evidence.
You exist and you are self aware is a pretty compelling piece of evidence since nothing you rely on in science can explain why nor can it tell you why you have an imagination or why the solution for Pi is a non-repeating infinite number. Explain infinity and your imagination without inciting the supernatural or the name of God. Truth is your imagination is equally as supernatural as skeptics think God is. So why should he have to prove anything when he already did.
@@evilcowboy Imagination is a result of a complex mind, the result of a complex brain
@@evilcowboy Pi is a number that doesn't divide rationally, that's why it will constantly produce more digits
Did he speak all the time 15 minutes flawlessly and without stuttering without any paper and help?
The day you will know the water boilted faster or slower because you have prepared or not the tea ...you will ask you more about tachions ....
☝️perfect explanation, God bless you 🙏
A hypothesis (conjecture) that isn't falsifiable ("GOD") is useless.
"A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist." [Matt Dillahunty]
"If you can't show it, you don't know it." [AronRa]
"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." [Michael Shermer]
Not God is also an unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can't show not God.
@@martinwilliams9866: "... you can't show not God."
> Right! That's why it's called an *unfalsifiable hypothesis* !
_"It's a meaningless panacea when we invent a god that can do anyhting & be anyhting ... It serve an answer to every question & _*_an explanation for nothing_*_ ."_ [Matt Dillahunty]
@@martinwilliams9866: "Not God is also an unfalsifiable hypothesis ..."
> Why? Your God(dess) just has to show/prove himself/herself/themself. That shouldn't be too difficult for him/her/them. Isn't he/she/they all-knowing & all-powerful?
Science is studying an object, God who created our consciousness, God could not be made as an object
Great talk!
-So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
- Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
- (To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
- Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou [art] God.
- And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
- No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
- The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.
- For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
- For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
- Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
- Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
- But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
- Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
- But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
- Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
- He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
- Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
4:47 Yes, the god-believer and the atheist ARE that far apart. The atheist believes that something made of quanta, energy, or phenomena we know of may have started our universe. The god-believer believes that some supernatural being which is not physically possible created this universe based on scriptures of nomads 1000's of years ago. Big difference.
Lol. 1000 years from now, all the religious people will read your comment and laugh at you. If you are so sure about your beliefs, try surviving your death, when time comes
@@fahimullah8490 I can laugh at you now, but I don't have a god to report to. In your mind, you laugh at people like me, so your god will see you as incompassionate and will punish you, as deems fit.
@@aomana4357 I feel so sorry for you that no one created you. You just exist 😂 Atheist logic 😂😂😂
Even the nomads understood the existence of God. But modern people got issues. Pathetic situation now. Laugh at whoever you want to. The God fearing poor nomad is a way better person than a God daring modern man. You are not as tall as the mountains that you should walk with pride. I am afraid that even this pandemic did not instill fear of death in some people.
@@fahimullah8490 I never said I just exist. I didn't just pop out of thin air. You do not seem to be well-versed in science
First and most important PROVE god exist and then we can elaborate on what are GOD's qualities.
OK
Atheism is a belief God does not exist. You must have faith God exists to deny his existence and have the claim be valid, it cannot be a non-belief if you are capable of believing something even small things. To validate it as a legitimate position all the elements you deny exist must exist otherwise by self admission it is not a valid position and thus proves Atheism is invalid.
Read the first 3 versus of Genesis and then look up sonoluminescence. How exactly can you explain a 2000 year old book describes an aspect of physics most do not even know happens particularly an atomic reaction between water and sound?
Also there is the small detail that Atheism is ONLY 2.4% of the U.S. the rest believes in God so the burden of proof is not on the people who believe in him that falls to the 2.4% who believe he doesn't. So YOU must PROVE he doesn't exist.
For more of a thought experiment answer why infinity exists (observed in the solution for Pi being a non-repeating infinite number) and why you have an imagination without inciting the name of God or the supernatural. The truth is your imagination is equally as supernatural as you think God is.
As for the qualities of God combine every religion and it tells you. There is no right and wrong religion all of them are correct but must be combined to get the truest picture of God and how he correlates with us.
@@evilcowboy BTW, Genesis is 3500 yrs old. Peace
@@evilcowboy Your arguments claiming imagination and infinity are proof of God are invalid because science can explain both of those
But that's the problem, and the problem many like you that say dont seem to get. You think a God who is not within space, time and matter should be proved with observational data of space time and matter.
So you can prove God in the scientific sense, just as though you can't prove what started the big bang THEORY, as these are not observable science. Which is why we move on to his characteristics to best rationalize why he works in with the world we see around us.
@@shroomoid9403 existence of god is a source question, science is a process
which can answer questions about process.
It's two different realms.
A source
B process
you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A
A's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A
He looks like that guy from Jurassic park
God is outside space time, he's not bound to the rules of physics. That's why he's everywhere.
Maybe one day science will provide evidence for the existence of a god(s) and show that they do both in fact exist in the same place but currently science exists in the space that can be measured and tested and god conveniently exist everywhere else. It will always be god of the gaps until the gaps or god are shown to be gone.
Funny how he’s called bryan
Who let this man out of Glee and why isn’t he singing??? 😛
If the position of an object and the velocity of it can not both be determined at the same time, how does baseball work?
he explained that the uncertainty was on a subatomic level, saying that if it can be uncertain by design at that level, then there is possibility of uncertainty by design in other aspects of science
It’s not certain you will hit the ball every time. Or all of the time.
What if God is Source, process, and system with the illusion of separation (Maya) created to obscure the truth of reality on all levels. Why doe Source have to be distinct from the others?
"When he himself reveals himself,
Brahma brings into manifestation
That which can never be seen.
As the seed is in the plant,
as the shade is in the tree,
as the void is in the sky,
as infinite forms are in the void-
So from beyond the Infinite,
the Infinite comes;
and from the Infinite the finite extends.
The creature is in Brahma,
and Brahma is in the creature:
they are ever distinct,
yet ever united.
He Himself is the tree, the seed, and the germ.
He Himself is the flower, the fruit, and the shade.
He Himself is the sun, the light, and the lighted.
He Himself is Brahma, creature, and Maya.
He Himself is the manifold form, the infinite space;
He is the breath, the word, and the meaning.
He Himself is the limit and the limitless:
and beyond both the limited and the limitless is He,
the Pure Being.
He is the Immanent Mind in Brahma and in the creature.
The Supreme Soul is seen within the soul,
The Point is seen within the Supreme Soul,
And within the Point, the reflection is seen again.
Kabîr is blest because he has this supreme vision!
The next question is... which god?
God is not a religious God. But if we still want to refer to a God, then God is the Cosmos that is everything and creates everything and has always existed with contractions and expulsions of great mysterious energy. So... no silly Big Bang theory. The Cosmos is not ruled by a religious God. The Cosmos is God.
The laws of physics are just not dead concepts they are alive as Entities but it is not your language they speak you understand more babel now ...
That is impossible do to verse "My Father is Greater then All". GOD IS NOT FATHER but it's a quote
The only touchpoints to religion are in our real world. Therefore denying the real world is a heretical and blasphemous denial of God's work. Or is, is not.
God is conceive as the source of Life.
Science is mind knowledge,
Science and God are words in English language.
Religion is people’s belief of a higher being, and common practices of a certain group.
....
Consciousness conceives there is a beginning in time.
Science belief has the Big Bang concept/theory.
Western Religion claimed In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Science and Religion can not proved what was in the beginning.
In the beginning is only in our consciousness.
The title is so wrong. GOD is the first scientist 🙄
All the chemical elements were made by God
I completely disagree. Though it's fashionable in TEDx talks to call religion and science compatible, they are in fact opposite in their methodologies
In science, knowledge starts with observation leading to investigation, rigorous testing, verification and review... only then is a conclusion warranted which is always subject to revision and correction. Science is not married to a conclusion but only to evidence. This is intellectual honesty of the highest order.
Religion does the opposite. It starts with assumed conclusions and then proceeds to look for anything it can to support it. It's methodology consists of revelation, faith, indoctrination, emotion and authoritarianism. More importantly religion's conclusions are absolute and never subject to review or change. This is bias confirmation of the highest order.
You could not invent two more polar opposite methods of acquring knowledge.
Being opposite in methodology doesn't have anything to do with validity... If something is correct it is correct independent of how the conclusion was made...
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.
Other numbers:
Jews - over 20% of total Nobel Prizes winners
Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers - 10,5% of total Nobel Prizes winners
@@SharonBalloch Actually a ten percent win rate for atheists and agnostics over the past century is quite high given the circumstances.
I think you're mixing religion with god. The speaker was talking about god and science not religion and science.
No though partly true what you say, it is not at all what he saying, he is saying that they can work together to create a much deeper meaning. Such as to give purpose to why things exist. Science will tell you how things came about, religion and philophsy will tell you why things came about.
No where does he say that religion should be considered the same as science, he is just stating that neither of them overwrite each other.
His arguments and explanation don’t sit with me. Claiming ideas with solidity when at best they’re theories. IE: “before the Big Bang there was no time, no space, no matter.” Hoping we don’t ask such pertinent questions is basically the whole circular argument of god itself. Also to hold tight to the theory of no matter or anti matter before the Big Bang is insanely presumptuous. So a huge basis of his layout to map towards his conclusion is flawed. I dunno. Believe what you want but at best we are all “agnostic”
well if it doesn´t sit well with you ,then try standing instead of sitting
Great video. Those floorboards and sounds are terrible
Couldn’t he prove the love of his girlfriend through neuroscience? The love hormone? Can’t that be tested?
My math lecturer tested the probability of forgiveness. So I guess that it could be tested...
You can probably test whether the love hormone is active yes. but is that All that qualifies to say "in love with" ? It's unclear whether length matters.
Which God?
Zeus? Afrodite?
Why just not just say... "I don't know"
If you don't know something. Don't make up imaginary friends, say "i don't know"
Your talking about Literature and how people in our history have written about the Creator. I would point you in the direction of Personification.
why are you restricting God to some scriptures, while it's a matter of philosophy.
Mr Paladin you're explaining it from a religious perspective while the God mentioned in this video is more general and does not meet any specific religious criteria.
whos gods dad????????????
You didn't understand the video
God himself
Einstein believed in God.
Great talk, but that floor tho
No!!
existence of god is a source question, science is a process
which can answer questions about process.
It's two different realms.
A source
B process
you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A
B's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A, therefore no it does / doesn't exist claims can be made.
What does it actually matter whether god or gods exist or not? If believing in sth makes your life more bearable just keep believing in it. If you think it doesnt make any difference either way don't believe it. This guy is just bullshitting by playing with words.
Evangelion.
No
existence of god is a source question, science is a process
which can answer questions about process.
It's two different realms.
A source
B process
you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A
B's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A, therefore no it does / doesn't exist claims can be made.
The best way to protect god's existence is to claim he is outside our universe. How convenient.
No claims there, just commonl sense and rational reasoning. A robot cant create the first ever robot, something in the universe cant create the exsistence of the universe.
Even the literal description given to God is everything that is what the universe is not, he is outside of time, outside of space, and is not material
@@samuelchambers5761 "outside of time, space, material" once again, how convenient.
Why doesn't he reveal himself in a physical sense so it's obvious to non-believers that he is real? Or does he just like to make a game of it?
@@aomana4357 lol mate he did, as Jesus... Feel like you might just be a troll
@@samuelchambers5761 It seems most believe Jesus was alive 6BC to 33AD. What about all the other years that humans existed? C'mon mate, use your mind.
NOPE anything else I can help you with
existence of god is a source question, science is a process
which can answer questions about process.
It's two different realms.
A source
B process
you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A
B's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A, therefore no it does / doesn't exist claims can be made.
This man is on the Chemistry faculty? Oh god.
Firstly, his “three parts of a system” are completely bogus. A “Source” is not part of a system. If there is a source, it’s outside of the system. Part 3 is “System”. Really. System is one part of a system? Brilliant!
He says “We all must give an explanation...that lies outside of what we know...” A UC Davis Chemistry professor said that. In what part of the system of science does one give an explanation based on what is not known?
Someone please keep this man away from our children.
That's a little mistake we all make. That never bans him from doing good science. He would have formulated it better in writing, I believe.
1) he didn't say system was a part of the system. But more of the final product
2) “We all must give an explanation...that lies outside of what we know...” does not state *ANYWHERE* to explain science in the realm of the unknown.
3) SoMeOnE pLeAsE kEeP tHiS mAn AwAy FrOm OuR cHiLdReN. what an overreaction.
@@sawomirdurawa6221 can you give better terms to describe what he meant? Because I know he was right on the source being a different realm from a process.
Nope.
existence of god is a source question, science is a process
which can answer questions about process.
It's two different realms.
A source
B process
you are using a tool for B to give a definitive answer to a question about A
B's tools are incompatable to answer questions about A, therefore no it does / doesn't exist claims can be made.
@@mbdg6810 EVERY decision I make is based upon the amount and quality of evidence. Science is about asking questions to get answers. Religion is about accepting answers without questioning.
Thanks, you can keep your slavemaster.
Science does exist , but god ?? So making the "statement" Can they share the same space , is making a claim there is a god,
never been proved yet .
No. Next.
+Vladimír Krásný ye right
+EbonBoy Im glad you agree. Also, Dota > LoL
:D
so, go over there and talk! the think is when people 👂 about God people get bored.
What a compelling argument
Actually, we do not know. But we will all find out and maybe faster than we expect.
Man created god to accept his death and exceed the fear of living
Why does every Ted X speaker talk with the same inflections and cadence and even mannerisms? So annoying. They must all study other Ted X speakers in their preparation. Wish they would just do their own thing.
Rant over.