He does string theory, which is a big waist of tax dollars. There is a general consensus in the science community that string theory is not a scientific theory.
Actually he is great, and wise, and stable, but he definitely showed his humanity there, in the common tendency to lean toward what one wants to be true. He has said and even published pretty extensively that with our current knowledge, it appears *much* more likely that the universe could have been different. But when it came up in this context backed off fast. Nobody’s perfect though.
“Could the universe have been otherwise ? I have no idea, I think it’s way beyond what we are currently capable of answering” and religious people accuse scientists of being arrogant
Leonard Susskind is one of the least egotistical, most humble physicists out there. Some of those guys can be real self-absorbed and "religious" about certain theories or hypothesis. Not saying they're bad people or anything, but a good scientist shouldn't hold any theory too close to the heart.
It is not possible for science to become a religion. Bertrand Russel gives a good definition of religion as (I paraphrase) "the blind acceptance for that which has no proof". Science is precisely the opposite and NO "scientist", no one truly trained in the disciplines of logic and thinking, accepts anything that lacks substantial evidence, proof.
The interviewer himself was really good, he has a great sense of understanding and where the conversation was going. Leonard is always a class act I can see why he was good friends with feynman.
Sean you fail to understand. Kraus would say that the universe came out of nothing and there was no intelligence or consciousness behind it. Oh really? How would Kraus know that? The fact is that he doesn't and he should simply have the integrity to say so. Which is was Leonard is doing.
@@amadexi Dawkins doesn't really understand Agnosticism lol If he wants to use it for himself, sure, but he is bastardizing Agnosticism and missing the point.
I think it's just a dumb question left over from prehistoric culture. Like asking where leprechauns come from. People who believe in leprechauns think I'm a terrible person for dismissing the most important question in the world. I hardly know how to respond to them. I doubt more knowledge will improve the question, but it seems to reduce the number of people asking it.
Some are interested in folk lore. Others aren't. Some hear the world Bible and go into convolutions.If they hear Jesus is Lord, Jesus is God the one and only Son of God, Crucified for your sins , they have seizures. .
@@truethinker221 Yeah it’s definitely wise to take the book your grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather used as the basis of society and of taming nature and building civilization and if the founding of every single great university, and knowing nothing, laugh at it and discard it. Seems to be working great.
Not only can we not know why we exists or anything exists we can never know - it's never knowable or unknowable. You just can't get around the problem of infinite regression.
that's why as agnostic there's nothing wrong if other ppl having faith(trust) if there's God..if it's make you live your life in a successful and positive way..(if it's work for you) as long as you don't declare or claim that you know it's 100 percent TRUTH.. without proving it. as long as you are aware that's only beliefs. at least you lived your life well till the end.. through your faith in God.. whether God exist or not..
Susskind sounds like he doesn't want to admit that he's agnostic, because the uncertainty is what defines it, but at the same time he's recognizing that traditional, archaic perspectives on God are not likely to be true, which I think any sensible person can recognize.
I am an Atheist, who wrote the following November 27, 2017 … A spoof on agnosticism … Two agnostics sat on a fence, Pondering on how humans are dense, Wondering which way the wind would blow, Losing their balance to fall below. "If we fall on the side where religion is real," One said to the other "I will appeal, To God's holy grace for having doubt, Of his existence and his mighty clout." The other agnostic soon agreed, That falling for God and his holy creed, Would save them from a writhing hell, Where forever they just might dwell. Soon they climbed down off the fence, Convincing
When we imagine for some intelligence to have caused the universe why do we always imagine that intelligence to be something like us? All gods of religions are so human like who speaks language, they have their own favourite countries and group of people and love them and give them rules. I think its wrong n biased to think that if possible, that being will be like us. I think that intelligent being will be very alien to us and we wont even be able to tell if its there. Do you think a tree or a cell is intelligent? They are but so alien to us. May b its the case that universe itself is intelligent and we r part of it. The intelligent being already exists its the universe itself.
I doubt there's anything anyone would call God, but if there was it seems it would have to be like you describe. Bishop: "and what have you discovered of the mind of God through your study of his works in nature?" Scientist: "An inordinate fondness for beetles." (I forget who the scientist was, maybe Haldane?)
I agree with the statement on not asking the question correctly and not having the ability to understand the answer if ever opening that final curtain. Hmm....maybe the final curtain should be kept unopened. I'm an agnostic but at the same time I believe in the "Picard", haha. Great conversation, I always enjoy this channel's talks.
Thank you Lenny for your honest personal beliefs, I'm happy you are Agnostic on this issue, I look forward too talking too you about what I have seen , I hope I blow your mind as was mine, peace and love, Doug, (were is Juan?, what is he doing?).
"We don't know enough to make sense out of those questions." What is the name of the area of study that addresses things like the meaning of questions?
Refreshing to hear an honest and frankly rational position. It rings of Douglas Adams writing in the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, where the mice invented a super computer to find out the answer to "life, the universe and everything?" only to be told that the answer was "42... the problem is, you don't even know what the question is yet". All explanations for ultimate creation that humans have so far come up with, all appear to be nonsense (one way or another, there is an explanation - we're just not even close.... yet)
Agnosticism seems eminently cool - just so long as we fail to think it through for any distance. Where is agnosticism supposed to stop? Withholding belief in X seems an eminently rational response if one feels there are insufficient grounds rationally to support belief in X. Not ruling things out without sufficient rational grounds also seems rational. All this beautiful rationality, though, raises three further (and awkward) questions: 1. What different sorts of ground _do_ rationally support various kinds of belief? 2. What (non-circular) rational grounds are there for thinking we should be rational? (Shouldn't we be agnostic about rationality if agnosticism really is the 'best philosophical position'?) 3. If agnosticism is the "best philosophical position" to take, ought we to be agnostic about our grounds for agnosticism? *A Point* The laws of nature do not 'point' to certain things being ruled out, they are simply expressions of our _belief_ that certain things are ruled out. Moreover, no amount of evidence could ever show that any 'law of nature' is truly universal. To think otherwise would be to abandon one's agnosticism. But then sooner or later we all do abandon agnosticism, don't we? Especially at the points of beliefs we have firmed up in our minds already.
Agnosticism is kinda like skepticism, you're not gonna say anything with absolute certainty unless you finally have evidence, though each one has his opinion. Atheists choose the opinion that there's no God, agnostics say _maybe_ God exists, maybe not, basically "I won't pass a verdict"
@@yub2.045 Greetings. We must never think of agnosticism or scepticism as neutral. It is just as much a "choice" to say "I will _not_ pass a verdict" as it is to say "guilty" or "not guilty". If one feels that agnosticism or scepticism on this, that or the other is sound, then one must indeed uphold it. But this is just as much to 'uphold' as is any other position. It _is_ a position, not a philosophically neutral floating raft from which one can sit comfortably surveying other territories. It's hand are not clean. It has its own history and its own grounds for what is thought to be acceptable for belief.
@@theophilus749 Hello. It's hard for me to rephrase what you said but I think you're speaking from like a solipsist/ultraskeptic perspective. Not defaming you or anything with these terms; I'm just recognizing that you're going down the fundamentals of logic/philosophy which some would say "splitting hairs" I'm not feeling well atm and am stressed so I apologize for not having the time to analyze and understand your reply. I think I got the general idea of your comment; that my logic itself cannot be 100% verified as it is a matter of where one is coming from and by which fundamentals does one agree with. I hope this reply suffices
@@yub2.045 Hello, and thank you for your response. No! I do not uphold Ultra Scepticism, still less Solipsism. I think these are hardly rational positions. I do think, though, having read through what I did say that I could have been much clearer. I hope you soon feel better.
i’ve frequently come back from psychedelic experiences with the conviction that the question “is there a God” doesn’t really make sense and misses the point
Despite endless claims to the contrary, the Buddha clearly said exactly that. In the form: “To say there is a God is incorrect. To say there is no God is incorrect.” Which obviously defies rigorous logical systems (they cannot both be certainly incorrect, and he expressed certainty). Even though illogical, still seems to have some truth to it. I read once a wise Catholic, I think a saint, say “The last great barrier to God is the idea of God” or “is ‘God’ ”. Or even “the knowable God”. Can’t remember.
"psychedelic experiences"------- φᾰρμᾰκείᾱ : referring to drugs and frequently translated as sorcery "there was a certain man called Simon which beforetime in the same city used sorcery (φᾰρμᾰκείᾱ) and bewitched the people of Samaria... But Peter said unto him... I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8)
@@ibperson7765 "a wise Catholic" ---- Aquinas echoes and articulates all OT & NT theology: God is existence in and of itself, ipsum esse subsistens. There are certainly similarities to be found in other traditions as should be expected, though they often appear to get bogged down in pessimistic or passive nihilism and pantheism.
@@jd35711 "ty for the fascinating trivia" ---- You're welcome. Someone once told me, "beer muscles ain't real muscles". Beer muscles indeed lead to all sorts of problems. Never confuse a simulation with the real. "who are always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth... For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy) Peace be with you.
Could the universe have been otherwise? A key question. A question for philosophers not scientists. Now you answer such a question by asking, Alright, if the universe could have been different, what would be the implications and consequences of that? And you also ask, If the universe had to be the way it is, what would be the implications and consequences of that? Then you compare the answers.
"...complete randomness?" This is an example of what Ayn Rand called the fallacy of the Stolen Concept. 'Randomness' assumes implicitly some primary pattern from which 'the random' is distinguished.
This video reminded me of another video at wordonfirevideo2 video: "What Is God? (Faith Seeks Understanding)" . The Catholic also says that we can't know the nature of God is in this life. Very interesting.
Absolutely nailed it for me... Atheism/Faith are both fundamentally just speculation/opinions when considering the ultimate questions really aren't they? The answer may as well be '42'!
1:34 "is there or isn't there a god. I have the feeling it's the wrong question" ------ Classical theology agrees that this is the wrong question. The term "God" refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens. One does not ask if there is or isn't "a" existence in and of itself nor is it logically coherent to posit existence in and of itself to "not be".
The problem with that is, we don't need to be able to unpack God in order to know God exists due to God revealing it. However, that second question is probably the second most important, after the question of is there a Creator God.
Your post is an classic example of a central principle of General Semantics. Questions of meaning come before questions of ontology. A comment on the ChessArmyCommander's comment. It is an example of a Deep Premise. Which a philosopher might characterize as a superficial premise.
"the inner nature of THE ALL is UNKNOWABLE. This must be so, for naught by THE ALL itself can comprehend its own nature and being." Three Initiates. The Kybalion: A Study of The Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece (Illustrated) (p. 55). The Kybalion Resource Page. Kindle Edition. -Nil Sine Numine
That assumes that something called "inner nature" exists, and that there is an "all," and that the "all" can perceive or think. I bet all that is nonsense.
well, i raise another question, do we know all the laws of physics so we can say that it will always work the same way? absolutely we do not know it all, and thus, we dont know if a prayer is considered another hidden knowledge from us. not that we have to prove religion; it is still a faith-based ideology. however, religion does explain a lot of the sciences we now know, and more that we cannot know at the moment. maybe thats why it is baised on faith
It's interesting and true, At the same tme, I think they're talking as if they were two gods looking at the world. Image if they were two cats for example, and thinking if they can ever "move the curtain back all the way".
In a universe of information, what you see is what you get, infinity. In our QM limited state, is it possible to ask a question about it that it is possible to receive and understand? To be Agnostic is another name for what it is in science to be reasonable and rational. But outside science there is no limit to what it is possible to believe, if you can live with the consequences, or God would have excluded all our mistakes.
I hope it reveals ALL truth. People would also be in for a hell of a surprise when they find out they lived entire lifetime morally in a world which knows no morality.
I think if each universe is formulated as a wave function & if there's a multiverse, if you add up all the wave functions of all universes you will get nothing, I call it the Zero Sum Infinite Wave Function.
If all multiverse Infact exist, and propagate this same wave function which cancel each other out to a net zero, then it's sum would not allow the creation in the first place due to the fact that if would cancel out if it did. This is a paradox, but in a sense I believe that the universe is a paradox so to some extent I do agree with you lol
"what's the purpose of the universe, why and by whom was it made" is such a human thing to ask. as if there should be a purpose, as if there should be someONE or -thing that MADE it for a REASON. people ask this question because that's the human nature to try to see connections, reasons, consequences… that is what help our kind to survive, and it has become the basic quality of every human. that's how gods were made up. people tried to see reasons where there were no any. and that's why there is no god(s).
Well, yes, maybe evolution made that for us, but that still doesn't absolutely rule out the possibility of God's existence nor proves it. From my agnostic standpoint, what I see is that you merely gave an atheistic perspective, not compelling evidence
@@yub2.045 Yes, but it doesn't rule out a host of any other ideas on who, or what created the Univers eithere. The Abrahamic relgions don't have any more validity than other forms of mythology. At that point speculating becomes fruitless. Greek myhtology is no more untrue, than Christianity. Even if something created the universe, it doesn't follow that it has anything to do with Gods imagined by human beings. The need for creation alone doesn't validate Christianity, or any other creation story adopted by human beings.
@@itheuserfirst3186 Yeah it’s definitely wise to take the book your grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather used as the basis of society and of taming nature and of nations and of building civilization and of the founding of every great university.. and knowing nothing, laugh at it and discard it. Seems to be working great. Also makes perfect sense to call oneself educated while knowing nothing about what’s in the single most influential book every written (well, nothing except the caricatures of craven children). You can definitely understand culture and history and politics and jurisprudence and mankind without having any clue about the wisdom that Western civilization is built on.
@@itheuserfirst3186 You didnt read the second paragraph of what I wrote. Beliefs aside, your complete ignorance of the most important book in history and the basis of western civilization makes you uneducated.
Few don't want to understand this history of evolution through scientific approach... My opinion: It's their ego which is stoping them from knowing the truth, they are destined to be slaves of their beliefs.
I consider myself to be Agnostic. I have no evidence of god or a god and I don't claim to know that it does or doesn't exist. I also don't debate theists or atheists. I refuse to. If my knowledge is I have no facts, why would I argue to defend or to denounce. It's pointless. If you have faith, great, if you do not believe, fine, but just know that we all are seeking the same answers; how, why, when. How was the universe ignited? Why are we here and are we alone? When does it all end. All 3 think the same
What physicist like Susskind or Einstein refers as god is something completely different from what other people thinks.even if there is a god I'm almost sure it doesn't have anything to religion or morality.Atheism is about not believing in that moral god created by religion.
I as a theist basically agree with a lot of things that Leonard Susskind said. However, he as a physicist uses science to find out whether a supernatural being exists or not, but we theists use logic and philosophy to prove the existance of God, simply because science is the wrong tool to prove it. Science is very good at describing how nature works, but it doesn't tell you who behind all this is.
1:34 "is there or isn't there a god. I have the feeling it's the wrong question" ------ Classical theology agrees that this is the wrong question. The term "God" refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens. One does not ask if there is or isn't "a" existence in and of itself nor is it logically coherent to posit existence in and of itself to "not be". Peace be with you.
He is pretty sure God doesn't intervene about this or that. The question is does an agnostic have no opinion about whether or not a God can intervene in the world? That is, does she have no opinion on what it would mean if a God did intervene in the natural world?
The "cliff example" is a little weird. Is he saying that because God doesn't make dramatic interventions into nature that He is incapable of interventions? History is full of examples of the smallest action that caused enormous consequences. Napoleon was ill at the battle of Waterloo. Did that minor illness change the entire course of history? God didn't need legions of angels to defeat Napoleon. Likewise, God doesn't need to switch off gravity to keep me from stepping off a cliff and falling. We humans have a deep-seated goal to live our lives as we choose and our beliefs develop in our unconscious mind to support that goal. We cannot live our lives as we choose and at the same time believe in God. So we assume as true (i.e. believe) that God doesn't exist or that God no longer cares.
I agree with Leonard. I don't think we should be so heavily destracted with things that have literally no proof at all. We should work on it untill we find the answer.
I have a question being a believer in GOD. When you came up with idea of No God you must have some solid evidence for that. Obviously if see a plan in jungle I would think it must be created some one as its probability of being assembled by itself with time is impossible. How can I think that a bird flying in air is assembled with time by itself.
If there is a god, I can tell you he gives zero fucks about humans. We live in a hell hole with no hope but to slowly rot and die, each and every one. The entire history of humanity is misery, suffering and death. Everything that mankind has achieved has been through the painstaking hard work of courageous men and women.
But you first have to invent the concept of a god to make agnosticism relevant. Before humans invented gods no one cared whether he/they existed or not. It seems incredibly irrelevant to invent something just so you can speculate whether it exists or not and it is time you could have spent exploring the natural world.
jatoxa No, you don't have to invent God first. Susskind address that in this video. Agnosticism is not an answer to the question of whether God exists or not, it's just honestly admitting you don't know enough about some aspects of reality to disregard that kind of questions as irrelevant or already answered.
Just because the idea of God seems to be man-made doesn't mean God is 100% fake. Who knows, maybe God created us and left us without traces of him, and we "invented" the idea of him Basically, your opinion is just the atheistic perspective of this topic, it's not evidence P.s., I'm agnostic
Any serious discussion involving science and the universe has to stop asking dumb questions about a god.. it can only lead to baseless speculation and distracts from finding solutions..
Science ..physics chemistry biology explains how things work not why things exist. So there is catagory difference. Science cn nvr explain logic and numbers whch science relies on. Science cn nvr lead to truth ..the most it can do is provide workable theories
It all boils down to whether you need a personal reason for the universe to have a purpose, and iif that's the case you are trying to make your feelings scientific valid, which is nonsense. The last question on whether the complexity of the universe mandates a creator, can easily be countered by the fact that if God created it, the universe could be a very simple animated projection, with no need for physical laws. The fact that it is complex is a sign that it was not created and needs to work self sufficiently without intervention.
@@Tore_Lund ..who talks abt personal feelings???. It is all abt simple logic whch is everythng tt is created hs a creator. Any creators, whether it be creator of atomic bombs or creator of sponge bob created their creations wth purpose. To say no purpose is simply to deny simple logic. If u cant use simple logic then hw wud use complicated logic to comprehend complex concepts
Sorry Ahmad, you are completely right in that for life to have a purpose it must have been created, but the subject here is the opposite question: Do your and my need for a purpose warrant the existence of a creator? The answer to that is clearly no. You are also contradicting yourself when you say that everything needs a creator to exist, as it excludes any original first creator, which also excludes any original intent or purpose with everything, as we are using logic here.
For me the haunting thing is that we know our exceptional (compared to all the other present species on earth) brain with it's cortex and all is a product of nature and evolution just like the exceptional neck of the giraffe is a product of evolution. There is nothing inevitable about us coming in and it's just as easy to imagine the earth without the human brain as the giraffe's neck. One big nasty flu epidemic at the wrong time in the wrong place and we wouldn't be here. But the point is, just like nature can produce giraffes with their 2 meter necks it could in the right circumstances produce a species with an 8 meter neck. And just like nature has produced a species with an IQ of 100 it could produce a species with an IQ of 11 000. Like us compared to a shrew. So how far can we trust our brains and our perception of the world. To some future-not-yet-evolved-species (unless they're already somewhere out there!) our view of the world can seem as primitive as the llama's perception of the world seems to us. You can't trust anything these days! Kisses!
+Pertti Heinikko _"There is nothing inevitable about us coming in and it's just as easy to imagine the earth without the human brain as the giraffe's neck. One big nasty flu epidemic at the wrong time in the wrong place and we wouldn't be here."_ That's not an argument that it's not inevitable that we got here though. If determinism is true, then it would be an actual impossibility for your flu epidemic to happen. _"And just like nature has produced a species with an IQ of 100 it could produce a species with an IQ of 11 000."_ IQ is normalized to 100. It's not like humans just happen to get 100 IQ on average.
I started reading one of his books but it was beyond my present knowledge of physics, will get back to it in the future, though. Regarding the topic of the video, whenever the god issue arises, I invoke Newton's Flamming Laser Sword, if you can't settle the argument through an experiment, then it's not worth discussing.
Why is it that both religious folks and atheistic folks get so excited about their beliefs. And why is it that they won't leave people that do not claim to believe one way or the other alone? I've had Catholics ask me if I know where I'm going. I've had Atheists ask me if I believed in God. The answer to either question was considered by each person as a clever trap. At first, I felt irritated by either question and then I understood how pathetic each of them was. Unfortunately, that was after I answered in caustic terms. "You just think that you know where you're going!" and "It's difficult to prove something with no evidence!"
Cristian Tase I'd love to believe in a higher power but as yet I've not had any direct experience that one exists and believe me I've tried reaching out to it. My experience is that nature creates us and then we're pretty much on our own to try to survive. I'm a naturalist you could say.
People who believe in God are fools. Hawking had a go at formulating the beginning of the Universe with his no boundary proposal. So it's not impossible to try to answer this question.
Your comment gives zero evidence to rule out the possibility of God existing. What if God exists somewhere in this no-boundary universe? Evolution, no-boundary, none of them contradict the possibility of God, they only contradict religion Up til today, we have 0 evidence for or against God, so we can't say anything with 100% certainty. We can have opinions, but calling others fools for not having the same opinion is incorrect. None of us can be 100% sure
Agnosticism is stopping before you've thought it through. Think ... 1) The Universe had a beginning 2) The Universe had a cause 3) What we observe is organized: various forms of matter and energy behave consistently under given sets of conditions and the observable constants that govern those conditions are very finely tuned. 4) Much of what we observe is organized in highly complex ways into highly functional substances, objects and even entities , to the extent that we exist - capable of observing and even understanding much of the complexity we observe. 5) This finely tuned, highly functional, organized universe points to a Design. 6) Design can only be accomplished with intent, foresight, and the planned use of information. 7) Intent, foresight, planning, information usage are all activities of a mind - a Designer and Creator.
The problem is, no matter what lines of evidential reasoning you put on the table, many atheists will just sit there with arms crossed , rolling their eyes. With the position, "you haven't proven it to me" . "Science is proving things" , "And their working on proving all the things that can't be proven right now" . "No god needed in that process of proving things". "All we need is the scientific disciplines" .
we'll never know about god, or first cause. we'll never know where matter originated. we;ll never know if there is something outside of our universe. the god question is just not useful in any way. the imagination of brilliant people looking at how our universe is something to be grateful for. keep god on the back burner. the jewish prayer Adon Olam is in every jewish prayer book. it tells us that god is unknowable. if there is a god that's how i would describe it.
It is indeed inevitable that we are all agnostic about the precise nature of reality. But we can all be certain that there was a first cause -- something that preceded the big bang, even though we do not know (and perhaps cannot know) the details of its attributes. It is therefore inevitable that we live out our lives in terms of beliefs, not knowledge. To live as if the first cause was merely a materialistic something that just always was (a field or a force) is to live out an atheistic belief. Likewise, to live as if the first cause was / is an intelligent (and/or loving and/or indifferent) entity is also to live out a religious (or deistic) belief. To live out our lives as if the nature of the first cause does not matter, is to live out an agnostic belief. Some beliefs may be more reasonable than others and we can argue about these (and probably get nowhere).
He says he is fairly sure no supernatural entity will intervene if I step off a cliff... He's trying to say that God doesn't change the laws of physics to accomplish His will? God doesn't have to. God can simply put the thought into your head to look around so you'll avoid the cliff.
The word supernatural is contradictory in of itself. How can something "natural" be considered "supernatural" when the very idea of "natural is to be "natural?" "Supernatural" elevates it above the status of "natural" making it no longer "natural." Which leads me to my next point. In this debate, if it is in fact a debate. It can only be conducted 1 on 1 b/c according to the definition of "belief,"it is subjective. The second part of the debate a decision must be made as to whether you believe that: 1.)knowledge=belief 2.)belief=knowledge If you chose 1, then that would convey to me, if I were debating with you, that you had to have had some kind of divine experience in your life to lead to belief in a supreme being, or, you have never had any kind of divine experience and therefore "do not" believe in any form of supreme being. Either which way, to say either stance is "default" is folly. If you chose 2, then you are basically telling me that none of your beliefs are grounded in anything that can be measured within the realm of understanding we currently observe and therefore have a child-like mind that creates fantasies for itself out of comfort. This is why atheism and theism will never have a full understanding of the material and the ether, b/c it is too black and white. If I had no sense of smell that doesn't mean flowers don't have a scent, and a phenomenon is not wrong, it is just unusual. In the quantum universe the statement "nothing is certain" is absolutely correct. Don't take my word for it, go look it up. The only objects that can be used in measurement to the existence of deity are tangible objects we can, and have experienced with the human senses of touch, smell, feel, see, hear. Anything outside of this is what we call an unknown variable. Therefore, using teapots, and unicorns are invalid comparisons b/c they are creations of mankind, even the unicorn, born from the mind of a child like being, a product of our creativity and imagination is incompatible b/c the vision of such a creature was formed in your head of what such a creature can and should resemble based off of human fantasy. I say as an agnostic. Do not speak to me of unicorns and teapots b/c all analogies fall short of what this supposed god is supposed to be according to account.
Funny he's agnostic yet believes in his own sci-woo... A universe as a projected hologram and 11 dimensional superstring theory... Ironic... On this occasion I agree with him though. Wise to admit some things we may never know.
If you claim agnosticism about a god then you would have to have the same view when it comes to Santa or Unicorns. You can't say you know or don't know Unicorns exist. Same goes for the Greek gods ect. This expand concept of the subject leads me to find agnosticism pointless and nonsensical. As an atheist and a skeptic I disagree with him.
+Crazywaffle5150 They are not the same thing. First you have to clearly define what is God, Santa, and Unicorns for that comparison to make sense. I actually take the position of Susskind. I am an Ignostic and this is actually the most sceptical position to take. Because you assume less about the unknown. By saying you believe that the Universe just sprout into existence by random factors without any purpose you are assuming things about something you have no idea about.
Teralek You have to define god the same way you define Santa or any other made up concept. You can invent anything in your mind and be agnostic about it. God is defined as the creator of the universe. At the same time I can clam the universe does not really exist and it's an illusion. We can't even claim the universe even had an actual beginning. Saying the universe came from nothing is the same thing as calming nothing is even an actual concept beyond what it is in the scope of the human mind. It's really down to probability. The god concept is not even a concept you can find evidence for, so it's pointless to even entertain it. Just because you can't prove or disprove something does not give each thing equal probability of it being true. Every idea you invent without 0 evidence of how the universe came to be is a probability. In turn you have infinite ideas giving any concept you have improbable because of the lack of evidence. That being said I'm an atheist because it is improbable a god created the universe. Going back tothe concept the universe came from nothing concept. Evidence of the big bang dose not imply the universe came from "nothing". Or that nothing is a concept that we can really pinpoint being an actual thing.
+Crazywaffle5150 No, you see there is a difference. Concepts come when something requires an explanation. We know where Christmas presents come from. We have direct evidence and there is no remaining doubt about it. Thus we know for sure that Santa does not go around at Christmas time jumping into every chimney in the world. This is fact. Susskind explained brilliantly that we have no idea how the Universe came to be. We have no explanation. Thus it is entirely possible that an unknown entity created the Universe. If the Universe is an illusion, then, it is at all possible that WE created the Universe. Hence we are God. If God is solely defined by an entity which created all we observe and no more attributes are given to it than it is very possible that this could be the case. Saying otherwise and dismissing the possibility at all is not being sceptic. It is being a believer. I Do not know. Everything is possible. I keep an open mind. From what I know about reality... and I know little, like all human beings... It is actually very possible that this Universe is a simulation and was created by something with intent. Its not pointless to entertain ideas about completely open subjects like this one. The history of science is full of examples which show that breakthroughs come only from those who think out of the box.
+Crazywaffle5150 First of all, it's a cop out to compare the concept of god with things like Santa Claus or unicorns, the existence for which we not only lack evidence but have good evidence and reasons for disbelieving. The concept of god is much more serious and much more deeply tied to our experience and identity as humans. Secondly, it's a mistake (one often made by self-described atheists and agnostics) to present atheism and agnosticism as two competing points of view. They are not. Agnosticism is an epistemological category and falls within the province of philosophy in terms of what we know or is possible for us to know. Atheism, on the other hand, is just a personal estimation about the existence of god. To put it simply, they answer two different questions: "Is there a god?" and "Do you believe in a god?" In answer to the former question, I would describe myself as a hyper-agnostic -- i.e., we not only don't know whether or not a god exists, but it is impossible for us to know. And in answer to the latter, I am a skeptic and an atheist -- i.e., I am unconvinced by the god hypothesis and therefore don't accept it.
+Steven Hunter Actually Atheists tend to say Atheism and Agnosticism are the same thing. Susskind is clearly and Agnostic. He made a good point. God is the wrong question because is a loaded word. I consider myself an agnostic (ignostic), but I think that there is a more than 50% chance that the observable Universe was made by something with intent. When I speak to a religious person they think I am an atheist, when I speak to an Atheist they think I am a theist... This makes a very amusing and sometimes exasperating situation for me.
Now THIS guy know what he's talking about.
He is not dismissing anything. very logical and rational.
Best explanation so far, Respect.
Exaxtly, such a lively, truthful wisdom he is. It inspires us all humans.
He does string theory, which is a big waist of tax dollars. There is a general consensus in the science community that string theory is not a scientific theory.
Agnostic = ignorance.
Agnosticism is more of a dishonest position than Atheism.
@@AhlusSunnahwalJamah Not necessarily. Depends on the person in question.
i love it when smart people say "i don't know" . it's a good thing, humility. it makes me(a mental midget) feel much happier.
Can you not know if Santa Claus exist?
It seems beyond our comprehension, yet we can't seem to stop wondering about it.
I wanna see what's BEYOND our universe, it's very interesting
What a quoteable thought you wrote right there, so beautiful :')
A man wise beyond his time. This capability to rationale beyond emotional aspects is impressive. We need more stable minds like this in our world.
Actually he is great, and wise, and stable, but he definitely showed his humanity there, in the common tendency to lean toward what one wants to be true. He has said and even published pretty extensively that with our current knowledge, it appears *much* more likely that the universe could have been different. But when it came up in this context backed off fast. Nobody’s perfect though.
“Could the universe have been otherwise ? I have no idea, I think it’s way beyond what we are currently capable of answering” and religious people accuse scientists of being arrogant
“Religious people” accuse “scientists” huh? Lol
Refreshing to hear intellectually honest people
Leonard Susskind is one of the least egotistical, most humble physicists out there. Some of those guys can be real self-absorbed and "religious" about certain theories or hypothesis. Not saying they're bad people or anything, but a good scientist shouldn't hold any theory too close to the heart.
They do because science has become a religion unto itself, which is kind of ironic.
It is not possible for science to become a religion. Bertrand Russel gives a good definition of religion as (I paraphrase) "the blind acceptance for that which has no proof". Science is precisely the opposite and NO "scientist", no one truly trained in the disciplines of logic and thinking, accepts anything that lacks substantial evidence, proof.
The interviewer himself was really good, he has a great sense of understanding and where the conversation was going. Leonard is always a class act I can see why he was good friends with feynman.
That is the best video on this topic I have seen on UA-cam
He teach physics like entertainment
Kraus and Dawkins should learn some humility from this guy
You failed to understand what he was saying.
Sean you fail to understand. Kraus would say that the universe came out of nothing and there was no intelligence or consciousness behind it. Oh really? How would Kraus know that? The fact is that he doesn't and he should simply have the integrity to say so. Which is was Leonard is doing.
Even Dawkins says he's agnostic (he says he's a 9/10 on the agnostic scale.
I think only Theists think that they have the ultimate answer.
@@amadexi Dawkins doesn't really understand Agnosticism lol If he wants to use it for himself, sure, but he is bastardizing Agnosticism and missing the point.
@@purposespecific670 Knowing how he is highly involved on the topic, I think he does.
Maybe you do don't understand the meaning yourself.
Leonard is one of my favorites physicists still alive. I would say Penrose and Leonard!
I agree
+Diogo Canina Really great teacher too !
+Diogo Canina Total agreement. I thought I was alone in this. Paul Davies seems very open minded too.
Best approach to this question, the best answer we don't know and we're not ready to answer, let alone ask.
The quest for the answer is the catalyst for discovery. lao tzu ; The search is the answer.
I think it's just a dumb question left over from prehistoric culture. Like asking where leprechauns come from.
People who believe in leprechauns think I'm a terrible person for dismissing the most important question in the world. I hardly know how to respond to them.
I doubt more knowledge will improve the question, but it seems to reduce the number of people asking it.
Some are interested in folk lore. Others aren't. Some hear the world Bible and go into convolutions.If they hear Jesus is Lord, Jesus is God the one and only Son of God, Crucified for your sins , they have seizures. .
truethinker You mean Shakers, or Quakers? ;-)
I've never convulsed, but I sometimes go light in the head.
@@truethinker221 Yeah it’s definitely wise to take the book your grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather used as the basis of society and of taming nature and building civilization and if the founding of every single great university, and knowing nothing, laugh at it and discard it. Seems to be working great.
Not only can we not know why we exists or anything exists we can never know - it's never knowable or unknowable. You just can't get around the problem of infinite regression.
that's why as agnostic there's nothing wrong if other ppl having faith(trust) if there's God..if it's make you live your life in a successful and positive way..(if it's work for you) as long as you don't declare or claim that you know it's 100 percent TRUTH.. without proving it. as long as you are aware that's only beliefs. at least you lived your life well till the end.. through your faith in God.. whether God exist or not..
Susskind sounds like he doesn't want to admit that he's agnostic, because the uncertainty is what defines it, but at the same time he's recognizing that traditional, archaic perspectives on God are not likely to be true, which I think any sensible person can recognize.
you pagan you are not welcome here.
Not really sure. I mean, if God exists, what if He's actually very different than we all thought?
1/10 of people are sensible, lol
This is EXACTLY it.
I am an Atheist, who wrote the following November 27, 2017 … A spoof on agnosticism … Two agnostics sat on a fence, Pondering on how humans are dense, Wondering which way the wind would blow, Losing their balance to fall below. "If we fall on the side where religion is real," One said to the other "I will appeal, To God's holy grace for having doubt, Of his existence and his mighty clout." The other agnostic soon agreed, That falling for God and his holy creed, Would save them from a writhing hell, Where forever they just might dwell. Soon they climbed down off the fence, Convincing
When we imagine for some intelligence to have caused the universe why do we always imagine that intelligence to be something like us? All gods of religions are so human like who speaks language, they have their own favourite countries and group of people and love them and give them rules. I think its wrong n biased to think that if possible, that being will be like us. I think that intelligent being will be very alien to us and we wont even be able to tell if its there. Do you think a tree or a cell is intelligent? They are but so alien to us. May b its the case that universe itself is intelligent and we r part of it. The intelligent being already exists its the universe itself.
I doubt there's anything anyone would call God, but if there was it seems it would have to be like you describe.
Bishop: "and what have you discovered of the mind of God through your study of his works in nature?"
Scientist: "An inordinate fondness for beetles."
(I forget who the scientist was, maybe Haldane?)
There is No Argument in favor of being confused.
I admire this man because he shows respect
I agree with the statement on not asking the question correctly and not having the ability to understand the answer if ever opening that final curtain. Hmm....maybe the final curtain should be kept unopened. I'm an agnostic but at the same time I believe in the "Picard", haha. Great conversation, I always enjoy this channel's talks.
Thank you Lenny for your honest personal beliefs, I'm happy you are Agnostic on this issue, I look forward too talking too you about what I have seen , I hope I blow your mind as was mine, peace and love, Doug, (were is Juan?, what is he doing?).
"We don't know enough to make sense out of those questions." What is the name of the area of study that addresses things like the meaning of questions?
Extreme knowledge. I like extremely professor susskind
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." -- Voltaire
Refreshing to hear an honest and frankly rational position.
It rings of Douglas Adams writing in the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, where the mice invented a super computer to find out the answer to "life, the universe and everything?" only to be told that the answer was "42... the problem is, you don't even know what the question is yet".
All explanations for ultimate creation that humans have so far come up with, all appear to be nonsense (one way or another, there is an explanation - we're just not even close.... yet)
Props for the interviewer too.
Maybe I'm just ignorant and I don't know who is he, but he's very professional and does have a solid background.
Agnosticism seems eminently cool - just so long as we fail to think it through for any distance. Where is agnosticism supposed to stop?
Withholding belief in X seems an eminently rational response if one feels there are insufficient grounds rationally to support belief in X. Not ruling things out without sufficient rational grounds also seems rational. All this beautiful rationality, though, raises three further (and awkward) questions:
1. What different sorts of ground _do_ rationally support various kinds of belief?
2. What (non-circular) rational grounds are there for thinking we should be rational? (Shouldn't we be agnostic about rationality if agnosticism really is the 'best philosophical position'?)
3. If agnosticism is the "best philosophical position" to take, ought we to be agnostic about our grounds for agnosticism?
*A Point* The laws of nature do not 'point' to certain things being ruled out, they are simply expressions of our _belief_ that certain things are ruled out. Moreover, no amount of evidence could ever show that any 'law of nature' is truly universal. To think otherwise would be to abandon one's agnosticism. But then sooner or later we all do abandon agnosticism, don't we? Especially at the points of beliefs we have firmed up in our minds already.
Agnosticism is kinda like skepticism, you're not gonna say anything with absolute certainty unless you finally have evidence, though each one has his opinion.
Atheists choose the opinion that there's no God, agnostics say _maybe_ God exists, maybe not, basically "I won't pass a verdict"
@@yub2.045 Greetings. We must never think of agnosticism or scepticism as neutral. It is just as much a "choice" to say "I will _not_ pass a verdict" as it is to say "guilty" or "not guilty". If one feels that agnosticism or scepticism on this, that or the other is sound, then one must indeed uphold it. But this is just as much to 'uphold' as is any other position. It _is_ a position, not a philosophically neutral floating raft from which one can sit comfortably surveying other territories. It's hand are not clean. It has its own history and its own grounds for what is thought to be acceptable for belief.
@@theophilus749 Hello. It's hard for me to rephrase what you said but I think you're speaking from like a solipsist/ultraskeptic perspective. Not defaming you or anything with these terms; I'm just recognizing that you're going down the fundamentals of logic/philosophy which some would say "splitting hairs"
I'm not feeling well atm and am stressed so I apologize for not having the time to analyze and understand your reply. I think I got the general idea of your comment; that my logic itself cannot be 100% verified as it is a matter of where one is coming from and by which fundamentals does one agree with. I hope this reply suffices
@@yub2.045 Hello, and thank you for your response. No! I do not uphold Ultra Scepticism, still less Solipsism. I think these are hardly rational positions. I do think, though, having read through what I did say that I could have been much clearer. I hope you soon feel better.
@@yub2.045 Interesting thoughts. More importantly, I really hope you feel better Sir. 🙏🏻👍🏻
He gets it! Great answers
i’ve frequently come back from psychedelic experiences with the conviction that the question “is there a God” doesn’t really make sense and misses the point
Despite endless claims to the contrary, the Buddha clearly said exactly that. In the form: “To say there is a God is incorrect. To say there is no God is incorrect.” Which obviously defies rigorous logical systems (they cannot both be certainly incorrect, and he expressed certainty). Even though illogical, still seems to have some truth to it. I read once a wise Catholic, I think a saint, say “The last great barrier to God is the idea of God” or “is ‘God’ ”. Or even “the knowable God”. Can’t remember.
"psychedelic experiences"-------
φᾰρμᾰκείᾱ : referring to drugs and frequently translated as sorcery
"there was a certain man called Simon which beforetime in the same city used sorcery (φᾰρμᾰκείᾱ) and bewitched the people of Samaria... But Peter said unto him... I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity"
(Acts 8)
@@andrewferg8737 ty for the fascinating trivia
@@ibperson7765 "a wise Catholic" ----
Aquinas echoes and articulates all OT & NT theology: God is existence in and of itself, ipsum esse subsistens.
There are certainly similarities to be found in other traditions as should be expected, though they often appear to get bogged down in pessimistic or passive nihilism and pantheism.
@@jd35711 "ty for the fascinating trivia" ----
You're welcome.
Someone once told me, "beer muscles ain't real muscles". Beer muscles indeed lead to all sorts of problems. Never confuse a simulation with the real.
"who are always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth... For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
(2 Timothy)
Peace be with you.
Where is the whole series with Susskind?
Could the universe have been otherwise? A key question. A question for philosophers not scientists. Now you answer such a question by asking, Alright, if the universe could have been different, what would be the implications and consequences of that? And you also ask, If the universe had to be the way it is, what would be the implications and consequences of that? Then you compare the answers.
Agnosticism: Holding two contrary veiws as equally possible. Undecided. In some contexts regarded as a mark of humility.
a truly wise man!
great discussion
"...complete randomness?" This is an example of what Ayn Rand called the fallacy of the Stolen Concept. 'Randomness' assumes implicitly some primary pattern from which 'the random' is distinguished.
This video reminded me of another video at wordonfirevideo2 video: "What Is God? (Faith Seeks Understanding)" . The Catholic also says that we can't know the nature of God is in this life. Very interesting.
Very convenient too.
what is that
LEONARDO DAVINCHI BOOK please?
It's just this and nothing else!
Absolutely nailed it for me...
Atheism/Faith are both fundamentally just speculation/opinions when considering the ultimate questions really aren't they?
The answer may as well be '42'!
1:34 "is there or isn't there a god. I have the feeling it's the wrong question" ------
Classical theology agrees that this is the wrong question. The term "God" refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens. One does not ask if there is or isn't "a" existence in and of itself nor is it logically coherent to posit existence in and of itself to "not be".
Well Explained
I'm a huge Leonardo Susskind fanboy
The question isn't 'Is there a God?'. The question is 'What do we mean by 'God'?'.
The problem with that is, we don't need to be able to unpack God in order to know God exists due to God revealing it. However, that second question is probably the second most important, after the question of is there a Creator God.
Your post is an classic example of a central principle of General Semantics. Questions of meaning come before questions of ontology.
A comment on the ChessArmyCommander's comment. It is an example of a Deep Premise. Which a philosopher might characterize as a superficial premise.
"the inner nature of THE ALL is UNKNOWABLE. This must be so, for naught by THE ALL itself can comprehend its own nature and being."
Three Initiates. The Kybalion: A Study of The Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece (Illustrated) (p. 55). The Kybalion Resource Page. Kindle Edition.
-Nil Sine Numine
That assumes that something called "inner nature" exists, and that there is an "all," and that the "all" can perceive or think. I bet all that is nonsense.
100% my own view. I'm not educated like this guy but I've dwealt on the veil issue all my life as an adult.
well, i raise another question, do we know all the laws of physics so we can say that it will always work the same way? absolutely we do not know it all, and thus, we dont know if a prayer is considered another hidden knowledge from us. not that we have to prove religion; it is still a faith-based ideology. however, religion does explain a lot of the sciences we now know, and more that we cannot know at the moment. maybe thats why it is baised on faith
hey before answering your question i wonder what is your qualification?
+brock lesnar hes a WWE Wrestler
@@quantumgravity92 Wim Hof he has several world records
I'm an Agnostic too: When I date a girl I DON'T Know WHEN she's going to Dump Me.
It's interesting and true, At the same tme, I think they're talking as if they were two gods looking at the world. Image if they were two cats for example, and thinking if they can ever "move the curtain back all the way".
Well said.
In a universe of information, what you see is what you get, infinity. In our QM limited state, is it possible to ask a question about it that it is possible to receive and understand? To be Agnostic is another name for what it is in science to be reasonable and rational.
But outside science there is no limit to what it is possible to believe, if you can live with the consequences, or God would have excluded all our mistakes.
I hope that each of our own personal deaths will reveal the answer to the god/no god question
You still have to make the decision now.
I hope it reveals ALL truth. People would also be in for a hell of a surprise when they find out they lived entire lifetime morally in a world which knows no morality.
Why is that?
@@claudiucojobv i suppose because we didn't need to be on our best behavior after all...lol...no hell for our transgressions
@@zatoichiable dude lol way to put pressure on people
I think if each universe is formulated as a wave function & if there's a multiverse, if you add up all the wave functions of all universes you will get nothing, I call it the Zero Sum Infinite Wave Function.
If all multiverse Infact exist, and propagate this same wave function which cancel each other out to a net zero, then it's sum would not allow the creation in the first place due to the fact that if would cancel out if it did. This is a paradox, but in a sense I believe that the universe is a paradox so to some extent I do agree with you lol
شكراً لك سيدي....
"One cannot disprove itself." - Wald Wassermann, Physicist
🤣 again!!! So you have changed your user name for 3rd time in 24 hrs! You going to keep deleting the threads I call you out on?
Funny thing is that while you talk of love as the highest virtue you cant even respect people enough to be honest!
"what's the purpose of the universe, why and by whom was it made" is such a human thing to ask. as if there should be a purpose, as if there should be someONE or -thing that MADE it for a REASON. people ask this question because that's the human nature to try to see connections, reasons, consequences… that is what help our kind to survive, and it has become the basic quality of every human.
that's how gods were made up. people tried to see reasons where there were no any.
and that's why there is no god(s).
Well, yes, maybe evolution made that for us, but that still doesn't absolutely rule out the possibility of God's existence nor proves it.
From my agnostic standpoint, what I see is that you merely gave an atheistic perspective, not compelling evidence
@@yub2.045 Yes, but it doesn't rule out a host of any other ideas on who, or what created the Univers eithere. The Abrahamic relgions don't have any more validity than other forms of mythology. At that point speculating becomes fruitless. Greek myhtology is no more untrue, than Christianity. Even if something created the universe, it doesn't follow that it has anything to do with Gods imagined by human beings. The need for creation alone doesn't validate Christianity, or any other creation story adopted by human beings.
@@itheuserfirst3186 Yeah it’s definitely wise to take the book your grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather and his grandfather used as the basis of society and of taming nature and of nations and of building civilization and of the founding of every great university.. and knowing nothing, laugh at it and discard it. Seems to be working great.
Also makes perfect sense to call oneself educated while knowing nothing about what’s in the single most influential book every written (well, nothing except the caricatures of craven children). You can definitely understand culture and history and politics and jurisprudence and mankind without having any clue about the wisdom that Western civilization is built on.
@@ibperson7765 Or the meaningless medicinal recipe.
@@itheuserfirst3186 You didnt read the second paragraph of what I wrote. Beliefs aside, your complete ignorance of the most important book in history and the basis of western civilization makes you uneducated.
Few don't want to understand this history of evolution through scientific approach...
My opinion: It's their ego which is stoping them from knowing the truth, they are destined to be slaves of their beliefs.
Wish the interviewer had followed up when Susskind asked about "complete randomness"
yeah
The "curtain" argument is an explanation of God of the gaps fallacy. It's the best refutation for any religious claims on science.
I consider myself to be Agnostic. I have no evidence of god or a god and I don't claim to know that it does or doesn't exist. I also don't debate theists or atheists. I refuse to. If my knowledge is I have no facts, why would I argue to defend or to denounce. It's pointless. If you have faith, great, if you do not believe, fine, but just know that we all are seeking the same answers; how, why, when. How was the universe ignited? Why are we here and are we alone? When does it all end. All 3 think the same
that's how i look at it , we all seekers of the Truth but with different routes leading to it
But I also know that the believers have no facts.
What physicist like Susskind or Einstein refers as god is something completely different from what other people thinks.even if there is a god I'm almost sure it doesn't have anything to religion or morality.Atheism is about not believing in that moral god created by religion.
I as a theist basically agree with a lot of things that Leonard Susskind said. However, he as a physicist uses science to find out whether a supernatural being exists or not, but we theists use logic and philosophy to prove the existance of God, simply because science is the wrong tool to prove it. Science is very good at describing how nature works, but it doesn't tell you who behind all this is.
1:34 "is there or isn't there a god. I have the feeling it's the wrong question" ------
Classical theology agrees that this is the wrong question. The term "God" refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens. One does not ask if there is or isn't "a" existence in and of itself nor is it logically coherent to posit existence in and of itself to "not be".
Peace be with you.
He is pretty sure God doesn't intervene about this or that. The question is does an agnostic have no opinion about whether or not a God can intervene in the world? That is, does she have no opinion on what it would mean if a God did intervene in the natural world?
The "cliff example" is a little weird. Is he saying that because God doesn't make dramatic interventions into nature that He is incapable of interventions? History is full of examples of the smallest action that caused enormous consequences. Napoleon was ill at the battle of Waterloo. Did that minor illness change the entire course of history? God didn't need legions of angels to defeat Napoleon. Likewise, God doesn't need to switch off gravity to keep me from stepping off a cliff and falling.
We humans have a deep-seated goal to live our lives as we choose and our beliefs develop in our unconscious mind to support that goal. We cannot live our lives as we choose and at the same time believe in God. So we assume as true (i.e. believe) that God doesn't exist or that God no longer cares.
'I'm an agnostic on the subject of whether the world is natural or supernatural. I mean, the natural could be unnatural, couldn't it?'
Yes. Exactly.
I agree with Leonard. I don't think we should be so heavily destracted with things that have literally no proof at all. We should work on it untill we find the answer.
I would say, we should forget about it until we find a sensible question.
wow john malkovitch is so smart! i didn't know it
I have a question being a believer in GOD.
When you came up with idea of No God you must have some solid evidence for that. Obviously if see a plan in jungle I would think it must be created some one as its probability of being assembled by itself with time is impossible. How can I think that a bird flying in air is assembled with time by itself.
There is no evidence for w, y, z. Therefore one should not take a position either way on w, y, or z.
Now, if only theists and their churches held the same honest position... what a beautiful world it would be :)
I think i can answer this...whatever created the human...was fucking genius!
If there is a god, I can tell you he gives zero fucks about humans. We live in a hell hole with no hope but to slowly rot and die, each and every one. The entire history of humanity is misery, suffering and death. Everything that mankind has achieved has been through the painstaking hard work of courageous men and women.
But you first have to invent the concept of a god to make agnosticism relevant. Before humans invented gods no one cared whether he/they existed or not.
It seems incredibly irrelevant to invent something just so you can speculate whether it exists or not and it is time you could have spent exploring the natural world.
jatoxa No, you don't have to invent God first. Susskind address that in this video. Agnosticism is not an answer to the question of whether God exists or not, it's just honestly admitting you don't know enough about some aspects of reality to disregard that kind of questions as irrelevant or already answered.
Just because the idea of God seems to be man-made doesn't mean God is 100% fake. Who knows, maybe God created us and left us without traces of him, and we "invented" the idea of him
Basically, your opinion is just the atheistic perspective of this topic, it's not evidence
P.s., I'm agnostic
...so simple.....so honest opinion.........".....the curtain is alway there..." :) :) ;)
I can understand this brilliant man's irritation
WE REALLY DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE HONEST WE REALLY DON'T KNOW THIS IS WHY WE CREATED RELIGION TRYING TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION
You call THAT an argument?
What makes Christianity so special? God came into the world and dwelled among his creation.
I'd say consciousness is something that can never be understood with science only
Any serious discussion involving science and the universe has to stop asking dumb questions about a god.. it can only lead to baseless speculation and distracts from finding solutions..
Leonard is describing the igtheistic position. I think.
Science ..physics chemistry biology explains how things work not why things exist. So there is catagory difference. Science cn nvr explain logic and numbers whch science relies on. Science cn nvr lead to truth ..the most it can do is provide workable theories
It all boils down to whether you need a personal reason for the universe to have a purpose, and iif that's the case you are trying to make your feelings scientific valid, which is nonsense. The last question on whether the complexity of the universe mandates a creator, can easily be countered by the fact that if God created it, the universe could be a very simple animated projection, with no need for physical laws. The fact that it is complex is a sign that it was not created and needs to work self sufficiently without intervention.
@@Tore_Lund ..who talks abt personal feelings???. It is all abt simple logic whch is everythng tt is created hs a creator. Any creators, whether it be creator of atomic bombs or creator of sponge bob created their creations wth purpose. To say no purpose is simply to deny simple logic. If u cant use simple logic then hw wud use complicated logic to comprehend complex concepts
Sorry Ahmad, you are completely right in that for life to have a purpose it must have been created, but the subject here is the opposite question: Do your and my need for a purpose warrant the existence of a creator? The answer to that is clearly no. You are also contradicting yourself when you say that everything needs a creator to exist, as it excludes any original first creator, which also excludes any original intent or purpose with everything, as we are using logic here.
For me the haunting thing is that we know our exceptional (compared to all the other present species on earth) brain with it's cortex and all is a product of nature and evolution just like the exceptional neck of the giraffe is a product of evolution.
There is nothing inevitable about us coming in and it's just as easy to imagine the earth without the human brain as the giraffe's neck. One big nasty flu epidemic at the wrong time in the wrong place and we wouldn't be here.
But the point is, just like nature can produce giraffes with their 2 meter necks it could in the right circumstances produce a species with an 8 meter neck. And just like nature has produced a species with an IQ of 100 it could produce a species with an IQ of 11 000. Like us compared to a shrew.
So how far can we trust our brains and our perception of the world. To some future-not-yet-evolved-species (unless they're already somewhere out there!) our view of the world can seem as primitive as the llama's perception of the world seems to us. You can't trust anything these days! Kisses!
+Pertti Heinikko
_"There is nothing inevitable about us coming in and it's just as easy to imagine the earth without the human brain as the giraffe's neck. One big nasty flu epidemic at the wrong time in the wrong place and we wouldn't be here."_
That's not an argument that it's not inevitable that we got here though. If determinism is true, then it would be an actual impossibility for your flu epidemic to happen.
_"And just like nature has produced a species with an IQ of 100 it could produce a species with an IQ of 11 000."_
IQ is normalized to 100. It's not like humans just happen to get 100 IQ on average.
ok, i give you that with the iq thing. but a species that would be a hell of a lot brainier than we are anyway..
If there is an all-knowing God, then UA-cam comments prove he didn't make us in his image.
I started reading one of his books but it was beyond my present knowledge of physics, will get back to it in the future, though. Regarding the topic of the video, whenever the god issue arises, I invoke Newton's Flamming Laser Sword, if you can't settle the argument through an experiment, then it's not worth discussing.
Why is it that both religious folks and atheistic folks get so excited about their beliefs. And why is it that they won't leave people that do not claim to believe one way or the other alone? I've had Catholics ask me if I know where I'm going. I've had Atheists ask me if I believed in God. The answer to either question was considered by each person as a clever trap. At first, I felt irritated by either question and then I understood how pathetic each of them was. Unfortunately, that was after I answered in caustic terms. "You just think that you know where you're going!" and "It's difficult to prove something with no evidence!"
There's something that creates life and we don't understand it. Simple.
+Sammybizness
I am agnostic, but I can agree with you. We do know nothing!
Cristian Tase I'd love to believe in a higher power but as yet I've not had any direct experience that one exists and believe me I've tried reaching out to it. My experience is that nature creates us and then we're pretty much on our own to try to survive. I'm a naturalist you could say.
Sex is the best creation of nature. Nature is very clever. It gives us the most pleasure in the thing that it wants us to do.
❤❤❤❤❤
People who believe in God are fools. Hawking had a go at formulating the beginning of the Universe with his no boundary proposal. So it's not impossible to try to answer this question.
Your comment gives zero evidence to rule out the possibility of God existing. What if God exists somewhere in this no-boundary universe? Evolution, no-boundary, none of them contradict the possibility of God, they only contradict religion
Up til today, we have 0 evidence for or against God, so we can't say anything with 100% certainty. We can have opinions, but calling others fools for not having the same opinion is incorrect. None of us can be 100% sure
Agnosticism is stopping before you've thought it through.
Think ...
1) The Universe had a beginning
2) The Universe had a cause
3) What we observe is organized: various forms of matter and energy behave consistently under given sets of conditions and the observable constants that govern those conditions are very finely tuned.
4) Much of what we observe is organized in highly complex ways into highly functional substances, objects and even entities , to the extent that we exist - capable of observing and even understanding much of the complexity we observe.
5) This finely tuned, highly functional, organized universe points to a Design.
6) Design can only be accomplished with intent, foresight, and the planned use of information.
7) Intent, foresight, planning, information usage are all activities of a mind - a Designer and Creator.
The problem is, no matter what lines of evidential reasoning you put on the table, many atheists will just sit there with arms crossed , rolling their eyes. With the position, "you haven't proven it to me" . "Science is proving things" , "And their working on proving all the things that can't be proven right now" . "No god needed in that process of proving things". "All we need is the scientific disciplines" .
@@ChessArmyCommander Yes atheists are olympic-medal level eye-rollers. That and “omg like, youre so dum” is their best argument.
Quantum physics is the supernatural event.
Dr. Susskind should go Full Monty and admit that the universe is self generating, it does not need a creator.
@zoperxplex , can you explain this?
@@madebyourcreator lol ! No. No they can't ! Good question. Short, simple, succinct, and yet powerful.
we'll never know about god, or first cause. we'll never know where matter originated. we;ll never know if there is something outside of our universe. the god question is just not useful in any way. the imagination of brilliant people looking at how our universe is something to be grateful for. keep god on the back burner. the jewish prayer Adon Olam is in every jewish prayer book. it tells us that god is unknowable. if there is a god that's how i would describe it.
110%
It is indeed inevitable that we are all agnostic about the precise nature of reality. But we can all be certain that there was a first cause -- something that preceded the big bang, even though we do not know (and perhaps cannot know) the details of its attributes.
It is therefore inevitable that we live out our lives in terms of beliefs, not knowledge. To live as if the first cause was merely a materialistic something that just always was (a field or a force) is to live out an atheistic belief. Likewise, to live as if the first cause was / is an intelligent (and/or loving and/or indifferent) entity is also to live out a religious (or deistic) belief. To live out our lives as if the nature of the first cause does not matter, is to live out an agnostic belief.
Some beliefs may be more reasonable than others and we can argue about these (and probably get nowhere).
He says he is fairly sure no supernatural entity will intervene if I step off a cliff... He's trying to say that God doesn't change the laws of physics to accomplish His will? God doesn't have to. God can simply put the thought into your head to look around so you'll avoid the cliff.
I consider myself an atheist, but technically I'm also an agnostic. I believe there are no gods, but I am open to having my mind changed.
Same here. Show me a God and I will reassess.
@@twirlipofthemists3201 you do realize how unreasonable that is
The word supernatural is contradictory in of itself. How can something "natural" be considered "supernatural" when the very idea of "natural is to be "natural?" "Supernatural" elevates it above the status of "natural" making it no longer "natural." Which leads me to my next point.
In this debate, if it is in fact a debate. It can only be conducted 1 on 1 b/c according to the definition of "belief,"it is subjective. The second part of the debate a decision must be made as to whether you believe that:
1.)knowledge=belief
2.)belief=knowledge
If you chose 1, then that would convey to me, if I were debating with you, that you had to have had some kind of divine experience in your life to lead to belief in a supreme being, or, you have never had any kind of divine experience and therefore "do not" believe in any form of supreme being. Either which way, to say either stance is "default" is folly.
If you chose 2, then you are basically telling me that none of your beliefs are grounded in anything that can be measured within the realm of understanding we currently observe and therefore have a child-like mind that creates fantasies for itself out of comfort.
This is why atheism and theism will never have a full understanding of the material and the ether, b/c it is too black and white. If I had no sense of smell that doesn't mean flowers don't have a scent, and a phenomenon is not wrong, it is just unusual.
In the quantum universe the statement "nothing is certain" is absolutely correct. Don't take my word for it, go look it up. The only objects that can be used in measurement to the existence of deity are tangible objects we can, and have experienced with the human senses of touch, smell, feel, see, hear.
Anything outside of this is what we call an unknown variable. Therefore, using teapots, and unicorns are invalid comparisons b/c they are creations of mankind, even the unicorn, born from the mind of a child like being, a product of our creativity and imagination is incompatible b/c the vision of such a creature was formed in your head of what such a creature can and should resemble based off of human fantasy.
I say as an agnostic. Do not speak to me of unicorns and teapots b/c all analogies fall short of what this supposed god is supposed to be according to account.
Fairy sure = Don't know
I think his posision is called ignostisim.
Trestein Jordklatt yeah sharlok Holmes ^^
Funny he's agnostic yet believes in his own sci-woo... A universe as a projected hologram and 11 dimensional superstring theory... Ironic... On this occasion I agree with him though. Wise to admit some things we may never know.
If you claim agnosticism about a god then you would have to have the same view when it comes to Santa or Unicorns. You can't say you know or don't know Unicorns exist. Same goes for the Greek gods ect. This expand concept of the subject leads me to find agnosticism pointless and nonsensical. As an atheist and a skeptic I disagree with him.
+Crazywaffle5150 They are not the same thing. First you have to clearly define what is God, Santa, and Unicorns for that comparison to make sense. I actually take the position of Susskind. I am an Ignostic and this is actually the most sceptical position to take. Because you assume less about the unknown. By saying you believe that the Universe just sprout into existence by random factors without any purpose you are assuming things about something you have no idea about.
Teralek You have to define god the same way you define Santa or any other made up concept. You can invent anything in your mind and be agnostic about it. God is defined as the creator of the universe. At the same time I can clam the universe does not really exist and it's an illusion. We can't even claim the universe even had an actual beginning. Saying the universe came from nothing is the same thing as calming nothing is even an actual concept beyond what it is in the scope of the human mind. It's really down to probability. The god concept is not even a concept you can find evidence for, so it's pointless to even entertain it. Just because you can't prove or disprove something does not give each thing equal probability of it being true. Every idea you invent without 0 evidence of how the universe came to be is a probability. In turn you have infinite ideas giving any concept you have improbable because of the lack of evidence. That being said I'm an atheist because it is improbable a god created the universe. Going back tothe concept the universe came from nothing concept. Evidence of the big bang dose not imply the universe came from "nothing". Or that nothing is a concept that we can really pinpoint being an actual thing.
+Crazywaffle5150 No, you see there is a difference. Concepts come when something requires an explanation.
We know where Christmas presents come from. We have direct evidence and there is no remaining doubt about it. Thus we know for sure that Santa does not go around at Christmas time jumping into every chimney in the world. This is fact.
Susskind explained brilliantly that we have no idea how the Universe came to be. We have no explanation. Thus it is entirely possible that an unknown entity created the Universe. If the Universe is an illusion, then, it is at all possible that WE created the Universe. Hence we are God. If God is solely defined by an entity which created all we observe and no more attributes are given to it than it is very possible that this could be the case.
Saying otherwise and dismissing the possibility at all is not being sceptic. It is being a believer. I Do not know. Everything is possible. I keep an open mind. From what I know about reality... and I know little, like all human beings... It is actually very possible that this Universe is a simulation and was created by something with intent.
Its not pointless to entertain ideas about completely open subjects like this one. The history of science is full of examples which show that breakthroughs come only from those who think out of the box.
+Crazywaffle5150 First of all, it's a cop out to compare the concept of god with things like Santa Claus or unicorns, the existence for which we not only lack evidence but have good evidence and reasons for disbelieving. The concept of god is much more serious and much more deeply tied to our experience and identity as humans. Secondly, it's a mistake (one often made by self-described atheists and agnostics) to present atheism and agnosticism as two competing points of view. They are not. Agnosticism is an epistemological category and falls within the province of philosophy in terms of what we know or is possible for us to know. Atheism, on the other hand, is just a personal estimation about the existence of god. To put it simply, they answer two different questions: "Is there a god?" and "Do you believe in a god?" In answer to the former question, I would describe myself as a hyper-agnostic -- i.e., we not only don't know whether or not a god exists, but it is impossible for us to know. And in answer to the latter, I am a skeptic and an atheist -- i.e., I am unconvinced by the god hypothesis and therefore don't accept it.
+Steven Hunter Actually Atheists tend to say Atheism and Agnosticism are the same thing.
Susskind is clearly and Agnostic. He made a good point. God is the wrong question because is a loaded word.
I consider myself an agnostic (ignostic), but I think that there is a more than 50% chance that the observable Universe was made by something with intent. When I speak to a religious person they think I am an atheist, when I speak to an Atheist they think I am a theist... This makes a very amusing and sometimes exasperating situation for me.