Only clueless people find him intelligent. His hair can't even help him with basic science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Sounds like a tiny brain just giving blah blah to me. But do show how smart he is or you are and explain how we got the universe on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Hi, that was a very aggressive opening, so I'm assuming that you're religious. Can I ask which God you support? I agree on your description of the Laws of Thermodynamics but do they apply at the extremes? There's so much we don't know, but some incredible & exciting new theories out there waiting to be proved/disproved. I absolutely do NOT agree that is has to be done supernaturally, we just have to work out how it happened!! And if proud is questioning, curious and won't take 'God did it' as an answer. Then proud is a VERY good thing.
@@lorenbibby9523 how a tiny brain somehow thinks the science I gave is not really well-established by this silly lame excuse... "There's so much we don't know" and "I absolutely do NOT agree that is has to be done supernaturally" Got it, you ignore what we KNOW for sure and you give this evidence that it was not done supernaturally by... (blank) You sure are embarrassing.
@@lorenbibby9523 If you really are questioning and curious then you will already know of the Physical Constants. They strongly point to a universe fine-tuned for Life.
I am a Christian and I really admire these discussions. I do not go to church anymore because I have found that the typical sermon is just an emotional attempt to affirm people's beliefs. What I really admire about this is how he explained the freedom in science, how there is not fear of truth or discovery in the way religion has tried to suppress other forms of thinking, but rather encourages it. The act of suppression of other forms of thinking is really an indication of one's own insecurity in their beliefs. But so far science and the study of other faiths has confirmed what I believe
I don't go to church either but I'm not gullible like you with your silly..."What I really admire about this is how he explained the freedom in science" as if this tiny brain actually follows science. You are one weak 'Christian.' The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@andrewbuswell6010 Well similar to the watchmaker argument, discovering the intricacies of a watch gives you a lot of admiration for the maker, so science has discovered the incredible systems in nature. As far as the resurrection, that doesn't have to do with science, more so philosophy and why death is a just punishment for sin, and why the judge can forgive us and still be just, instead of a corrupt judge that lets a murder walk free without consequence
@@patrickodea6500 The scientific angle is that there is insufficient evidence to believe that the resurrection happened which is the central claim of Christianity.
@@andrewbuswell6010 I am not arguing against that. The evidence that I have though is the reality of sin: how it has both destroyed my life and how my sin has destroyed other people's lives. The movie the butterfly effect provides a really good explanation for the cross, after taking the life of the baby, he goes through every possible scenario to prevent it and comes to the conclusion that he has to take his own life at birth. His death brings justice and redemption
You tiny brains are going in the direction of doom. Thinking is not part of you. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@DB-qw6xq And you're really sure, are you, that Jesus wasn't born because of an 'interaction' with Joseph? Read the beginning of Matthew - Mat1:1 The book of the generation of *Jesus Christ,* the son of David, the son of Abraham. Note that - the generation of who? Matthew goes through a long list of who begat whom, from Abraham all the way down to ... Mat1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Now explain to me how that is the generation of Jesus Christ if Joseph was unrelated to Jesus! Why look to the supernatural when there's a perfectly simple, natural explanation that we can all relate to?
@@DownhillAllTheWay wow, you're a bit slow there, fella. It was too much for you to read.....verses 17 to 25 which it explained it CLEARLY that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, God was. How you missed that should be embarrassing to you. "Now explain to me how that is the generation of Jesus Christ if Joseph was unrelated to Jesus!" Joseph was the stepfather. Nothing was difficult in understanding that but somehow it was to you.
@@2fast2block OK - so "Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, God was". Having spent 6 years in a catholic boarding school, being indoctrinated with this stuff day in, day out, I knew that anyway - but you agree then that Matthew sets out to prove the lineage of Christ, and winds up proving the lineage of somebody who wasn't related to Christ. He did a really good job there! It's a shame we can't take the DNA of Jesus - we'd find out stuff about the holy ghost! But as I said before, why turn to the supernatural, for which there has *never* been any proof of *anything,* when there is a natural explanation for which there is as much evidence as anybody could desire? Most guys these days don't wait till antwhere near the first night of marriage, but we are to believ that Joseph married Mary, was travelling with him for the census, presumably sleeping with her - and she was still a virgin? What are the chances? I don't know anything about you (apart from your being very gullible), but imagine that you had a teenaged daughter, who comes home one evening and says "Guess what, Dad - I'm pregnant - but don't worry, I'm still a virgin." I guess you'd throw up your hands and say "Praise be to God - it's a miracle!" ........ No, I didn't think you would. I'm sure women getting pregnant was not unknown 2023 years ago either - and after all - they were married. So why was it important that she was a virgin? Well, Matthew's gospel wasn't written at the time of Mary's pregnancy - it was written in about the year 85 CE, long after the death of Jesus, when his name had become famous as a demigod. So he had to be given the attributes of a demigod - half man, half god. The "man" half has to come from his mother - because she is easily identified - so the divine (god) part must come from the father. Then all the stuff in verses 17-15 were simply an eleboration of the story, long after it happened, to make it credible to a gullible population of followers who *_wanted_* to believe it. I'm sure that virgin births were not the norm at the time, they were by no means unknown. Alexander the Great, Hercules, Dionysus, and Perseus, Plato, Romulus, the first Roman emperor Augustus - in short, the concept of a virgin birth was in people's minds, so when one was declared, it would not be rejected out of hand. it seemed like a possibility. Now, however, we know it's *not.* If you're interested (probably, you're not, because you don't want anything to challenge your deeply held beliefs) have a look at www.rivalnations.org/many-virgin-births/ (about a page and a half) and listen (less that a minute) to ua-cam.com/users/shortsyTA4nDhq7SU If you refute what I have said here, please state the specific points you disagre with, and give links to your sources, as I have.
And the sound this tiny brain makes is blah blah with NO evidence. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Given the existence of the Physical Constants, we are left with a choice, or a "preference" as Dawkins puts it. Do the Constants point to fine-tuning or is there another explanation?
No it doesn’t work that way. There is innate nature to things that logic imposes upon us. The burden of proof is on those who go against it. If you see a well engineered iPhone, it follows naturally that it was engineered and designed by someone. The universe engineering is folds upon folds of that of an iPhone. Same goes for matter energy etc. you atheist just memorize a few stupid quotes and repeat them without even understanding what you’re saying. The burden of proof who?
"...the only sensible position is non-belief." Stop pretending you think and make sense. It's not working. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Great, now can you or AC tell me how we got the universe on its own? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block : Not knowing how something happened is proof of nothing but our ignorance. Not knowing a natural process does not even suggest a supernatural one. You're too eager to accept the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
@@lrvogt1257 you simply ignored well-known science I gave then since you can't deal with it....your excuse is we don't know even though we do know. The gap is....between your ears. BIG gap there, you tiny brain, you.
@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt : I don't have any idea what that is supposed to mean. It makes no sense to me. There are anti-theists and simple non-believers and agnostics and there is no criteria or dogma whatsoever so we each don't believe in our own way just like you don't believe in the giant spaghetti monster (I assume). Since atheists used to be killed for non-belief and are still insulted and vilified by alleged Christians, and since Christians so often want to promote their religion with our tax money, some object more strongly on those grounds. Just don't try to legislate religion to force conformity or use our taxes and I have nothing bad to say.
The dragon in the garage is a good example, Grayling simply didn't take the metaphor far enough. The metaphor works best when several individuals claim to have a dragon in their garage. For simplicity I will say that three individuals claim to have a dragon in their garage. You need to choose which garage (A, B, or C) to follow. I.E., which garage contains a dragon? How do you decide? Individual X chooses garage A, because their great grand parents, grand parents, and parents all went to garage A, and that is why they choose garage A. Individual Y chooses garage C because after getting a job, garage C is the closest and fits their lifestyle best. Individual Z started off going to garage A, but met someone special who attends garage B, and individual Z now attends garage B to spend time with this special individual. The point is, the only reason to select one dragon in the garage over another is entirely based on desire. It is not based on proof. It isn't that individual A proved the existence of a dragon better than individual B or individual C. The proof of a dragon existing in a particular garage is exactly the same proof that a dragon exists in a different garage. The same goes for lack of proof, the lack of proof that a dragon exists in one garage is exactly the same as the lack of proof a dragon exists in another garage. The reason to choose one religion over another has absolutely nothing to do with proof, it all comes down to desire. The question becomes: Is it better to randomly choose one garage containing a dragon over another based solely on desire, or is it better to understand no proof of a dragon exists in any garage and therefore accept no dragons exist at all?
"It is not based on proof." His goal was to take the comfort away that believe in the supernatural. That is NOT based on proof. It has NO evidence. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Haha ok. Because theres always the way that the whole 'garage' thing comes of of bent new atheist metaphysics which Grayling thinks is an ok replacement for an empirical experiment the universe se is to big to do. PSYCHIC POWERS it is then using a GARAGE & that mind power decodes there no GOD. Personally i have never believed there was a God. But neither would i ever have believed that psychic remote viewing was to TEST / KNOW that lol
@@kiwigrunt330 YES. Do you desire what a dragon has to offer because it offers the same as it offered your parents and grandparents? Do you desire what a dragon offers because what it offers is best for your soul mate? Do you desire what a dragon offers because what it offers fits your lifestyle best? There could be other reasons to desire an offer, but you are proving the point - One chooses a dragon over another entirely based on desire, one does not choose a dragon based on proof or evidence.
Whether God exists or not depends on your definition of God. There are many Christians who erroneously define "God" as "A" supernatural being, that has agency as humans do. But Mystics of many faiths (and none) define God as Being itself. Therefore God exists. Because Being IS.
@@amywatson2066 That is according to your interpretation, your belief. I see it differently. It's the belief in our own ego - "selfish self" - that makes us feel separation from the "life of our life". The Ultimate Reality cannot be expressed completely in words - that is why it has to be described in simple ideas that humans can understand: "Father"/"children", Creator/Creation. These are called "metaphors".
@@2fast2block "God" is just a 3 -letter word. We humans use words to signify things and experiences. Many religions, including the meditative tradition within Christianity, use words like "God" to signify our basic "existingness", or "Reality itself", especially when experienced more directly, less filtered through the confusion of our thoughts, fears, wants, beliefs, etc. People's normal state seems to be often, or mostly, a waking dream. We cannot know what it's like to be totally calm and present if we haven't experienced it. People who try it report an amazing sense of love and freedom. That might be worth "searching out" 🙂
OK, use your "tools" to explain how we got all this on its own. The only thing "imaginary" is you thinking you think. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
This was a poor talk. He focused too much on silly attacks on Religion. This evening i listened to a 2014 talk of his to Humanists UK . He concentrated almost exclusively on Humanism and it was an excellent talk.
A leading scientist ...very powerful experiment...agreed scientific position by all leading researchers in the field....what more truth did Newton want?
Indeed. All the Religious Gods are false. A fine-tuned universe precludes any physical interference and all Religious Gods, past and present, interfered in the World.
“You can explain the major tenants of any religion-major doctrines of any religion-in less than half an hour. It takes a bit longer to study physics” slam dunk homie
If fine-tuning is real, then all Religions must be false. There can be no physical interference in the universe, and all the Gods of Religion past and present physically interfered in some way in the World. But fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner...!
@@briansmith3791 Gods, or rather belief in gods by humans, only effects the universe via human behaviour. Your 'fine tuner' sounds suspiciously like a god. The universe is the flow of matter and energy through infinite space and time. Life exists because the universe is as it is, not because somebody tuned it.
@@isaac1572 Yeah, i'm speaking of a creator. Life exists because the Laws of Nature and the Physical Laws were inherent at the Big Bang. They have shaped the universe and Life. How did a solitary universe simply appear out of Nothing with these Laws inherent?
@@briansmith3791 According to my current philosophy, the universe is infinite in space and time. A difficult concept, I'll agree, but if the universe had a creator, then they would have to exist outside of time and space. Universe means everything that exists, so your creator can't exist. If your creator does exist within the universe then they must have created the universe around themselves, so they would have to be infinite in time (age). Either way we have to accept the concept of infinity.
@@isaac1572 In my belief the creator exists outside of Space and Time, and i don't know about the universe being infinite. It has a boundary, the Horizon of the universe. If, as you say, the universe is all that exists, then you how do you account for the existence of the Physical Constants? How can a single universe be fine-tuned without a fine-tuner?
There are different ways to demonstrate negative claims, depending on the context and the nature of the claim. Here are some possible methods: - **Proof of impossibility**: This is a method that shows that a negative claim is true by showing that the opposite claim is logically impossible or contradictory. For example, to demonstrate the negative claim that there is no largest prime number, one can use a proof by contradiction that assumes there is a largest prime number and then derives a contradiction from that assumption¹. - **Evidence of absence**: This is a method that shows that a negative claim is true by showing that there is no evidence for the opposite claim, especially when such evidence would be expected or easy to find. For example, to demonstrate the negative claim that there are no elephants in Canada, one can use evidence of absence such as the lack of sightings, tracks, droppings, or other signs of elephants in Canada¹. - **Negative claim limitations**: This is a method that shows that a negative claim is true by specifying what is excluded or absent from a certain subject or category. For example, to demonstrate the negative claim that a certain device does not have a battery, one can use a negative claim limitation such as "the device comprising: a power source devoid of a battery" in a patent application⁵. - **Avoiding negative claims**: This is a method that avoids making negative claims altogether by using positive claims instead, especially when negative claims are vague, ambiguous, or difficult to prove. For example, instead of making the negative claim that "this article does not contain any errors", one can use a positive claim such as "this article has been carefully checked and verified" in a Wikipedia entry⁴. Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/25/2023 (1) Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy). (2) What are negative claim limitations? - Patent Trademark Blog. www.patenttrademarkblog.com/negative-claim-limitations/. (3) Wikipedia:Avoid negative claims - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_negative_claims. (4) What practical methods can be used to prove a negative claim?. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/25136/what-practical-methods-can-be-used-to-prove-a-negative-claim. (5) Chapter 11. Developing a Convincing Argument - Writing for Success .... opentextbc.ca/writingforsuccess/chapter/chapter-11-developing-a-convincing-argument/.
There may not be elephants (In the wild at least) in Canada, but there are certainly plenty of Sasquatch/Bigfoot creatures according to the many reports of footprints stick formations even droppings and reports of bodies secreted away by concerned authorities.
@@scambammer6102 That's an interesting question. According to some sources¹², it is difficult or impossible to prove a negative claim using the methods of science, especially if the claim is about something that is not observable or testable. For example, one cannot prove that there is no Bigfoot or that there is no teapot orbiting the sun using empirical evidence. However, some negative claims can be proven by using **logic** or **mathematics**¹². For example, one can prove that there is no largest prime number or that there is no perfect voting system using deductive reasoning. Some negative claims can also be weakened by showing that they are **contradictory** or **implausible** based on existing knowledge¹. For example, one can argue that there is no perpetual motion machine because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. However, some negative claims are not about the natural world, but about **moral** or **metaphysical** truths³. For example, one cannot use the methods of science to prove that rape is evil or that God does not exist. These claims are based on values, beliefs, or faith, and not on empirical evidence. Science can describe how things are, but not how they ought to be³. Therefore, the answer to your question depends on what kind of negative claim you are talking about and what kind of evidence you are willing to accept. Some negative claims can be proven or disproven by logic or mathematics, some can be supported or challenged by empirical evidence, and some are beyond the scope of science altogether. Source: Conversation with Bing, 5/5/2023 (1) What practical methods can be used to prove a negative claim?. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/25136/what-practical-methods-can-be-used-to-prove-a-negative-claim. (2) Evidence of absence - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence. (3) Five Things Science Can't Explain - The Life. thelife.com/five-things-science-cant-explain. (4) 1.7 Pseudoscience and Other Misuses of Science - Human Biology. humanbiology.pressbooks.tru.ca/chapter/1-7-pseudoscience-and-other-misuses-of-science/.
Professor Grayling admitted that all science can be updated by new evidence, and therefore nothing is 100% certain, but different beliefs have very different probabilities of being 'true.' The word 'true' means 'corresponding to reality, so that if we base our behavior on their correctness, our actions will have the outcomes that we expect. The reason that people are reluctant to abandon belief in a god, is not merely because it is institutionalized, but because believing in god is likely to modify the believer's behavior in the direction of altruism within that culture. If we behave more altruistically, all others will tend to be more altruistic in return, and therefore our lives will be more successful. Thus, in societies where most people adopt a religion, all believers may obtain a biological advantage in conforming, which is quite independent of the fact that god is scientifically, only a metaphor for good behavior.
re plural gods...The Old Testament accepts a plurality of gods - for each cultural group (Jews are admonished not to worship false gods (any alternative gods put forward within the tribe of Israel) or the gods of others. It never says the gods of other cultures are false - just not suitable for Judaism. Most god-botherers don't read their own book - and tend to miss that bit.
Stop pretending you know the bible. There is one true God, the God that created all this. The gods of other cultures are gods to them but that does not make them the true God. That is so easy to figure out reading the bible but your tiny brain somehow can't catch such things. Did you ever make it past verse one about the one true God creating? Do you know of another way it happened? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
That is impossible going by the evidence. Atheistic types claim to go by the evidence but in reality don't follow it. Even with creation, they don't follow it. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Your idea of "evidence" is your dogmatic belief in the Supernatural Sky-God of the Bible - not Zeus or Allah or any other arbitrary Sky-God but the Sky-God you just happen to believe in. Can you say "circular argument"?
@@donthesitatebegin9283 NONE of your blah blah got around the science I gave. It's real science and you show you love running from it. Poor tiny brain you.
@@2fast2block Wow, a devastating retort from a hyper-intelligent wordsmith. Sorry, I meant "more repetitive bullshit from an arrogant malignant narcissist".
Using “Set up” is a loaded, pre-framed, and anthropomorphic way to force the origins of the physical. We don’t know everything, and that’s okay. It’s an ongoing project. Saying a trump-card holding and deliberately nebulous all knowing (even what humans don’t know) “God made everything” is an excuse to do nothing and forfeit all inquiry. Old and fear based deep seated ideas remain through the ages with those who are too afraid to discover the wonders and comforts of life and all we can open our minds to.
The only way to explain the beginnings of the universe AND life is with INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Whether you choose to describe it as a "sky" God, or a Biblical "God" is a separate argument.
No.There are many hypotheses but no scientists claim to know. That would be irrational... only creationists know because they have some bronze age stories. The universe itself could just be a brute fact. The idea that it must be created is just assuming everything works the way humans do. It doesn't.
that`s a strawman gimmick;but I will upset you this cozy vision,you have put the cart before the horse;yes,the design is discernible,but the intelligence "behind" is not outside of it;this is the intelligence the process ,no a designer.
So because something can't come from nothing it was "obviously" created by something that came from nothing. Just make up a creator and your creation is explained. No. There's no validity to an argument where you can't prove the premises. It's an intellectually stupid argument. Because we don't know the answer does not imply anything but our ignorance.
I think there are degrees of atheistic belief commitment. It's not a black and white condition. Richard D is definitely a hard-core apostle to it. He spends a lot of time and energy advocating it.
RD is a tiny brain that says we got all this by "literally nothing." The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 @2dumb2educate can copy and paste thermodynamics, so he must be right. He appears to be attempting to use his anger to strengthen his shaky faith in his imaginary god.😃
@@donthesitatebegin9283 got it, creation happened on its own and got around the laws I gave by your evidence of... "Yeah, right. "Dawkins has a tiny brain" - and you expect people to take you seriously!?" I bet your tiny brain can come up with even more empty replies that accomplish nothing.
@@isaac1572 you gave nothing to show I'm wrong, but you're free to copy and paste it from your empty of substance reply. Please do, you're already doing a great job showing how tiny your brain is.
He doesn't care about truth. He has more care about his hair than does about truth. His goal was to take away the comfort of those that believe in supernatural but his tiny brain can't. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block "It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally " lol and this guy accuses someone else of having a tiny brain. what grade did you flunk out of?
@@2fast2block How ridiculous. All of science is there to be scrutinised and revised as evidence is found. The evidence for the so called supernatural is utterly non existent. To say that 'it can't happen naturally' is utter nonsense. As such a thing has happened science is there to come up with hypothesis that can be tested. What you are stating is dogmatic idiocy. I would suggest that closed minds such as yours would have stated that so much of science over hundreds and hundreds of years until explained could not happen naturally therefore sky wizards, spirits etc. I do not believe that a creator per se is denied, it is just lacking any evidence at all. The fact that all we see and are exists, is to be explained and understood. For someone to come forward and state this happens and can’t be explained, therefore my preferred dogmatic religious world view. Science is not a static dogmatic world view. Science is a process of hypothesising and evaluation through testing what is thereto further understanding an knowledge.
Maybe that's the only way they can make a point since they can't do it by evidence. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
59:43 I would have said it a bit differently. The Sound Of A Healthfully Balanced Society? A balanced chorus of respectfully divergent voices. The Sound Of A Tyrant Taking The Stage? A Generation's Anthem. The Fight Against Tyranny? A Throat-Strained Demand To Be Heard. The Sound Of ~Liberty Dying~? Applause. The Sound Of Surrender? Silence. The Sound Of Grateful Defeat? "Amen". The Sound Of Thanking A Conqueror in Unison? A Hymn. The "made righteous" joining hands in joyful weeping; being finally "found" and "saved" from being "lost" in the evils of liberty.
God gave him a brain too but AC does not like to use it. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block The idea that you are fit to criticise AC is hilarious! He is a highly respected genius - you are a highly disturbed religious fanatic who substitutes ad hominems and wild assertions for arguments and has no shame.
Part of being a good or nice or a gentle parent is to have clear memories of your own childhood for empathy, to know the struggles of hard fought personal improvements in a complicated world. God the almighty creator one did not get his own childhood story like you or me. A mysterious god does not at all mean a helpful god so why bother asking for any extra toppings just for yourself this one time ?
If your idea of God is an abstraction - a point noticed by some, believe it or not, even in Islamic thought of the 7th-8th century literature - then none of this matters! 😊Nice talk anyway, but very much in the tradition of the Western reaction to Christianity to begin with, esp. the idea of the Trinity, which even Newton said he had trouble with, and became Unitarian.
It's no "nice talk" since AC does not even follow the evidence. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I'm an Atheist but are you mad ? Look i know someones been flooding YT with this old hat from yesteryear. Don't you know new atheism collapsed & fell down in disgrace about v15 years ago when they were pinned down & they are had to give AGNOSTIC ANSWERS ? Q to Dawkings could the be a good - A by Dawkins YES, i just feel its unlikely. Q ''could there be the aliens ? A ( Dawkins ) YES there could be = drake equation etc. Q - ''Might the Universe be Infinite A ( Dawkins ) YES it could be. After which new atheism looked like utter SLEAZE because the various books they written gave the fake impression a god could be disproved. While - certainly new atheisms highly militant. shouty, rude. hooligan following were 100% CONVINCED that new atheism could prove it. In fact that part caused the most 99% of the noisy disruptive arguments new atheists caused in online science forums. I mean the affair when they finally owned up to the scams was sordid and highly embarrassing. In that sense - for a new wave of the same videos to suddenly flood in, with all new people again lapping up such nonsense is LAMENTABLE. I'm an atheist - i can stay that way as i've never been such an idiot as to push my preferences onto others. They did, followed by grovelling climb down to agnosticism when believers finally realised how to pin them in. These videos are AGNOSTIC VIDEO'S But it gets worse!! Because no care was taken to argue with any hygiene ( the objective was not to be accurate but to make a killing ) - THEY USED METAPHYSICS. Why ?. Well perhaps people might ask the philosopher why has only ever used metaphysics throughout his life long body of work while simultaneously disrupting it in all other work. Viewers need to know these videos were reasoned out by the most disingenuous philosopher thats every existed otherwise 'sense' isn't possible here.
I'm convinced there is no god, I'm also convinced that its impossible to prove there is no god & that people that claim to do this are worse than the religious people.A LOT WORSE because THEY cause FREEDOM to be cancelled. New Atheists only caused the churches across europe to be looted by aristocrats & who kept the land and money ? - they did. Then it wasn't enough and the elites wanted the commonwealth as well ( national parks etc ) So those are now being sold off at low rates to them as well With all the land that was once FREE & COMMON going into private hands all the people are not free to roam anymore. Thats why the idea 15 Minute City came because its a case of what was 'The Peoples' now being OWNED BY NOBLE LANDLORDS who want PAY as you Go schemes in just because PUBLIC go into that City / Town. You wait and see
@@VaughanMcCue A.C Grayling is a sky dwelling trickster for insisting that because the universe is too big to search ( for a God ) then METAPHYSICS is acceptable. Do you know where he can stick his PSYCHIC REMOTE VIEWING ? - up the ocular device he does the psychic metaphysics with !
Grayling's the President of the Atheist Society? He sets out to disprove all gods and goddesses and ends up using the same old arguments against Religion. And it was Dawkins' himself who coined the phrase 'militant atheism' in a TEDtalk in 2008.
Proffessor Graylng I love your work, I follow you, but M8 the sun does not rise, as you know the earth rotates, but please continue to do your educate us with your wisdom. Cheers M8.
What wisdom? He thinks we got all this on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Yes its quite a Tarzan isn't it. I hope new atheists are right when it comes to being dead as a door nail i.e = absolute death = not alive, truly unequivocally deceased particularly in the case of experiencing consciousness for million years as disembodied entities inside NOTHING. Which i'm not sure if the most inadequate philosopher on earth covered in this video or not ? - in one i saw the idiot trying to pretend he had the substance of mind to discuss the Cosmos & there he had lofty opinions about NOTHING. Grayling never ceases to amaze me concerning how THICK a person can be and have those certs. But then again just look at whats going on recently @ Cambridge & Oxford. So as long suspected about this cretin, that backs it up.
If God does not exist, how did we get all this that does exist? Show something that you thought this through. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Or maybe we live in a simulation. Or maybe the supernatural is some alien life form. More importantly, you don’t know. So don’t jump to any conclusions.
@@traderzone1 there is NO maybe that you can't deal with evidence. Your tiny brain does not like the evidence so it makes any lame excuse to ignore it. You showed that rather clearly.
I love how the guy runs around handing the microphone, not without considerable effort, to each person with a question. Shame it wasn't turned on. However, I don't really like not hearing the question.
There is no more available from the new atheist fraud. As a matter of fact is you look at the way Grayling / Dawkins et al have stated the universe is too big to run and empirical experiment on its all dodgy right away.Then they insist that new atheists can use METAPHYSICS as appropriate. !! Thats the same as the way Hitler would have shot people listening to JAZZ - but on the other hand he listened to his own private live jazz band playing american standards - except with anti Semitic lyrics!!! Simple they are searching the whole universe with just tier minds & thats the same as what religious people do AND HAVE ORDERED EVERYONE ELSE NOT TO DO THAT. So new atheism is an absolute FRAUD on any reasons it has to disprove a God. But then Atheists like myself always knew a lack of one could not be proven & that religious people should be left alone. They are CROOKS - they know they only have what they desire and a guessing game with remote viewing & metaphysics when it comes to whether a god is there or not
What else does he need to say? What more did you expect? More unbelievable tales of Adam and Eve and snakes and floods and Bush fires and walls falling down and water changing to wine and people coming back from the dead and ..........
@@TitanicDundee ......and the way Grayling claims to have 'proven' everything using psychic Metaphysics. There is a third group interested in all this who are non theist & class the new atheists just a ludicrous as the believers.
Since he doesn't follow science, he likes to make up whatever he wants. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I suggest using the adjective “militant” is justified in describing any absolutist position characterised by intolerance, self-righteousness and a refusal to accept that all positions, without exception, make assumptions that are open to question. Rational thinking has indeed pushed religious belief and dogmatism beyond the fringes of human knowledge but it’s important to remember that to reason is to question. Just as knowledge is never absolute, our ‘isms’ including atheism should resist absolutist posturing too.
"Rational thinking has indeed pushed religious belief and dogmatism beyond the fringes of human knowledge" I believe a supernatural creator created all this. Is that rational or not? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block my understanding of the 2LofT is that entropy increases in a closed system but clearly life is able to lower entropy and we really don’t know for sure whether the universe is a closed system. Furthermore, the universe continues to expand at an accelerating rate. So, I’m not sure we can extrapolate from this anything about the origin or ultimate fate of the universe, let alone whether supernatural forces are at play.
Believing is an act of blind faith, and therefore it is not a Popperian search for a truth. It's closer to a gut "feeling". One cannot prove or disprove a feeling. Feelings are so subjective and thus hard to analyze objectively. Second, there are up to 10 thousands religions, depending on how strictly we define religion. Let's accept 10,000. All believing humans believe in just one religion and reject the other 9,999 religions. Atheists reject all 10,000. That is, the difference is just 1 in 10,000. There has rarely been a closer relation between a thesis and its antithesis. There you have it, the much desired four nines (9999). Or in words, belief is lazy statistics 😂 Third, atheists are by far more numerous than any one religion. And their numbers are rising fast. Also, atheism strongly correlates with the degree of how successful a society is. Specifically, atheism correlates very closely with better education and higher wealth. The glaring counter example is the USA. Last, if believers truly believe in an afterlife, then we would see a lot less fear of death, less grief when we lose a loved one, and much higher rates of suicide!!! Our actual behavior sharply contradicts our declared beliefs.
The most important question for me is what should I do. Knowledge of whatever kind can tell me what is the case, not what I should do about it. On this issue there is inevitably no proof and it is a much more interesting set of issues than the matters on which Mr. Grayling was so witty. And much more difficult. As the physicist John Polkinghorne remarked. physics is easy, theology is hard.
@@scambammer6102 theology and physics go hand in hand as all science does. It's you that is full of BS. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Your position is that of an extentialist. Up to a point I agree that it is more interesting than abstract knowledge that does not engage you personally. I think the extentialist philosophers like Kierkegarde (and others too) have the most to say about "ordinary" human life. We decide on our actions without full knowledge. As SK would say "life is lived forwards but understood backwards".
The analogy of the steel rod is not testing the steel rod. It is testing the batch of rods that have all been produced at the same time. Inotherwords, it is an induction which takes as certain that if one rod is good the whole batch is good. Exactly what you don't believe about induction!. Also read the Book of Job to find out that it is not due to Science that people have a problem with the evil world and a good God. A very fine lecturer.
How is it fine when he will still conclude we got all this naturally? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Never understood how being an atheist could lead to an "-ism". Like Atheism. The "-ism" implies a unified world view. But that's just not the case. I see people mistaking the pluralization of Atheist (aka Atheists) with Atheism. To be an Atheist is just to not be convinced that the supernatural is part of reality. You can literally hold any belief system and hold that position. So how is there such a thing as Atheism? Is there a unified group effort of atheists that other groups couldnt be a part of? Is Atheism the same thing as being Anti-theist? You can be a deist and anti-theist. So what is actually Atheism? The only difference between the google definition of athiest and atheism is that addition of "a Person" in the atheist definition. What's the point of defining atheism as the disbelief in the existence of the supernatural and then clarifying with Atheist as the Person who disbelieves in the existence of the supernatural? They are literally the same thing.
I understand your confusion. The suffix "-ism" is often used to denote a unified worldview or belief system. However, this is not always the case. In the context of atheism, the suffix "-ism" simply refers to the lack of belief in a god or gods. It does not imply any particular worldview or belief system. In other words, atheism is not a religion. It is not a set of beliefs or practices. It is simply the absence of belief in a god or gods. There are many different reasons why someone might be an atheist. Some atheists are simply not convinced that there is any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. Others may have had negative experiences with religion that have led them to question its validity. And still others may simply not see the need for religion in their lives. Whatever the reason, atheists come from all walks of life. They hold a wide range of beliefs and values. They are doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, artists, and everything in between. The only thing that all atheists have in common is that they do not believe in a god or gods. That's it. So, to answer your question, atheism is not a unified worldview. It is simply the absence of belief in a god or gods.
Athe-ism isn't possible correct there would have been anti or counter theist or some other term at most. But other that 'just some blokes' putting this sleazing discredited stuff back on its hard to know why its resurrected itself like terminator liquid metal - 'Dawkins et all had committed intellectual suicide in a oily skid mark of sleaze. New atheism broke down onto catastrophe when believers one by one forced all of them ( within those obnoxious cocky smug public debates the new atheist dredged up ) to answer 3 fundamental questions |7 new atheism answered them like this : Could there be a God ? = Yes.
Atheism is based on a stance on gods, friend. "There is not any sufficient evidence to accept the premise of an all-powerful and all-knowing entity operating within or outside of our universe. Therefore, I will live life with the justified assumption, within this framework, that there is no reason to act as though a god does exist." I don't think this is the same as the agnostic claim that: "I'm not sure it is possible for there to be evidence to either prove or disprove the concept of an all-knowing and all-powerful entity, therefore I will act as though there could be a god." You could say it's the difference between rejecting pacal's wager and not, but nontheless those two propositions are distinct enough from one another to merit their own categories.
@@cameroncameron2826 Atheism is simply the absence of belief in a deity or deities. It's important to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism, as they address different aspects of belief. Atheism is about belief or lack thereof, while agnosticism is about knowledge or certainty. An atheist may indeed be agnostic, acknowledging that they cannot know for certain whether a deity exists or not. Being agnostic does not make them intellectually fraudulent; it only means they acknowledge the limits of human knowledge. Regarding the three questions you mentioned, it is not unusual for atheists to answer "yes" to those questions. Accepting the possibility of a god, aliens, or an infinite universe does not negate atheism. It is important to remember that atheism is about a lack of belief in gods, not an absolute denial of their existence. Many atheists are open to evidence and would change their beliefs if provided with convincing evidence. As for your criticism of certain atheists' philosophical approaches and political leanings, it is essential to recognize that atheism is a diverse group of individuals with varying beliefs and ideologies. Some atheists may indeed be politically inclined or have particular philosophical views, but those views do not inherently represent all atheists. It is unfair to judge the entirety of atheism based on the actions or beliefs of a few individuals.
"Moral and Natural Evil in the world..." is a supernatural observation, for Nature knows no "evil", affirms, justifies, calculates, nor defines such nonsense. Is Gravity evil or good? The speed of light? Any of the four forces? Do the Laws of Thermodynamics establish why Genocide is naughty, but preaching his "truth" is nice, particularly when it harms, causes fear and sorrow in others? How very odd he'd reject gnomes and sprites, but affirm "Evil".
@@vincentcarroll471 There you go... Subjective Morality; what I think at any given moment does me benefit is Good, and what doesn't is Evil. Any means to obstruct Subjective Evil is Good, even if it, itself is Objectively Evil, just as means to gain Subjective Good is Good... This constitutes the Morality of the Totalitarian, Authoritarian "Liberals" in the west, from Academia to Government. Lying, cheating, stealing, brutality, corruption, extortion... all perfectly legitimate means to accomplish their Subjective Morality. At bottom, No God = No Morality but for one's own subjective assessment of personal Benefit and Harm, and this is the best Atheism has to offer; Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, BLM, Antifa, Critical Race, Legal Theory...
I try to be cool with religious minded people. And just let it go when they go off the deep end. But I've never heard one rational argument from a religious person for why they think an obvious fairytale is anything but.
This talk was very thorough, but seemed rather long-winded. I think that I got the message before the halfway point, but he went on and on. It amazes me that none of these lecturers, theists, etc. has read even one book by Idries Shah on Sufism. Of course, there are many false gurus in this world. But it must be admitted as a well-known fact that there have been many saints in the world who need no proof of the truth of anything. But no mention of them or their achievements are mentioned. I do believe that there are many and they are men of knowledge. You cannot prove that there is no spiritual world when you cannot sense it, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Perhaps when you die, you will find that it does, but it will be too late. Science cannot explain many things, e.g. why the speed of expansion of the universe is accelerating, etc. Another thing: does it matter if there is a god or not? I think that people do what they think is right for many different reasons, whether they believe in a god or not.
Worrying about the afterlife is the problem. Some religions endorse and encourage the individuals to create an ego by blaming it and praising it for its actions. Those egos then go on to fear their death and fight for an afterlife full of pleasure. Other religions are more active in ensuring that you NEVER create an ego in the first place... and so you never begin to feel as though you own yourself or created yourself. There is no separation. There is only Being.
Can you explain why God permitted the era of the dinosaurs to last for 150 million years and then sent an asteroid to destroy them all? Did he find their antics boring?? Also, why did he wait for another 150 million years before he put man on the Earth?
Why was the scientific world and the countless scientists who operate within the scientific sector so outraged and then frightened by the theory of the big bang and the beginning of our universe? Why did Einstein and others twist themselves unto knits trying to debunk their cosy conclusion that the universe is in fact eternal and in no need of a creator/supreme being? So calm, cool and logical. Such honest people who are just seeking the truth rather than promoting a narrative. Hilarious.
@@2fast2block I'm saying the scientific consensus was that the universe was eternal and had always existed. It's funny how science can cling to that insane belief yet in the same breath laugh at the suggestion of an eternal supreme being. As I said, the science world got their panties in a bunch when the Big Bang theory emerged. Who said scientists don't have agendas or a preferred narrative?
@@markmooroolbark252 it wasn't always that way, at least as much as it is today, but yes, I agree, the community as a whole is ALL about agendas and not much to do with science. The HUGE part of their agenda is anti-God. The 2LofT shows the universe can't be eternal, not even common sense, not by the Law of Causality either...There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.
I'm a bit short of time at the moment. He seems to be be talking about everything except the subject - atheism. I notice that PROVING ATHEISM is dressed in quotes, probably an acknowledgement that his proposition can't be proved at all.
@@scambammer6102 ok, do it yourself. Show how creation happened on its own. You can't and all you are is one big blah blah. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block still running from me, eh Ignorino... why do you believe the resurrection happened and why are you afraid to defend that belief? I'd have thought christians should be proud to discuss the core proposition that underpins their whole belief system?
@@BubbaF0wpend I'm not running, you liar. It's YOU running from the basic science I gave. You're so pathetic, you think creation is the resurrection. Now again, you tiny brain... The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things. Law of Causality - There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.
If your mind is weak enough to fall for graylings garage nonsense a garage will prove to you theres no God. I cannot see how a god could possibly exist, never have. But concrete proof ? Grayling modelling lies through metaphysics is the same as any religious fraud. ? . The core process of LIES with metaphysics never needed a God, and never will. If you are instead an anti religious fraud you can do it by just pretending PROOF exists ( it becomes the GOD ). Another way to look at it is the 'GOD' is still there, but new atheist changed its name to PROOF. You see one lot of people hollering ''theres a God'' & Another Theres no God are both MEANINGLESS when the entity in question just goes under TWO NAMES but is same entity of NOTHING GOD = ZERO PROOF = ZERO New Atheists name the fake ''Mr Proof'' Believers name the fake ''Mr God'' - while in either case there is NOTHING THERE ANYWAY & thus NOTHING by either name makes any difference when its essentially the same process whatever the name of the non existent entity is supposed to be! Take Dawkins - he does have some Conscience. He knows this Mr PROOF version of the argument the new atheists dreamed up is as fraudulent as the Mr God verson. Dawkins will break out in a sweat from time to time knowing its inhuman to be this deceptive. Greyling would NOT - hes a complete mercenary who'd could not care less. I'm a Phenomenologist, Grayling is an insult to phenomenology where he is basic claiming that metaphysics can replace an empirical experiment IF the empirical experiment is not possible ( like a search of the entire universe) He can't and doesn't in this video! its pointless metaphysical hearsay with zero chance of any phenomenology a about a dragon and a garage that is as bad as any burning bush story If you listen to Grayling this fraud has actually said its not possible to disprove a God and that is it within craft meta narrative even. As i said FRAUD
Yeah he has given zero proof of atheism and even his attempt with the dragon none sense was beyond weak. Like how about the whole universe as way to find the “dragon in the garage?”
It really gets confusing when you are an atheist, and you discover that there is something that created everything, but it's not a god in truth. It was the stuff that made up the matter of the universe. The littlest things that were just trying to avoid become nothing.
"It was the stuff that made up the matter of the universe." You make a great atheist, you have a tiny brain that hates to think. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2blockwho created God? The arrogance of a religious person whose entire life is predicated not on evidence but on faith (which can be demonstrably proven as incorrect)
It's interesting to me that Professor Grayling spends much of this video talking about "proof", yet offers none for atheism. Instead he attacks the religious as not having any "proof" as defined by him earlier in the video. Where is the proof the title of this video offer? It appears to me Professor Grayling isn't providing proof, but is instead saying, "I don't believe you".
The fact that the god claim cannot be tested is the proof. Once you test it apologists make up excuses of why that test failed. Just like the person with the dragon in their garage.
@@tabularasa0606 Because something "currently" cannot be proven by current "acceptable" methods is hardly proof that a truth doesn't exist. Truth is truth; whether we know it, accept it, or believe it. The fact there are those out there who believe the earth is flat doesn't make it flat.
@@tabularasa0606 "The fact that the god claim cannot be tested is the proof." Sure it's tested in many ways. Don't blame such obvious things on anyone but you who has a tiny brain. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Do tell how we got all this on its own. Supply the humor. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
The creation vs evolution debate was done to the death years ago. Evolution lost, it's protagonists could not propose any argument that the information contained in DNA could come about by mutant genes and natural selection.
It's not Creation vs Evolution. It's Creation vs Abiogenesis. This shows how ignorant Creationists are. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Even if there is no evolution, that doesn't mean there is a god. Evolution is a fact, can be shown. I don't get why some theists still try to argue against it. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life or if there is a god or not.
@@Jingleschmiede Evolution is seen as their enemy because they want to believe a Supernatural Sky-God made the Universe 6000 years ago. It's really all about the vainglorious hope of an Afterlife. They want to believe they are "special" and "won't die" - surrendering to a soothing fantasy to salve an overwhelming fear of death is an offer too good for them to refuse. Apparently.
That's just nonsense. Evolution is the basis of ALL biology and has been for a century. It is completely uncontroversial except to creationists who tend to not know or to ignore actual science.
I wonder how he would react if I told him I'm never going to die? Just because everyone who has ever lived before me HAS died is no proof that I will. I'm an agnostic myself. I agree with Kant in saying you simply cannot get past agnosticism. For those who claim that you can disprove God, I ask three questions: (a) How did life begin? ie how was living matter created from abiotic matter (b) Why are we conscious - what Darwinian/evolutionary advantage does that give us? (c) Why do we have compassionate feeling to others (both people and animals) that do not share our DNA?
@@scambammer6102 you lie to others and yourself. We know such things that have been looked at very well. We can't even get creation on its own and there's a list of things that follow that we KNOW can't happen on their own. Just as we know 2 + 2 = 4 and can't equal anything but that, you can just throw in we don't know for sure. Your tiny brain and dishonesty with evidence shows loud and clear. Your silly game will end in doom after your judgement with your Maker, God, as you're thrown into the lake of fire to be....no more, not even in memory.
@@scambammer6102 I think they are relevant. If God is removed from the explanatory framework of our world then those questions require an answer. Until one is given then God as the explanation has to remain possible or at least cannot be eliminated as a possibility. Of course the answers may come some day and then again they may not. God/absence of God is a question that has gone nowhere over human history. We know as little about it now as did the cavemen. As far as the question of how life formed without God, we have no coherent account. The question is one for the chemist. I used to be a research chemist and I can assure you that so far there is no coherent explanation conforming with the laws of chemical science.
His counter to the ontological argument is flawed. The devil is not imperfect, he is perfect at being imperfect. Or perfect at being evil. If light is bright, you wouldn't call darkness not-bright. It's dark matter, which scientists believe exists.
The use of straw-man arguments is not helpful. No Christian equates belief in God with with belief in goddesses and fairies. Steelmaning is more helpful: in the presence of a believer set out the best version of Christianity you can arrive at and then listen as the Christian sets out the best argument against it. Then comment on whether the other person has given a fair account of one's own position. Grayling did not even touch the hem of my faith. He spoke of scientific proof, a narrow way of arguing since it is not how people live. And the somewhat sneering tone did not help. Respect for even daft people and their opinions is a better way to learn. sorry.
respect for daft people and their opinions is a better way to learn , are you stupid ?????????if you have miracles , supernatural events and any other event that requires the constant laws of nature turn on and off to allow your beliefs to be true , Thankfully im English and have no need for childish bollocks , get an education and learn to think
I have always preferred substantive arguments even if dismissive of an opinion held rather than smart-arse comments which tell us nothing, about reasoning. That is one reason why I find Grayling so unconvincing. Christians do not always respond with patience or humility even even respect, but their profession tells them that they should. .
And what caused the universe to come about? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@stegemme you wrote..."knowledge is information with causal power" I gave some knowledge and information we have. You could have easily agreed with the bit I gave or showed it was not correct, but you'd rather act as if nothing was given. What are you so afraid of?
I used to be an atheist, but then I was persuaded by a single argument that God exists. Perhaps I should not have been, but try as I might I cannot fault any of the premises. 1. Normative reasons exist That's the first premise and it seems true beyond reasonable doubt, for a reason-to-doubt is itself a normative reason. Normative reasons are reasons to do and believe things. They're what justifications are made of. They're the beginning of all intellectual inquiry. 2. Normative reasons are favouring relations that have a single, external source (Reason). This premise is, I think, a conceptual truth. The normativity of normative reasons just is their favouring nature: to have a reason to believe something or do something is to be in some sense 'bid' do it. Bid do it, that is, by Reason. 3. Minds and only minds can be the source of favouring relations I think this is a conceptual truth too. For every favouring there is a favourer, and the favourer is going to be a mind in every case. For to favour something is to be adopting an attitude towards it, and minds and only minds bear attitudes. From these premises, none of which seems open to any reasonable doubt, it follows that Reason is a mind and that she exists, for her attitudes could not exist absent her. And that mind - the mind of Reason - would be God, for she would be omnipotent, omniscent and omnibenevolent (those claims need defence, but I take it that we can agree that the mind of Reason would qualify as a god of sorts, irrespective of whether she turns out to have those three standard God-qualifying properties). Is that not a proof of God? We can test it: is is valid and are the premises true?
A bizarre tirade - im not sure how any of that relates to the far-flung leap that there's some kind of mystical consciousness overseeing particularly anything. I'm not sure why you've decided to personify rationality, as it's just a man made construct created to attempt at least half-decent and half-useful predictions. If you want to ask why a microbe makes the decisions it does, you could chalk it up to a pretty silly attempt on our part to presume consciousness rather than to maintain a healthy agnosticism to what could otherwise be a biological automaton with the decision-making capabilities of a rock. What this represents is causality - which the universe has in abundance. We can easily consider that what we think "reason" is could just be a jumble of hyper-complex equations where your actions, thoughts, and sensibilities are simply the other end of that equation. So far, that seems to be how the world works, and within that framework I don't see where some God-like construct fits there as some logical necessity.
@@stephenwithaph1566 How is it a 'tirade'? I presented a deductively valid argument. The conclusion describes God. To reject it you need to argue against at least one of the premises. All you've done is blurt some stuff. Good job!
@@geraldharrison5787 Also, when you talk about reasons to do, or believe something: there are plenty of reasons to believe in a separate, caring being called "God" - we feel alone and afraid, need a father-figure in this frightening world - but is that proof?
I don't use the term "supernatural" referring to God because atheists mean "impossible" or " not real". God is reality. God is necessary for existence because it is impossible the existence of the creation without the creator therefore a reality that transcends the finitude of the universe of an infinite nature exists. Incredibly enough if you ask atheists to define God they would not answer correctly "the creator of the creation", and they believe they already won the debate with the most emblematic nonsensical remark of atheism "who created god?"!. Atheists don't understand if an encyclopedia was written explaining the obvious why asking "who created what is not created?" doesn't make sense!. Incredibly enough if you ask atheists to define "creation" they would not answer correctly "what has a beginning of existence or is not eternal, like for example yourself", and they are ignorant of the theological arguments like the kalam cosmological argument that says everything with a beginning of existence has a cause, because it is impossible the existence of infinite causes and effects a first uncaused cause that is the origin of the creation must exist, God. Didn't i explain enough why atheism is a cult inmune to arguments that harms innocent and vulnerable children that wants you ignorant? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The atheist fallacy would test your IQ and the error in reasoning is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy needs to be news.
You're just defining God into existence. Creation therefore Creator Design therefore Designer Contingency therefore Necessity ... The world may very well be made of both temporary and permanent things, but the permanent stuff isn't automatically a god. The permanent stuff (if it exists) only becomes a god when the animals (humans in this case) tell themselves a human-centric story about the permanent stuff in order to bring meaning and hope and importance to their lives.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Would you listen to me because I may know something that you don't? Would you change your mind because you claim to be rational, open minded, understanding and seek the truth? Would you memorize and understand a logical fallacy that is censored to preserve knowledge and not lie to innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheists commit the atheist fallacy always, everytime they open their mouths, because they believe God is sky daddy and don't believe God exists. If God is unarguably the most important and talked about idea that forms all our psychology, behavior and understanding of reality and after fortunes of public money squandered on education atheists don't know God is the creator of the universe is because the cult deceived you manipulating the information with disastrous consequences. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. And you tell them and they don't care.
@@donaldmcronald8989 I am a psychologist and if you don't understand what "to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news" means you need a good psychologist. A great psychologist. The best. What do you understand by "to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news"? I am joking? I am serious? An innocent and vulnerable kid would jump to the opportunity to end the war in Ukraine just by being news knowledge that should not be censored in the first place. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I have lived long enough to know Nobel Prizes are given to friends and family and humanity would not say the truth under torture to save oneself, let alone their own innocent and vulnerable children, and when they are told they don't care. Could I know something that you don't? Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong not knowing God is the creator of the universe?
Great lecture. However you can be a militant anticommunist or a militant antiislamist so, with respect, you can be a militant atheist. The stamp collecting and aphilatelist analogy only goes so far. I am an agnostic who lives as an atheist but I respect people with faith. I am not sure Richard Dawkind does.
You respect that you have blind faith since you have no evidence to go by. Example: show that creation happened on its own. You can't because the evidence is against you. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Atheist: While there may very well be some objective Thing-in-itself at the centre of the Universe, I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God. Therefore, applying Occam's Razor, a Sky-God is superfluous to requirements. wulphstein: Argh! You just can't have a logical conversation with these theorists!
@@donthesitatebegin9283 your blah blah shows your tiny brain. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Hilarious! You didn't understand what I wrote so to cope you called it "blah blah" and threw-out another insult in lieu of an argument. So funny ...
@@donthesitatebegin9283 You, " I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God." You see no reason for a supernatural God. Using a mocking term did nothing for you. So, you can't deal with the evidence I gave to show a supernatural God had to create the universe so you blah blah again to just simply ignore it. It's all your tiny brain can do.
Thinking people know and that's NOT you. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@jrgenstorm6536 yu are totally entitled to yur opinion but if that is so would you please tell me Einstein why is it that loads of scientists cannot and never ever ever could tell us exactly how and when the world began etc etc most scientists are atheists yet they have absolutely no idea to most basic questions which are put to them
@@jrgenstorm6536 we have a tiny brain like Miller right here that gave this as evidence that the universe did create itself and got around the laws I gave by... "Believing in invisible skydaddies is totally stupid." See, when I say they have tiny brains, they really make it obvious.
Pure sophistry - perfectly cogent argument developed from false premises. What's being argued is that there's no evidence for fairies or indeed an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the clouds... Eloquent childishness.
You're being disingenuous. You know very well that "what's being argued" is there's no evidence for Supernatural Sky-Gods - you've tried to reduce and re-frame the argument so it's about attacking naive caricatures ("fairies ... an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the clouds"), as if these caricatures don't accurately represent belief in the Supernatural or the naive versions of "God" that people claim to literally believe in.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 first off, this garbage of "an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the clouds" is all made up to pretend they know what they're talking about. AC doesn't even follow science, even his hair can't help him. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I hear ya, his tiny brain hidden by his hair can't help him either. BASIC science shows he does not follow science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Krauss has been obliterated and exposed as a substandard physicist in the NY Times article of March 23 2012 by Columbia University Professor of Philosophy David Albert; ph.D in theoretical physics (Professor Albert has also written a textbook on Quantum Mechanics).Never has a book by a physicist been so annihilated in a NY Times article for at least 2 decades. Krauss says some of the dumbest comments imaginable and can hardly state he is a qualified physicist because he is not.David Albert is 1000 times a superior physicist and philosopher.
that's not the point Of atheism , atheism is the REJECTION of the claim a theist makes Without Any Evidence , that there is a god , that's it ... nothing more to it it's the most intellectual position Anyone Can Take , and i Do Mean Anyone
A better comparison is not being delusional. Atheism is more realistic than religions because it doesn't promote the delusions created by the ancient ignorants.
@@ThermaL-ty7bw "Without Any Evidence" That's atheism. NO evidence. I have evidence and here's just one example out of many... The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Animals fight for resources. Humans continued to evolve. When the concept of money came along, that fight for resources became all about the accumulation of wealth. *The rich had to exploit the poor further so they developed religion.* The starving poor didn't pay for the 'places of worship'. The illiterate poor didn't codify religion. Capitalists could whitewash their exploitation of the poor by throwing a little dough the church's way. God / heaven / hell are all obviously illogical / impossible. Capitalists wanted cannon fodder (for war), big market places and vast labour pools. To maximise profits. Hence religion soon pushed misogyny and procreation. Now, what's that _Occam's Razor_ thing all about? #ZenAndTheArtOfSavingLifeOnEarth
"God / heaven / hell are all obviously illogical / impossible." Wow. Hey tiny brain, how did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
He spends his time doing blah blah hoping he'll be seen as smart with his hair maybe helping. The clueless being can't even get around basic science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block I'm curious to know how science's inability to know what happened pre-big bang + story of a human's resurrection based on very flimsy evidence = your god did everything. How did you come to that conclusion? Is it just because it's written in that old book? Fill us all in.
@@BubbaF0wpend too bad you're so clueless not realizing those are well-established laws, not "very flimsy evidence." I put it was done supernaturally and you can't handle the evidence I gave for that. Make more comments showing how inept you are as you embarrass your empty self. I enjoy crushing you.
@@2fast2blockunlike yourself I make no claims on the origins of the universe, I have nothing to defend, I have no idea what happened, however you have made very strong claims about the supernatural. Your entire worldview hinges on the resurrection being true, yet you have made no effort to demonstrate the truth of this, which if false, sees everything you say fall apart. You like to pose as an evidence based believer, so show us all what resurrection evidence convinces you that it's true. Come on big man, "crush me" with the weight of evidence you rely on. Can't wait to hear all about these "well established laws".
Can't listen to the waffling on. How would he explain the incorruptible Nun, Sr. Wilhelmina, who was found this way in Missouri recently. She died in 2019. She was not embalmed. And explain all the other incorruptible people. You can't, apart from a miracle.
Yeah, sure. The very Creator of the Universe popped-down to planet Earth and saved a dead nun from rotting. He didn't save any children from cancer, or feed the starving millions while he was visiting - too busy saving a dead nun from rotting (!?).
@@donthesitatebegin9283 "The very Creator of the Universe...." Are you aware of how creation happened on its own? Do share your great wisdom and how you defeated well-established science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block When I want advice from a simple-minded buffoon with significant mental-health issues and a Narcissistic-Grandiose Personality Disorder, I'll ask you. In the meantime, keep insulting people with your projections - and don't forget to copy/paste your comical "proof" that your Supernatural Sky-God must be "the correct one" - for the millionth time.
@@donthesitatebegin9283Narcissism ✅️ Delusion ✅️ Bully tactics ✅️ Zero self-awareness ✅️ Prone to belief in fantasy ✅️ Is actually Gepetto from Pinocchio ✅️ Unable to defend resurrection ✅️✅️✅️ He's the total package 😂
6:33 "This is one of the remarkable & wonderful things about Science, that it is very open minded & open ended & always looking to test itself & to see whether its conclusions, its theories are safe" You're talking about an entity that has no Empirical referent, "Science" has no mind, it doesn't look, it doesn't make conclusions or theories, that's what SCIENTISTS do, you're personifying & distorting the nature of Science. I like to think that the convergence towards truth, is more like a Mandelbrot set, as the description is never the described, it could just keep getting more precise, with no end. Sometimes an arrow has to be fired at an angle to reach its target. The term "Supernatural", can have more than one meaning, although it's usually interpreted to mean "Beyond Nature", the prefix "Super" can also mean the exceptionally, as with "Superhuman". When a person makes a claim, if they are not a Scientist, they aren't necessarily required to use the criteria of Scientists, of course you in turn, also aren't required to believe them. If one's definition of Astrology is "The influence of Astronomical objects &/or systems on behavior" them the circadian cycle & seasonality, as with seasonal biology & seasonal sociology constitutes proof of concept. So you don't think the Sun, being a star, has an influence on our destiny? Both Theists & Atheists are Agnostics in denial, but at least the Theists accept that theirs is a position of faith. The transverse Hall effect of the Glial network is a good candidate for self-reflexivity.
@Kombat Kompanion hey tiny brain, we can't get anything without a supernatural power...God. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
So far he just blah blahs and doesn't offer much. We can't get this all on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
He's really very second-rate. Has no significant achievements, unless kissing butt to move up a few rungs in his career can be considered an achievement.
@Kombat Kompanion Can you name one? And going to the European Union to beg them to administer a "punishment beating" to his own country for daring to vote to leave it in a referendum doesn't count.
He's a great guy, but yet again the dreaded 'daughter-mention' is deployed. Why is this - so many intellectual speakers on UA-cam mention their daughters - not their sons - for no good reason. It is beginning to look insidious. Are they telling us that their little daughters are substitute critical-mothers, or what?
It's sad that his daughter doesn't know how clueless he is. Maybe someday she'll see it as soon as she learns BASIC science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@rl7012 I bet you didn't try my experiment. Seriously. Stop eating and tell me in a couple of days which is primary. BTW just saying "consciousness is primary" is worthless. I say it isn't, so there.
@@karlschmied6218 OK, you were being ironic. So get serious now and show how smart you are in how the universe created itself. How can that be? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block What do you have against the laws of thermodynamics? Do not lecture me, I am an old physicist ;-) Physics today stands for some things we "know". By "know" I mean that we can "handle" things that we couldn't before. We have some consistent mathematical models. This does not mean that physics will not evolve, nor does it mean that it will one day be "perfect". Does that mean that "a god" and, from your point of view, your god of all things, has to come along to fill the probably eternal gaps in human knowledge? Not at all, in my opinion. Why should our limits of "understanding" be a proof for "your" "God"? I don't see our inability to fully comprehend a garage as evidence for your or any "god". Gods are human figments to calm the fear of loss of control and death. A certain idea of death leads to this fear and to a religious fantasy as an antidote. In my view, this is a kind of belief in a super Easter bunny for "adults." There are many groups with incompatible such religious ideas.
@@karlschmied6218 "What do you have against the laws of thermodynamics?" I gave them in a brief fashion. I have nothing against them. Don''t blame me for your horrible reading skills, not to mention, your tiny brain. In all your blah blah, NOTHING got around what I gave! At least realize you have NOTHING but a tiny brain.
The key is at 8:49. We don’t care which the truth is, be we want to know what is the truth is. We don’t see the the answers in the negative, rather we see certainty as positive.
Great, but faith is not subject to rationality. The bible even tells people to ignore rationality. Well, it has to. Right? I thought it was an excellent talk but while he made a good case that atheism is rational there was no proof of anything. It's still that there is no evidence that God does exists... not proof that it doesn't exist.
"The bible even tells people to ignore rationality. Well, it has to. Right?" No, God says to prove all things. What you clueless beings do is take a verse like Hebrews 11:1 and think that's the whole meaning of faith when in that context it was talking about a future event not seen yet. It's too much for your slow mind to follow context though. Now, atheistic types go by BLIND faith. Like the universe coming about on its own with NO evidence that can be. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@BubbaF0wpend got it, this is how creation of the universe happened on its own and got around the laws I gave... "Ignorino/Gepetto; why do you believe the resurrection happened?" What other mindless replies do you have about creation?
@@2fast2blockIgnorino/Gepetto! I've never seen anyone so keen to dodge defending the core proposition of their whole worldview! It's honestly fascinating! Seems that your belief in the resurrection is just a result of indoctrination + Texas echo chamber. Amazing one can get to 70 and still never have even questioned why they think a man resurrected 2000 years ago! Obviously it hasn't been seriously considered, otherwise you'd have taken the many opportunities I've given to give a real answer defending it. But... nothing. At. All. jesus would be sorely disappointed (if he existed today, which, obviously, he doesn't).
@@2fast2block : Something had to happen on it's own, why not a universe? It doesn't have to be constructed in some human fashion like a bicycle. The fact is that no one knows how the universe began. Creationists just make up a genie and POOF all their questions are satisfied... but that just kicks the can down the road and explains nothing of substance. Scientists are not satisfied so they examine the facts we know and try to find out.
His brain is fried. He can only pretend to other people with tiny brains that he's smart. Could he explain how we got all this on its own? Of course not. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
This awful man appeals to the like minded. He is not Plato and is unlikely to be. He should study with an unbiased mind the works of Carl Jung. Their ideas are to be realised not just read. To understand the niceness of orange juice, you need to experience it, not just read about it.
AC has trouble with basic science and can't see what an embarrassment he truly is. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Sagan stole the idea of the dragon in the garage from the myth of the invisible Gardner. So now we are to determine the existence or non-existence of god based on fairy tales. Seems like both sides justify their positions with fairy tales.
Yeah, we don't need fairy tales any longer. Science has pointed the way. The discovery of the Physical Constants has changed everything, the universe looks fine-tuned for Life.
Totally. New Atheism states that since the universe is too big to run an empirical experiment on, then new atheism is allowed to use METAPHYSICS - i.e PSYCHIC POWERS to carry our a survey & disprove a God. Given that its all in their own minds, they must be doing REMOTE VIEWING as well. Plus the new atheists told everyone else they were wrong to use psychic powers before going ahead with tier own. IDIOTS
Agree. It is not necessary to “prove” atheism. The nonexistence of anything for which there is no evidence is the default assumption. Of course, anyone is free to believe anything they want to, evidence or no. Just don’t bother the rest of us about it.
The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has done extensive research on brainwashing. _____ Parents/adults start brainwashing children with religion, when they are infants. Prior to them developing cognitive skills to object or opt out. Religion is a means and ways to con, threaten, bully, antagonize, harass and annoy others. Religion is a means and ways of controlling others emotionally, mentally, physically, verbally and financially.
Nothing banal about it. "Show me your God" is a valid and simple straightforward question. We atheists don't want to know about all the Gods', we just want to see the evidence for one.
@@bisbeekid You are, of course, free to believe as you please. You are not owed an explanation by those who believe differently. I clicked on this video because the title claimed that Grayling had "proved" atheism. Obviously, the title was a lie.
The conclusion regarding the non-existence is already provided by the basic assumption of speaker, and his conclusion is a foregone conclusion. That is not a proof.
Nice try. Move the goalposts… just redefine truth, knowledge and proof and hey presto, god is banished into a black hole of non-existence. I once asked the Prof. to explain to me why Kant’s claim in the 1st Critique that philosophy lacks the tools to either prove or disprove the existence of god is false. I’m still waiting… Show me that Kant is wrong to claim that the bounds of sense put the noumenal forever beyond our reach.
One possible way to show that Kant is wrong to claim that the bounds of sense put the noumenal forever beyond our reach is to challenge his distinction between phenomena and noumena, or appearances and things-in-themselves. According to Kant, we can only know phenomena, or the objects of our experience as they are shaped by our forms of intuition (space and time) and categories of understanding (such as causality). We cannot know noumena, or the things-in-themselves that exist independently of our cognition, because they are beyond the limits of our sensibility and understanding¹. However, some critics have argued that this distinction is problematic or incoherent. For example, Hegel argued that Kant's notion of noumena is a contradiction, because it implies that we can think of something that is unthinkable, or that we can have a concept of something that has no content. Similarly, Strawson argued that Kant's notion of noumena is a pseudo-concept, because it does not refer to anything that can be meaningfully described or identified. Moreover, some critics have questioned how Kant can justify his claim that noumena exist at all, or that they are the cause of our sensations, without violating his own principle of transcendental idealism, which states that we cannot make any valid judgments about things that are not given in experience. Therefore, one might argue that Kant's claim that the bounds of sense put the noumenal forever beyond our reach is based on a false or untenable distinction between phenomena and noumena, and that we should reject this distinction altogether. Instead, we might adopt a different view of reality and knowledge, such as Hegel's dialectical idealism, which holds that reality is a dynamic process of rational development that can be comprehended by human reason, or Strawson's descriptive metaphysics, which holds that reality is a system of interrelated entities that can be described by ordinary language and logic. Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/25/2023 (1) www.cambridge.org/core/books/kant-and-the-reach-of-reason/kant-on-noumenal.... www.cambridge.org/core/books/kant-and-the-reach-of-reason/kant-on-noumenal-causality/DD4C37E4D2FA93D71BEE74637C726D2B.
@@jjjccc728 I’m glad you began your reply with ‘one possible way’ (though in point of fact you gave me two possible ways) in which Kant can be answered. However, i would suggest that Hegel’s reply to the phenomena/noumena distinction does not actually refute Kant. Of course we cannot know noumena using empirical concepts, but we are, Kant says (in a certain sense) driven by the logic of the argument to postulate the possible existence of noumena as ‘that which (possibly) lies ‘beyond’ the boundary of sense experience’. Of course even the ‘beyond’ is an illegitimate move for Kant since the concept of a place or space beyond the empirical is an empirical concept and must therefore be ruled out. But of course Kant is well aware of that. The key word I would suggest, is ‘possible’. I don’t see any move by either Hegel or Strawson that eliminates the possibility of the ‘possible’. It seems to me while Hegel and Strawson do offer (on the face of it) plausible alternatives to the Kantian account of reality, neither succeeded in actually refuting him. Not exactly a knockout blow anyway.
@@philipanthony9596 Thank you for your thoughtful response. You make a valid point that Hegel's response to Kant's phenomena/noumena distinction may not necessarily refute Kant's position entirely. Kant himself acknowledges the limitations of our knowledge in regards to noumena, and it is possible that there may be something beyond our empirical concepts that we cannot fully comprehend. However, it is also important to consider the broader implications of Kant's philosophy, particularly his emphasis on the role of human subjectivity in shaping our experience of reality. Hegel and Strawson's critiques may not necessarily completely refute Kant, but they do offer alternative perspectives that challenge some of the assumptions underlying his philosophy. In any case, philosophical debates often involve a nuanced and ongoing discussion, and it is unlikely that any one philosopher or position will provide a definitive or complete answer. It is through engaging with various perspectives and considering their strengths and weaknesses that we can better understand the complexities of philosophical ideas and continue to refine our understanding of the world around us.
@@philipanthony9596 A possibility can be ruled out when it is shown to be logically inconsistent or when there is strong empirical evidence against it. In the context of philosophical arguments, a possibility can also be ruled out if it is shown to be incompatible with certain fundamental assumptions or principles. For example, in the case of Kant's argument, the concept of noumena as that which lies beyond sense experience is ruled out because it is inconsistent with the fundamental principle that knowledge is grounded in experience. Similarly, Hegel and Strawson's arguments may have been successful in refuting Kant's position by showing that it is either logically inconsistent or incompatible with certain fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality.
@@jjjccc728 Thank you. All reasonable points, but as a convinced Platonist I must tell you that I disagree with the proposition that knowledge is grounded in experience. As you know, Plato (or Socrates) view is that experience delivers only opinion (for reasons of inductive uncertainty) whereas the objects of knowledge can only to be found in what he calls the intelligible realm of being. You will be aware that in The Republic Socrates is challenged to show that Thrasymachus’ claim that ‘justice is the interest of the stronger’ is false. In the discussion which follows Socrates is further challenged to show what is wrong with the proposition that it may be advantageous for me to encourage everyone else to be morally good, but not why I should be, if I can thereby obtain the benefits of injustice - as long as I am not caught and can maintain a reputation for justice. This is intolerable. The only way I can see out of this dilemma is to accept Plato’s claim that the objects of knowledge (including justice) must be something to be discovered, not invented, because if invented, there seems no reason to deny the strategy of the master criminal to capitalise on everyone else acting morally to my advantage. Hence my hope that perhaps such objects of knowledge are noumenal,since clearly not phenomenal (at least as far as the master criminal is concerned). I don’t think you can simply argue that my master criminal is a sociopath, as he rejects that label as a contemptible lie propagated by the purveyors of slave morality.
Extremely poor lecture. I was expecting much more. I can't believe that someone still compares the gods of the ancient Greece with the God of Christianity. It is such intellectual dishonesty. Clearly, he does not know or doesn't want to know that the debate has moved on. He did not address any of the arguments for the existence of God, e.g. the Fine tuning or the argument from contingency even though he mentioned contingency several times. Also, some statements were misleading, for example Catholics do not worship Mary. Finally, my question for prof Grayling: Are you seriously saying that the believers are not rational because they believe in God? You might argue that having religious faith is unreasonable but to say that they are not rational is elitist. Overall, too shallow, disappointing.
"...he does not know or doesn't want to know that the debate has moved on." He clearly does not want to know. He's so lame and as you showed, anyone looking will see God in so many ways, but he's just pretending that he's looked and all those that also pretend they've looked take AC seriously.
@@mjja00 followed by your evidence of..... (blank) Show how rational you are. How did we get all this on its own? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
TBF this was a pretty boring speech. The "divine hiddenness" and historical arguments are valid, but he did a poor job of presenting. Anyone interested in this topic should watch Sean Carroll's "God is not a good theory" lecture. It's way better than this rubbish.
Sean Carroll is about as clueless as AC. Neither can even deal with BASIC science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
This lecture isn’t proof of anything, it is superficial mockery. Let’s see how this superficial claim for proof holds up with a theological apologist. “To prove atheism is to test the claims of religion.” Is joke. To prove atheism will have to prove its own claim. Astrology is not a theism but atheism is.
he is pointing out that there no actual evidence of any of the gods, therefore there is no reason to give creedence to them. As a corollary, there are many gods that people address, there is no more evidence for one over another. A second point is that when people assert that there is a god, they normally also believe in a host of attending supernatural beings which are very comparable to the old Roman gods.
This lecture was supposed to prove something. The minions who are shared believers in atheism love to hear their comfortable blather as many Christians tolerate Sunday after Sunday. But there no proof of anything provided in this lecture, except that atheism needs some new arguments. These are tired and worn out.
@@dapaulson1 he demonstrates that there is no evidence that any of the gods exist. that isn't an argument, it is a fact. you can believe whatever you want, but there is the same level of evidence of gods, devils, leprachauns, zeus and apollo.
@@billjohnson9472 The truth is that there is no proof either way for a deity, pro or con. Either position requires a level of faith in your own presuppositions. The same clues for the existence of god are used to disprove the necessity of god. Whether you believe in the dogma of a god speaking the universe into existence or a spec the size of a pea, lying dormant for billions of years suddenly, for no apparent reason, it explodes into billions of galaxies, is the up to your own faith system. Believe what you would, but both positions require faith without proof for either. Both are religious theories.
'Prove atheism'? You can't prove a disbelief. You either believe in a thing or you don't. There is literally nothing to prove. A disbelief is not a belief. You can't indoctrinate others with a disbelief. 🤪🤪🤪
@@isaac1572 "A disbelief is not a belief." Sorry, but that's wrong. It is impossible, contradictory. And you really can indoctrinate others with a disbelief. The Sovjet union for instance demonstrated it. Materialists think they are not believing in something. But they believe in materialism. That is being blinded by your believe exponentially. Materialism is the pinnacle of a believe system. They think they are right and all the others are wrong, which is very typical for a believe system. It is sometimes funny, but most times sad to see how much believers and so called non-believers are mirrors of each other. Room for doubt for instance is absent in both.
@@stefcas You seem confused. Reread my previous response slowly enough so that you understand it, then try again. You can't prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence.🤪
@@isaac1572 Maybe I am confused. But then, you are too. At least if you stay with your: "A disbelief is not a belief". The opposite of a belief is not a disbelief. It is doubt, or the conviction you do not know and in extremis: you cannot know, which approaches your: "You can't prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist." But isn't the same... A believer and a non-believer are both sure of themselves. They both believe something, that they are right .
@@stefcas I don't agree that the opposite of a belief is a doubt. I think that beliefs and doubts are both thoughts to quote Decartes.....I think there for I am. If I believe there is a god or I believe there is not a god,....Either way I have a belief and so have closed the question in my mind. I therefor think that the opposite of belief is an 'open mind'. I see no evidence for the existence of a god, so I don't believe in god. I see no evidence that proves that god does not exist, so technically that makes me agnostic (I don't know), but I prefer to think that I have an open mind that sees no proof of gods' existence, except in the imaginations of people. If someone tells me that there is a god, but they have no evidence, then I am welcome to say 'I don't believe you', then they are welcome to call me an atheist.
Neither atheism nor theism is provable. Both are positions for faith. Physics points to a theory of a big bang. Theism claims a creater creating. Both are positions of the absence of evidence of proof. I wish both sides of this argument the best of luck.
"Both are positions of the absence of evidence of proof." You sure don't think much. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Atheism is the default position. @2fast2block The first law of thermodynamics only applies to the universe. We have no idea if it applies outside of the universe. Also the big bang was not a creation event, it was a change of state, and it still ongoing. Time is a property of the universe, for every point in time there was a universe.
@@billjohnson9472 can I then just say the cause of the universe was by natural means and not an external source? I can say and think that but it's not coherent. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block current theories compatible with observation suggest that the universe of matter/energy was in an unknown state before expansion, and time is a property of space and also was created by the expansion. So there is no "before" the expansion since there was no time dimension. Given that, the physics of the universe and matter/energy is not known. Since time/space was created from an initial state we can't know a lot about out. And not knowing means that no conclusions can be drawn about it being natural or supernatural.
@@billjohnson9472 in other words, you will ignore what we know, which is what I gave. Well-established science does not matter to tiny brains like you. You can't always have something naturally, not to mention, you can't have something naturally without a cause. Time, space, and matter all go hand in hand, you can't subtract one or two from another. Like AC, you will do this with creation and just about anything that follows with your embarrassing lie of we don't know.
@@billjohnson9472 Oh. So you self created and are autonomous and determine what you and life are about. This frankly sounds like a pretty common narcissistic hedonistic delusion.
There's a saying: There's no hate like christian love. Christians tend to be very hateful against everybody that is not christian, which is not very christ like of them. Atheists on average tend to be better people than christians.
@@tabularasa0606 I don't hate you clueless beings, I LOVE showing how tiny your brains are. It's fun and so easy. You poor tiny brains. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Spending time listening to Professor Grayling is never a waste of time. Thank you for sharing this talk with us on UA-cam. Much appreciated.
You are easily impressed and easily pleased.
Only clueless people find him intelligent. His hair can't even help him with basic science.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Prof Grayling is such a wonderful speaker. I could listen & discuss all day. What a teacher he must make 😁🌿
Sounds like a tiny brain just giving blah blah to me. But do show how smart he is or you are and explain how we got the universe on its own.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Hi, that was a very aggressive opening, so I'm assuming that you're religious. Can I ask which God you support? I agree on your description of the Laws of Thermodynamics but do they apply at the extremes? There's so much we don't know, but some incredible & exciting new theories out there waiting to be proved/disproved. I absolutely do NOT agree that is has to be done supernaturally, we just have to work out how it happened!! And if proud is questioning, curious and won't take 'God did it' as an answer. Then proud is a VERY good thing.
@@lorenbibby9523 how a tiny brain somehow thinks the science I gave is not really well-established by this silly lame excuse...
"There's so much we don't know" and "I absolutely do NOT agree that is has to be done supernaturally"
Got it, you ignore what we KNOW for sure and you give this evidence that it was not done supernaturally by...
(blank)
You sure are embarrassing.
@@lorenbibby9523 If you really are questioning and curious then you will already know of the Physical Constants. They strongly point to a universe fine-tuned for Life.
@@briansmith3791 That doesn't seem to be true to me. As far as we know - we are alone.......in an immense universe.
Wish the sound engineer had done a better job. Quality speaker in Prof. Grayling, substandard sound engineer.
Give them a chance. They are an amateur society.
@Vincent Carroll Oh oh, sounds like hallucinations. You might think about getting that treated.
Yes that is very annoying.
@Vincent Carroll you see someone "trying to convert the world to their beliefs" and go, hey that's our thing!
@Vincent Carroll same honestly
I am a Christian and I really admire these discussions. I do not go to church anymore because I have found that the typical sermon is just an emotional attempt to affirm people's beliefs. What I really admire about this is how he explained the freedom in science, how there is not fear of truth or discovery in the way religion has tried to suppress other forms of thinking, but rather encourages it. The act of suppression of other forms of thinking is really an indication of one's own insecurity in their beliefs. But so far science and the study of other faiths has confirmed what I believe
I don't go to church either but I'm not gullible like you with your silly..."What I really admire about this is how he explained the freedom in science" as if this tiny brain actually follows science. You are one weak 'Christian.'
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Wondering how science tallies with a belief in the resurrection?
@@andrewbuswell6010 Well similar to the watchmaker argument, discovering the intricacies of a watch gives you a lot of admiration for the maker, so science has discovered the incredible systems in nature. As far as the resurrection, that doesn't have to do with science, more so philosophy and why death is a just punishment for sin, and why the judge can forgive us and still be just, instead of a corrupt judge that lets a murder walk free without consequence
@@patrickodea6500 The scientific angle is that there is insufficient evidence to believe that the resurrection happened which is the central claim of Christianity.
@@andrewbuswell6010 I am not arguing against that. The evidence that I have though is the reality of sin: how it has both destroyed my life and how my sin has destroyed other people's lives. The movie the butterfly effect provides a really good explanation for the cross, after taking the life of the baby, he goes through every possible scenario to prevent it and comes to the conclusion that he has to take his own life at birth. His death brings justice and redemption
38:00 - "Originally there were gods everywhere, then there were 12 of them, then only one" - so we're going in the right direction!
You tiny brains are going in the direction of doom. Thinking is not part of you.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
There's one because God became Man and showed the way to Truth!
@@DB-qw6xq And you're really sure, are you, that Jesus wasn't born because of an 'interaction' with Joseph?
Read the beginning of Matthew -
Mat1:1 The book of the generation of *Jesus Christ,* the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Note that - the generation of who?
Matthew goes through a long list of who begat whom, from Abraham all the way down to ...
Mat1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Now explain to me how that is the generation of Jesus Christ if Joseph was unrelated to Jesus!
Why look to the supernatural when there's a perfectly simple, natural explanation that we can all relate to?
@@DownhillAllTheWay wow, you're a bit slow there, fella. It was too much for you to read.....verses 17 to 25 which it explained it CLEARLY that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, God was. How you missed that should be embarrassing to you. "Now explain to me how that is the generation of Jesus Christ if Joseph was unrelated to Jesus!" Joseph was the stepfather. Nothing was difficult in understanding that but somehow it was to you.
@@2fast2block OK - so "Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, God was". Having spent 6 years in a catholic boarding school, being indoctrinated with this stuff day in, day out, I knew that anyway - but you agree then that Matthew sets out to prove the lineage of Christ, and winds up proving the lineage of somebody who wasn't related to Christ. He did a really good job there! It's a shame we can't take the DNA of Jesus - we'd find out stuff about the holy ghost! But as I said before, why turn to the supernatural, for which there has *never* been any proof of *anything,* when there is a natural explanation for which there is as much evidence as anybody could desire?
Most guys these days don't wait till antwhere near the first night of marriage, but we are to believ that Joseph married Mary, was travelling with him for the census, presumably sleeping with her - and she was still a virgin? What are the chances? I don't know anything about you (apart from your being very gullible), but imagine that you had a teenaged daughter, who comes home one evening and says "Guess what, Dad - I'm pregnant - but don't worry, I'm still a virgin." I guess you'd throw up your hands and say "Praise be to God - it's a miracle!" ........ No, I didn't think you would. I'm sure women getting pregnant was not unknown 2023 years ago either - and after all - they were married. So why was it important that she was a virgin?
Well, Matthew's gospel wasn't written at the time of Mary's pregnancy - it was written in about the year 85 CE, long after the death of Jesus, when his name had become famous as a demigod. So he had to be given the attributes of a demigod - half man, half god. The "man" half has to come from his mother - because she is easily identified - so the divine (god) part must come from the father. Then all the stuff in verses 17-15 were simply an eleboration of the story, long after it happened, to make it credible to a gullible population of followers who *_wanted_* to believe it.
I'm sure that virgin births were not the norm at the time, they were by no means unknown. Alexander the Great, Hercules, Dionysus, and Perseus, Plato, Romulus, the first Roman emperor Augustus - in short, the concept of a virgin birth was in people's minds, so when one was declared, it would not be rejected out of hand. it seemed like a possibility. Now, however, we know it's *not.*
If you're interested (probably, you're not, because you don't want anything to challenge your deeply held beliefs) have a look at www.rivalnations.org/many-virgin-births/ (about a page and a half)
and listen (less that a minute) to ua-cam.com/users/shortsyTA4nDhq7SU
If you refute what I have said here, please state the specific points you disagre with, and give links to your sources, as I have.
I liked the quote: The sound of tyranny is silence and the sound of democracy is noise.
And the sound this tiny brain makes is blah blah with NO evidence.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Yes, it's one of those snippets you try desperately to remember so you can use it yourself in the future.
@@pierceyy as I showed, AC has a tiny brain and you tiny brains cling to his silly words.
The burden of proof is on those who propose the idea. Until such time as they produce some evidence the only sensible position is non-belief.
God is Being, Existence, Reality. But we don't experience Reality usually - too many layers of thought disturbance 🙂
Given the existence of the Physical Constants, we are left with a choice, or a "preference" as Dawkins puts it. Do the Constants point to fine-tuning or is there another explanation?
No it doesn’t work that way. There is innate nature to things that logic imposes upon us. The burden of proof is on those who go against it.
If you see a well engineered iPhone, it follows naturally that it was engineered and designed by someone. The universe engineering is folds upon folds of that of an iPhone. Same goes for matter energy etc.
you atheist just memorize a few stupid quotes and repeat them without even understanding what you’re saying. The burden of proof who?
"...the only sensible position is non-belief."
Stop pretending you think and make sense. It's not working. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@briansmith3791 if the universe was fine-tuned you would know basic grammar
Excellent speaker and clearly persuasive.
Great, now can you or AC tell me how we got the universe on its own?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block : Not knowing how something happened is proof of nothing but our ignorance. Not knowing a natural process does not even suggest a supernatural one. You're too eager to accept the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
@@lrvogt1257 you simply ignored well-known science I gave then since you can't deal with it....your excuse is we don't know even though we do know. The gap is....between your ears. BIG gap there, you tiny brain, you.
@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt : I don't have any idea what that is supposed to mean. It makes no sense to me.
There are anti-theists and simple non-believers and agnostics and there is no criteria or dogma whatsoever so we each don't believe in our own way just like you don't believe in the giant spaghetti monster (I assume).
Since atheists used to be killed for non-belief and are still insulted and vilified by alleged Christians, and since Christians so often want to promote their religion with our tax money, some object more strongly on those grounds.
Just don't try to legislate religion to force conformity or use our taxes and I have nothing bad to say.
The dragon in the garage is a good example, Grayling simply didn't take the metaphor far enough. The metaphor works best when several individuals claim to have a dragon in their garage. For simplicity I will say that three individuals claim to have a dragon in their garage. You need to choose which garage (A, B, or C) to follow. I.E., which garage contains a dragon? How do you decide? Individual X chooses garage A, because their great grand parents, grand parents, and parents all went to garage A, and that is why they choose garage A. Individual Y chooses garage C because after getting a job, garage C is the closest and fits their lifestyle best. Individual Z started off going to garage A, but met someone special who attends garage B, and individual Z now attends garage B to spend time with this special individual. The point is, the only reason to select one dragon in the garage over another is entirely based on desire. It is not based on proof. It isn't that individual A proved the existence of a dragon better than individual B or individual C. The proof of a dragon existing in a particular garage is exactly the same proof that a dragon exists in a different garage. The same goes for lack of proof, the lack of proof that a dragon exists in one garage is exactly the same as the lack of proof a dragon exists in another garage. The reason to choose one religion over another has absolutely nothing to do with proof, it all comes down to desire. The question becomes: Is it better to randomly choose one garage containing a dragon over another based solely on desire, or is it better to understand no proof of a dragon exists in any garage and therefore accept no dragons exist at all?
"It is not based on proof."
His goal was to take the comfort away that believe in the supernatural. That is NOT based on proof. It has NO evidence.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Haha ok. Because theres always the way that the whole 'garage' thing comes of of bent new atheist metaphysics which Grayling thinks is an ok replacement for an empirical experiment the universe se is to big to do. PSYCHIC POWERS it is then using a GARAGE & that mind power decodes there no GOD.
Personally i have never believed there was a God. But neither would i ever have believed that psychic remote viewing was to TEST / KNOW that lol
That depends on what I believe the dragon has to offer.
@@kiwigrunt330 as I showed, AC can't offer much.
@@kiwigrunt330 YES. Do you desire what a dragon has to offer because it offers the same as it offered your parents and grandparents? Do you desire what a dragon offers because what it offers is best for your soul mate? Do you desire what a dragon offers because what it offers fits your lifestyle best? There could be other reasons to desire an offer, but you are proving the point - One chooses a dragon over another entirely based on desire, one does not choose a dragon based on proof or evidence.
Whether God exists or not depends on your definition of God. There are many Christians who erroneously define "God" as "A" supernatural being, that has agency as humans do. But Mystics of many faiths (and none) define God as Being itself. Therefore God exists. Because Being IS.
Being is what?
Being and God are two different things. God has created beings.
@@amywatson2066 That is according to your interpretation, your belief. I see it differently. It's the belief in our own ego - "selfish self" - that makes us feel separation from the "life of our life". The Ultimate Reality cannot be expressed completely in words - that is why it has to be described in simple ideas that humans can understand: "Father"/"children", Creator/Creation. These are called "metaphors".
You can't know which God until you think there is one to search out. Do you think there is one to search out?
@@2fast2block "God" is just a 3 -letter word. We humans use words to signify things and experiences. Many religions, including the meditative tradition within Christianity, use words like "God" to signify our basic "existingness", or "Reality itself", especially when experienced more directly, less filtered through the confusion of our thoughts, fears, wants, beliefs, etc. People's normal state seems to be often, or mostly, a waking dream. We cannot know what it's like to be totally calm and present if we haven't experienced it. People who try it report an amazing sense of love and freedom. That might be worth "searching out" 🙂
Proof is very important, although I cannot prove it.
He's an excellent speaker - lucid and funny.....and he gives us tools to fight imaginary gods...!
Critical thinking doesn't need religion.
Science doesn't need religion.
Could you share any of those tools? I heard none
OK, use your "tools" to explain how we got all this on its own. The only thing "imaginary" is you thinking you think.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
This was a poor talk. He focused too much on silly attacks on Religion. This evening i listened to a 2014 talk of his to Humanists UK . He concentrated almost exclusively on Humanism and it was an excellent talk.
A leading scientist ...very powerful experiment...agreed scientific position by all leading researchers in the field....what more truth did Newton want?
There are many gods, and they have all been created in the imaginations of people.
Indeed. All the Religious Gods are false. A fine-tuned universe precludes any physical interference and all Religious Gods, past and present, interfered in the World.
@@briansmith3791 Gods interfere with human perception of the world. Imagined gods effect our behaviour.
@@isaac1572 Any strong belief affects our behaviour. To believe that something created this universe is not a negative.
@@briansmith3791 Just unlikely and totally without evidence. They tell me that the simplest explanation is the best.
i.e.. The universe is infinite.
“You can explain the major tenants of any religion-major doctrines of any religion-in less than half an hour. It takes a bit longer to study physics” slam dunk homie
All religions claim that all other religions are false,... and they are all correct.
If fine-tuning is real, then all Religions must be false. There can be no physical interference in the universe, and all the Gods of Religion past and present physically interfered in some way in the World. But fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner...!
@@briansmith3791 Gods, or rather belief in gods by humans, only effects the universe via human behaviour.
Your 'fine tuner' sounds suspiciously like a god.
The universe is the flow of matter and energy through infinite space and time.
Life exists because the universe is as it is, not because somebody tuned it.
@@isaac1572 Yeah, i'm speaking of a creator. Life exists because the Laws of Nature and the Physical Laws were inherent at the Big Bang. They have shaped the universe and Life. How did a solitary universe simply appear out of Nothing with these Laws inherent?
@@briansmith3791 According to my current philosophy, the universe is infinite in space and time.
A difficult concept, I'll agree, but if the universe had a creator, then they would have to exist outside of time and space.
Universe means everything that exists, so your creator can't exist.
If your creator does exist within the universe then they must have created the universe around themselves, so they would have to be infinite in time (age). Either way we have to accept the concept of infinity.
@@isaac1572 In my belief the creator exists outside of Space and Time, and i don't know about the universe being infinite. It has a boundary, the Horizon of the universe.
If, as you say, the universe is all that exists, then you how do you account for the existence of the Physical Constants? How can a single universe be fine-tuned without a fine-tuner?
There are different ways to demonstrate negative claims, depending on the context and the nature of the claim. Here are some possible methods:
- **Proof of impossibility**: This is a method that shows that a negative claim is true by showing that the opposite claim is logically impossible or contradictory. For example, to demonstrate the negative claim that there is no largest prime number, one can use a proof by contradiction that assumes there is a largest prime number and then derives a contradiction from that assumption¹.
- **Evidence of absence**: This is a method that shows that a negative claim is true by showing that there is no evidence for the opposite claim, especially when such evidence would be expected or easy to find. For example, to demonstrate the negative claim that there are no elephants in Canada, one can use evidence of absence such as the lack of sightings, tracks, droppings, or other signs of elephants in Canada¹.
- **Negative claim limitations**: This is a method that shows that a negative claim is true by specifying what is excluded or absent from a certain subject or category. For example, to demonstrate the negative claim that a certain device does not have a battery, one can use a negative claim limitation such as "the device comprising: a power source devoid of a battery" in a patent application⁵.
- **Avoiding negative claims**: This is a method that avoids making negative claims altogether by using positive claims instead, especially when negative claims are vague, ambiguous, or difficult to prove. For example, instead of making the negative claim that "this article does not contain any errors", one can use a positive claim such as "this article has been carefully checked and verified" in a Wikipedia entry⁴.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/25/2023
(1) Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy).
(2) What are negative claim limitations? - Patent Trademark Blog. www.patenttrademarkblog.com/negative-claim-limitations/.
(3) Wikipedia:Avoid negative claims - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_negative_claims.
(4) What practical methods can be used to prove a negative claim?. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/25136/what-practical-methods-can-be-used-to-prove-a-negative-claim.
(5) Chapter 11. Developing a Convincing Argument - Writing for Success .... opentextbc.ca/writingforsuccess/chapter/chapter-11-developing-a-convincing-argument/.
There may not be elephants (In the wild at least) in Canada, but there are certainly plenty of Sasquatch/Bigfoot creatures according to the many reports of footprints stick formations even droppings and reports of bodies secreted away by concerned authorities.
you forgot elimination of variables through testing, ie, the scientific method. there are always additional methods depending on the specific claim.
@@scambammer6102 That's an interesting question. According to some sources¹², it is difficult or impossible to prove a negative claim using the methods of science, especially if the claim is about something that is not observable or testable. For example, one cannot prove that there is no Bigfoot or that there is no teapot orbiting the sun using empirical evidence. However, some negative claims can be proven by using **logic** or **mathematics**¹². For example, one can prove that there is no largest prime number or that there is no perfect voting system using deductive reasoning. Some negative claims can also be weakened by showing that they are **contradictory** or **implausible** based on existing knowledge¹. For example, one can argue that there is no perpetual motion machine because it violates the laws of thermodynamics.
However, some negative claims are not about the natural world, but about **moral** or **metaphysical** truths³. For example, one cannot use the methods of science to prove that rape is evil or that God does not exist. These claims are based on values, beliefs, or faith, and not on empirical evidence. Science can describe how things are, but not how they ought to be³.
Therefore, the answer to your question depends on what kind of negative claim you are talking about and what kind of evidence you are willing to accept. Some negative claims can be proven or disproven by logic or mathematics, some can be supported or challenged by empirical evidence, and some are beyond the scope of science altogether.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 5/5/2023
(1) What practical methods can be used to prove a negative claim?. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/25136/what-practical-methods-can-be-used-to-prove-a-negative-claim.
(2) Evidence of absence - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence.
(3) Five Things Science Can't Explain - The Life. thelife.com/five-things-science-cant-explain.
(4) 1.7 Pseudoscience and Other Misuses of Science - Human Biology. humanbiology.pressbooks.tru.ca/chapter/1-7-pseudoscience-and-other-misuses-of-science/.
Professor Grayling admitted that all science can be updated by new evidence, and therefore nothing is 100% certain, but different beliefs have very different probabilities of being 'true.' The word 'true' means 'corresponding to reality, so that if we base our behavior on their correctness, our actions will have the outcomes that we expect. The reason that people are reluctant to abandon belief in a god, is not merely because it is institutionalized, but because believing in god is likely to modify the believer's behavior in the direction of altruism within that culture. If we behave more altruistically, all others will tend to be more altruistic in return, and therefore our lives will be more successful. Thus, in societies where most people adopt a religion, all believers may obtain a biological advantage in conforming, which is quite independent of the fact that god is scientifically, only a metaphor for good behavior.
"There is much more empirical evidence for the Tooth Fairy than for God." Grayling; from another lecture
re plural gods...The Old Testament accepts a plurality of gods - for each cultural group (Jews are admonished not to worship false gods (any alternative gods put forward within the tribe of Israel) or the gods of others. It never says the gods of other cultures are false - just not suitable for Judaism. Most god-botherers don't read their own book - and tend to miss that bit.
Stop pretending you know the bible. There is one true God, the God that created all this. The gods of other cultures are gods to them but that does not make them the true God. That is so easy to figure out reading the bible but your tiny brain somehow can't catch such things. Did you ever make it past verse one about the one true God creating? Do you know of another way it happened?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Start with explaining how the laws of physics and physics constants were set up in a way that could develop into organic life.
That is impossible going by the evidence. Atheistic types claim to go by the evidence but in reality don't follow it. Even with creation, they don't follow it.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Your idea of "evidence" is your dogmatic belief in the Supernatural Sky-God of the Bible - not Zeus or Allah or any other arbitrary Sky-God but the Sky-God you just happen to believe in.
Can you say "circular argument"?
@@donthesitatebegin9283 NONE of your blah blah got around the science I gave. It's real science and you show you love running from it. Poor tiny brain you.
@@2fast2block Wow, a devastating retort from a hyper-intelligent wordsmith.
Sorry, I meant "more repetitive bullshit from an arrogant malignant narcissist".
Using “Set up” is a loaded, pre-framed, and anthropomorphic way to force the origins of the physical. We don’t know everything, and that’s okay. It’s an ongoing project.
Saying a trump-card holding and deliberately nebulous all knowing (even what humans don’t know) “God made everything” is an excuse to do nothing and forfeit all inquiry.
Old and fear based deep seated ideas remain through the ages with those who are too afraid to discover the wonders and comforts of life and all we can open our minds to.
The only way to explain the beginnings of the universe AND life is with INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Whether you choose to describe it as a "sky" God, or a Biblical "God" is a separate argument.
Mankind not being able to explain something does not make the default position "god did it". I don't know what happened. But then, neither do you.
No.There are many hypotheses but no scientists claim to know. That would be irrational... only creationists know because they have some bronze age stories. The universe itself could just be a brute fact. The idea that it must be created is just assuming everything works the way humans do. It doesn't.
that`s a strawman gimmick;but I will upset you this cozy vision,you have put the cart before the horse;yes,the design is discernible,but the intelligence "behind" is not outside of it;this is the intelligence the process ,no a designer.
So because something can't come from nothing it was "obviously" created by something that came from nothing. Just make up a creator and your creation is explained. No. There's no validity to an argument where you can't prove the premises.
It's an intellectually stupid argument.
Because we don't know the answer does not imply anything but our ignorance.
I think there are degrees of atheistic belief commitment. It's not a black and white condition. Richard D is definitely a hard-core apostle to it. He spends a lot of time and energy advocating it.
RD is a tiny brain that says we got all this by "literally nothing."
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Yeah, right. "Dawkins has a tiny brain" - and you expect people to take you seriously!?
@@donthesitatebegin9283
@2dumb2educate can copy and paste thermodynamics, so he must be right.
He appears to be attempting to use his anger to strengthen his shaky faith in his imaginary god.😃
@@donthesitatebegin9283 got it, creation happened on its own and got around the laws I gave by your evidence of...
"Yeah, right. "Dawkins has a tiny brain" - and you expect people to take you seriously!?"
I bet your tiny brain can come up with even more empty replies that accomplish nothing.
@@isaac1572 you gave nothing to show I'm wrong, but you're free to copy and paste it from your empty of substance reply. Please do, you're already doing a great job showing how tiny your brain is.
He isn't so rigorous about truth in other conversations he has on youtube
He doesn't care about truth. He has more care about his hair than does about truth. His goal was to take away the comfort of those that believe in supernatural but his tiny brain can't.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Truth is whatever is most convenient to him at that moment.
@@2fast2block .. totally agree Wiz your p.view
@@2fast2block "It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally " lol and this guy accuses someone else of having a tiny brain. what grade did you flunk out of?
@@2fast2block How ridiculous. All of science is there to be scrutinised and revised as evidence is found. The evidence for the so called supernatural is utterly non existent. To say that 'it can't happen naturally' is utter nonsense. As such a thing has happened science is there to come up with hypothesis that can be tested. What you are stating is dogmatic idiocy. I would suggest that closed minds such as yours would have stated that so much of science over hundreds and hundreds of years until explained could not happen naturally therefore sky wizards, spirits etc.
I do not believe that a creator per se is denied, it is just lacking any evidence at all. The fact that all we see and are exists, is to be explained and understood. For someone to come forward and state this happens and can’t be explained, therefore my preferred dogmatic religious world view.
Science is not a static dogmatic world view. Science is a process of hypothesising and evaluation through testing what is thereto further understanding an knowledge.
Why is the logo of the atheist union a triangle? Coincidence?
Maybe that's the only way they can make a point since they can't do it by evidence.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Proof of a question?
Cheers Mike
59:43
I would have said it a bit differently.
The Sound Of A Healthfully Balanced Society?
A balanced chorus of respectfully divergent voices.
The Sound Of A Tyrant Taking The Stage?
A Generation's Anthem.
The Fight Against Tyranny?
A Throat-Strained Demand To Be Heard.
The Sound Of ~Liberty Dying~?
Applause.
The Sound Of Surrender?
Silence.
The Sound Of Grateful Defeat?
"Amen".
The Sound Of Thanking A Conqueror in Unison?
A Hymn.
The "made righteous"
joining hands in joyful weeping;
being finally "found" and "saved"
from being "lost" in the evils of liberty.
oh goodie fourth rate poetry
@@ApPersonaNonGrata use more nouns, less bullshit
God gave the man an uncommonly good head of hair.
God gave him a brain too but AC does not like to use it.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block The idea that you are fit to criticise AC is hilarious!
He is a highly respected genius - you are a highly disturbed religious fanatic who substitutes ad hominems and wild assertions for arguments and has no shame.
Genetics and a good conditioner were responsible.
Part of being a good or nice or a gentle parent is to have clear memories of your own childhood for empathy, to know the struggles of hard fought personal improvements in a complicated world. God the almighty creator one did not get his own childhood story like you or me. A mysterious god does not at all mean a helpful god so why bother asking for any extra toppings just for yourself this one time ?
1:35 I use the terminology absolute truth and ampliative truth.
If your idea of God is an abstraction - a point noticed by some, believe it or not, even in Islamic thought of the 7th-8th century literature - then none of this matters! 😊Nice talk anyway, but very much in the tradition of the Western reaction to Christianity to begin with, esp. the idea of the Trinity, which even Newton said he had trouble with, and became Unitarian.
It's no "nice talk" since AC does not even follow the evidence.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Abstractions only exist within minds. A reality without minds is convincible. Without human minds there’s is no abstraction of human gods
@@chipious9736 spell it out, do you believe in God or not?
@@2fast2block Which one?
@@chipious9736 anyone, you tiny brain, you.
Full of interesting information. Thank you.
Can you share any of it? I heard nothing interesting and zero proofs of atheism.
@@amywatson2066 you needed to have a brain
"I am not convinced that a god exists;" Atheism proven.
I'm an Atheist but are you mad ? Look i know someones been flooding YT with this old hat from yesteryear. Don't you know new atheism collapsed & fell down in disgrace about v15 years ago when they were pinned down & they are had to give AGNOSTIC ANSWERS ? Q to Dawkings could the be a good - A by Dawkins YES, i just feel its unlikely. Q ''could there be the aliens ? A ( Dawkins ) YES there could be = drake equation etc. Q - ''Might the Universe be Infinite A ( Dawkins ) YES it could be.
After which new atheism looked like utter SLEAZE because the various books they written gave the fake impression a god could be disproved. While - certainly new atheisms highly militant. shouty, rude. hooligan following were 100% CONVINCED that new atheism could prove it. In fact that part caused the most 99% of the noisy disruptive arguments new atheists caused in online science forums. I mean the affair when they finally owned up to the scams was sordid and highly embarrassing.
In that sense - for a new wave of the same videos to suddenly flood in, with all new people again lapping up such nonsense is LAMENTABLE.
I'm an atheist - i can stay that way as i've never been such an idiot as to push my preferences onto others. They did, followed by grovelling climb down to agnosticism when believers finally realised how to pin them in.
These videos are AGNOSTIC VIDEO'S But it gets worse!! Because no care was taken to argue with any hygiene ( the objective was not to be accurate but to make a killing ) - THEY USED METAPHYSICS. Why ?. Well perhaps people might ask the philosopher why has only ever used metaphysics throughout his life long body of work while simultaneously disrupting it in all other work. Viewers need to know these videos were reasoned out by the most disingenuous philosopher thats every existed otherwise 'sense' isn't possible here.
You are right because non-belief in sky-dwelling tricksters is a state of mind.
I'm convinced there is no god, I'm also convinced that its impossible to prove there is no god & that people that claim to do this are worse than the religious people.A LOT WORSE because THEY cause FREEDOM to be cancelled. New Atheists only caused the churches across europe to be looted by aristocrats & who kept the land and money ? - they did. Then it wasn't enough and the elites wanted the commonwealth as well ( national parks etc ) So those are now being sold off at low rates to them as well
With all the land that was once FREE & COMMON going into private hands all the people are not free to roam anymore. Thats why the idea 15 Minute City came because its a case of what was 'The Peoples' now being OWNED BY NOBLE LANDLORDS who want PAY as you Go schemes in just because PUBLIC go into that City / Town.
You wait and see
@@VaughanMcCue A.C Grayling is a sky dwelling trickster for insisting that because the universe is too big to search ( for a God ) then METAPHYSICS is acceptable. Do you know where he can stick his PSYCHIC REMOTE VIEWING ? - up the ocular device he does the psychic metaphysics with !
Grayling's the President of the Atheist Society? He sets out to disprove all gods and goddesses and ends up using the same old arguments against Religion. And it was Dawkins' himself who coined the phrase 'militant atheism' in a TEDtalk in 2008.
Proffessor Graylng I love your work, I follow you, but M8 the sun does not rise, as you know the earth rotates, but please continue to do your educate us with your wisdom. Cheers M8.
What wisdom? He thinks we got all this on its own.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Grayling is the worst philosopher in history.
@@cameroncameron2826 He hopes people will look at his hair and somehow see him as an intellectual since he has nothing else going for him.
@@2fast2block Yes its quite a Tarzan isn't it. I hope new atheists are right when it comes to being dead as a door nail i.e = absolute death = not alive, truly unequivocally deceased particularly in the case of experiencing consciousness for million years as disembodied entities inside NOTHING. Which i'm not sure if the most inadequate philosopher on earth covered in this video or not ? - in one i saw the idiot trying to pretend he had the substance of mind to discuss the Cosmos & there he had lofty opinions about NOTHING. Grayling never ceases to amaze me concerning how THICK a person can be and have those certs. But then again just look at whats going on recently @ Cambridge & Oxford. So as long suspected about this cretin, that backs it up.
@@2fast2block tell this guy to get a haircut!
I have reservations about anyone taking one hour to explain something that doesn’t exist?
If God does not exist, how did we get all this that does exist? Show something that you thought this through.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Or maybe we live in a simulation. Or maybe the supernatural is some alien life form. More importantly, you don’t know. So don’t jump to any conclusions.
@@traderzone1 there is NO maybe that you can't deal with evidence. Your tiny brain does not like the evidence so it makes any lame excuse to ignore it. You showed that rather clearly.
I love how the guy runs around handing the microphone, not without considerable effort, to each person with a question. Shame it wasn't turned on. However, I don't really like not hearing the question.
A most superficial argument based on jokes and fairytales to disprove theism. I expected more from this man!
There is no more available from the new atheist fraud. As a matter of fact is you look at the way Grayling / Dawkins et al have stated the universe is too big to run and empirical experiment on its all dodgy right away.Then they insist that new atheists can use METAPHYSICS as appropriate. !! Thats the same as the way Hitler would have shot people listening to JAZZ - but on the other hand he listened to his own private live jazz band playing american standards - except with anti Semitic lyrics!!! Simple they are searching the whole universe with just tier minds & thats the same as what religious people do AND HAVE ORDERED EVERYONE ELSE NOT TO DO THAT.
So new atheism is an absolute FRAUD on any reasons it has to disprove a God. But then Atheists like myself always knew a lack of one could not be proven & that religious people should be left alone.
They are CROOKS - they know they only have what they desire and a guessing game with remote viewing & metaphysics when it comes to whether a god is there or not
What else does he need to say? What more did you expect? More unbelievable tales of Adam and Eve and snakes and floods and Bush fires and walls falling down and water changing to wine and people coming back from the dead and ..........
@@TitanicDundee ......and the way Grayling claims to have 'proven' everything using psychic Metaphysics. There is a third group interested in all this who are non theist & class the new atheists just a ludicrous as the believers.
5:48 Did he just coin _mathemalogic_ ? What a wonderful word.
Since he doesn't follow science, he likes to make up whatever he wants.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt no, God is spirit that created energy. Energy is natural, nature can't create nature, it had to be done supernaturally.
1+1 is always 2 and never 11. "11" in binary is not eleven, it is 3. In a base system where "11" is two, it is still 2, not eleven.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world.
Those who know binary and those who don't.
I suggest using the adjective “militant” is justified in describing any absolutist position characterised by intolerance, self-righteousness and a refusal to accept that all positions, without exception, make assumptions that are open to question. Rational thinking has indeed pushed religious belief and dogmatism beyond the fringes of human knowledge but it’s important to remember that to reason is to question. Just as knowledge is never absolute, our ‘isms’ including atheism should resist absolutist posturing too.
"Rational thinking has indeed pushed religious belief and dogmatism beyond the fringes of human knowledge"
I believe a supernatural creator created all this. Is that rational or not?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block my understanding of the 2LofT is that entropy increases in a closed system but clearly life is able to lower entropy and we really don’t know for sure whether the universe is a closed system. Furthermore, the universe continues to expand at an accelerating rate. So, I’m not sure we can extrapolate from this anything about the origin or ultimate fate of the universe, let alone whether supernatural forces are at play.
@Kombat Kompanion do show by copy and paste what I gave and how you got around it. In other words, continue to show how tiny your brain is.
@Kombat Kompanion sorry, but I don't give reading lessons or even thinking lessons to those in the comment section.
To interject harmony into the exchange I recommend some McGilchrist on the complementary of opposites ua-cam.com/video/v4IeuIg9nGY/v-deo.html
Believing is an act of blind faith, and therefore it is not a Popperian search for a truth. It's closer to a gut "feeling". One cannot prove or disprove a feeling. Feelings are so subjective and thus hard to analyze objectively.
Second, there are up to 10 thousands religions, depending on how strictly we define religion. Let's accept 10,000.
All believing humans believe in just one religion and reject the other 9,999 religions. Atheists reject all 10,000. That is, the difference is just 1 in 10,000.
There has rarely been a closer relation between a thesis and its antithesis.
There you have it, the much desired four nines (9999).
Or in words, belief is lazy statistics 😂
Third, atheists are by far more numerous than any one religion. And their numbers are rising fast. Also, atheism strongly correlates with the degree of how successful a society is. Specifically, atheism correlates very closely with better education and higher wealth. The glaring counter example is the USA.
Last, if believers truly believe in an afterlife, then we would see a lot less fear of death, less grief when we lose a loved one, and much higher rates of suicide!!! Our actual behavior sharply contradicts our declared beliefs.
The most important question for me is what should I do. Knowledge of whatever kind can tell me what is the case, not what I should do about it. On this issue there is inevitably no proof and it is a much more interesting set of issues than the matters on which Mr. Grayling was so witty. And much more difficult. As the physicist John Polkinghorne remarked. physics is easy, theology is hard.
theology is rampant bullshit. It isn't "hard" lol. theists try to make it hard so they can hide the bullshit and fool morons.
@@scambammer6102 theology and physics go hand in hand as all science does. It's you that is full of BS.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Your position is that of an extentialist. Up to a point I agree that it is more interesting than abstract knowledge that does not engage you personally. I think the extentialist philosophers like Kierkegarde (and others too) have the most to say about "ordinary" human life. We decide on our actions without full knowledge. As SK would say "life is lived forwards but understood backwards".
@@robertmarks8701 as clearly seen in what I gave, AC couldn't care less about evidence.
The analogy of the steel rod is not testing the steel rod. It is testing the batch of rods that have all been produced at the same time. Inotherwords, it is an induction which takes as certain that if one rod is good the whole batch is good. Exactly what you don't believe about induction!. Also read the Book of Job to find out that it is not due to Science that people have a problem with the evil world and a good God. A very fine lecturer.
How is it fine when he will still conclude we got all this naturally?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Never understood how being an atheist could lead to an "-ism". Like Atheism. The "-ism" implies a unified world view. But that's just not the case. I see people mistaking the pluralization of Atheist (aka Atheists) with Atheism. To be an Atheist is just to not be convinced that the supernatural is part of reality. You can literally hold any belief system and hold that position. So how is there such a thing as Atheism? Is there a unified group effort of atheists that other groups couldnt be a part of? Is Atheism the same thing as being Anti-theist? You can be a deist and anti-theist. So what is actually Atheism? The only difference between the google definition of athiest and atheism is that addition of "a Person" in the atheist definition. What's the point of defining atheism as the disbelief in the existence of the supernatural and then clarifying with Atheist as the Person who disbelieves in the existence of the supernatural? They are literally the same thing.
I understand your confusion. The suffix "-ism" is often used to denote a unified worldview or belief system. However, this is not always the case. In the context of atheism, the suffix "-ism" simply refers to the lack of belief in a god or gods. It does not imply any particular worldview or belief system.
In other words, atheism is not a religion. It is not a set of beliefs or practices. It is simply the absence of belief in a god or gods.
There are many different reasons why someone might be an atheist. Some atheists are simply not convinced that there is any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. Others may have had negative experiences with religion that have led them to question its validity. And still others may simply not see the need for religion in their lives.
Whatever the reason, atheists come from all walks of life. They hold a wide range of beliefs and values. They are doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, artists, and everything in between.
The only thing that all atheists have in common is that they do not believe in a god or gods. That's it.
So, to answer your question, atheism is not a unified worldview. It is simply the absence of belief in a god or gods.
It's an ideology like everything else. "We are the superior people". Sounds familiarz.right?
Athe-ism isn't possible correct there would have been anti or counter theist or some other term at most. But other that 'just some blokes' putting this sleazing discredited stuff back on its hard to know why its resurrected itself like terminator liquid metal - 'Dawkins et all had committed intellectual suicide in a oily skid mark of sleaze. New atheism broke down onto catastrophe when believers one by one forced all of them ( within those obnoxious cocky smug public debates the new atheist dredged up ) to answer 3 fundamental questions |7 new atheism answered them like this :
Could there be a God ? = Yes.
Atheism is based on a stance on gods, friend.
"There is not any sufficient evidence to accept the premise of an all-powerful and all-knowing entity operating within or outside of our universe. Therefore, I will live life with the justified assumption, within this framework, that there is no reason to act as though a god does exist."
I don't think this is the same as the agnostic claim that: "I'm not sure it is possible for there to be evidence to either prove or disprove the concept of an all-knowing and all-powerful entity, therefore I will act as though there could be a god."
You could say it's the difference between rejecting pacal's wager and not, but nontheless those two propositions are distinct enough from one another to merit their own categories.
@@cameroncameron2826 Atheism is simply the absence of belief in a deity or deities. It's important to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism, as they address different aspects of belief. Atheism is about belief or lack thereof, while agnosticism is about knowledge or certainty. An atheist may indeed be agnostic, acknowledging that they cannot know for certain whether a deity exists or not. Being agnostic does not make them intellectually fraudulent; it only means they acknowledge the limits of human knowledge.
Regarding the three questions you mentioned, it is not unusual for atheists to answer "yes" to those questions. Accepting the possibility of a god, aliens, or an infinite universe does not negate atheism. It is important to remember that atheism is about a lack of belief in gods, not an absolute denial of their existence. Many atheists are open to evidence and would change their beliefs if provided with convincing evidence.
As for your criticism of certain atheists' philosophical approaches and political leanings, it is essential to recognize that atheism is a diverse group of individuals with varying beliefs and ideologies. Some atheists may indeed be politically inclined or have particular philosophical views, but those views do not inherently represent all atheists. It is unfair to judge the entirety of atheism based on the actions or beliefs of a few individuals.
"Moral and Natural Evil in the world..." is a supernatural observation, for Nature knows no "evil", affirms, justifies, calculates, nor defines such nonsense. Is Gravity evil or good? The speed of light? Any of the four forces? Do the Laws of Thermodynamics establish why Genocide is naughty, but preaching his "truth" is nice, particularly when it harms, causes fear and sorrow in others? How very odd he'd reject gnomes and sprites, but affirm "Evil".
@@vincentcarroll471 There you go... Subjective Morality; what I think at any given moment does me benefit is Good, and what doesn't is Evil. Any means to obstruct Subjective Evil is Good, even if it, itself is Objectively Evil, just as means to gain Subjective Good is Good... This constitutes the Morality of the Totalitarian, Authoritarian "Liberals" in the west, from Academia to Government. Lying, cheating, stealing, brutality, corruption, extortion... all perfectly legitimate means to accomplish their Subjective Morality.
At bottom, No God = No Morality but for one's own subjective assessment of personal Benefit and Harm, and this is the best Atheism has to offer; Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, BLM, Antifa, Critical Race, Legal Theory...
I try to be cool with religious minded people. And just let it go when they go off the deep end. But I've never heard one rational argument from a religious person for why they think an obvious fairytale is anything but.
This talk was very thorough, but seemed rather long-winded. I think that I got the message before the halfway point, but he went on and on. It amazes me that none of these lecturers, theists, etc. has read even one book by Idries Shah on Sufism. Of course, there are many false gurus in this world. But it must be admitted as a well-known fact that there have been many saints in the world who need no proof of the truth of anything. But no mention of them or their achievements are mentioned. I do believe that there are many and they are men of knowledge. You cannot prove that there is no spiritual world when you cannot sense it, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Perhaps when you die, you will find that it does, but it will be too late. Science cannot explain many things, e.g. why the speed of expansion of the universe is accelerating, etc.
Another thing: does it matter if there is a god or not? I think that people do what they think is right for many different reasons, whether they believe in a god or not.
Worrying about the afterlife is the problem. Some religions endorse and encourage the individuals to create an ego by blaming it and praising it for its actions. Those egos then go on to fear their death and fight for an afterlife full of pleasure.
Other religions are more active in ensuring that you NEVER create an ego in the first place... and so you never begin to feel as though you own yourself or created yourself. There is no separation.
There is only Being.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Ego? God? I agree that our egos are the problem.
@@cynic150 There's no need for God if you have undifferentiated Being. Religion is reduced to man-made self-help. Applicable to this world ONLY.
Can you explain why God permitted the era of the dinosaurs to last for 150 million years and then sent an asteroid to destroy them all? Did he find their antics boring?? Also, why did he wait for another 150 million years before he put man on the Earth?
Why was the scientific world and the countless scientists who operate within the scientific sector so outraged and then frightened by the theory of the big bang and the beginning of our universe?
Why did Einstein and others twist themselves unto knits trying to debunk their cosy conclusion that the universe is in fact eternal and in no need of a creator/supreme being?
So calm, cool and logical. Such honest people who are just seeking the truth rather than promoting a narrative.
Hilarious.
I'm trying to follow you, are you saying there was no beginning of the universe?
@@2fast2block I'm saying the scientific consensus was that the universe was eternal and had always existed. It's funny how science can cling to that insane belief yet in the same breath laugh at the suggestion of an eternal supreme being.
As I said, the science world got their panties in a bunch when the Big Bang theory emerged. Who said scientists don't have agendas or a preferred narrative?
@@markmooroolbark252 it wasn't always that way, at least as much as it is today, but yes, I agree, the community as a whole is ALL about agendas and not much to do with science. The HUGE part of their agenda is anti-God. The 2LofT shows the universe can't be eternal, not even common sense, not by the Law of Causality either...There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.
I'm a bit short of time at the moment. He seems to be be talking about everything except the subject - atheism. I notice that PROVING ATHEISM is dressed in quotes, probably an acknowledgement that his proposition can't be proved at all.
oh but it can, easily. I don't need this guy, I can do it myself.
@@scambammer6102 ok, do it yourself. Show how creation happened on its own. You can't and all you are is one big blah blah.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Courting the truth
If there is no God, show the 'truth' how creation happened on its own.
@@2fast2block god of the gaps much
@@world_musician ok, your answer to how creation happened on its own...
"god of the gaps much"
Your brain is....TINY.
@@2fast2block still running from me, eh Ignorino... why do you believe the resurrection happened and why are you afraid to defend that belief? I'd have thought christians should be proud to discuss the core proposition that underpins their whole belief system?
@@BubbaF0wpend I'm not running, you liar. It's YOU running from the basic science I gave. You're so pathetic, you think creation is the resurrection. Now again, you tiny brain...
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Law of Causality - There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.
Isn't a dragon imaginary? So the very premise of likening god to a dragon in a garage is correct 💯😉
If your mind is weak enough to fall for graylings garage nonsense a garage will prove to you theres no God. I cannot see how a god could possibly exist, never have. But concrete proof ? Grayling modelling lies through metaphysics is the same as any religious fraud. ? . The core process of LIES with metaphysics never needed a God, and never will. If you are instead an anti religious fraud you can do it by just pretending PROOF exists ( it becomes the GOD ). Another way to look at it is the 'GOD' is still there, but new atheist changed its name to PROOF. You see one lot of people hollering ''theres a God'' & Another Theres no God are both MEANINGLESS when the entity in question just goes under TWO NAMES but is same entity of NOTHING
GOD = ZERO
PROOF = ZERO
New Atheists name the fake ''Mr Proof'' Believers name the fake ''Mr God'' - while in either case there is NOTHING THERE ANYWAY & thus NOTHING by either name makes any difference when its essentially the same process whatever the name of the non existent entity is supposed to be! Take Dawkins - he does have some Conscience. He knows this Mr PROOF version of the argument the new atheists dreamed up is as fraudulent as the Mr God verson. Dawkins will break out in a sweat from time to time knowing its inhuman to be this deceptive. Greyling would NOT - hes a complete mercenary who'd could not care less.
I'm a Phenomenologist, Grayling is an insult to phenomenology where he is basic claiming that metaphysics can replace an empirical experiment IF the empirical experiment is not possible ( like a search of the entire universe) He can't and doesn't in this video! its pointless metaphysical hearsay with zero chance of any phenomenology a about a dragon and a garage that is as bad as any burning bush story
If you listen to Grayling this fraud has actually said its not possible to disprove a God and that is it within craft meta narrative even.
As i said FRAUD
Yeah he has given zero proof of atheism and even his attempt with the dragon none sense was beyond weak. Like how about the whole universe as way to find the “dragon in the garage?”
@@amywatson2066 atheists thrive on nonsense. It's all they have.
Dragons are not imaginary at all; just legends about human engagement with dinosaurs.
At least there are Komodo dragons (Varanus komodoensis), also known as Komodo monitors.
It really gets confusing when you are an atheist, and you discover that there is something that created everything, but it's not a god in truth. It was the stuff that made up the matter of the universe. The littlest things that were just trying to avoid become nothing.
"It was the stuff that made up the matter of the universe."
You make a great atheist, you have a tiny brain that hates to think.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Oh go kiss Santa you seem to prefer fantasy.
@@2fast2blockwho created God?
The arrogance of a religious person whose entire life is predicated not on evidence but on faith (which can be demonstrably proven as incorrect)
@@FlyingSpaghettiMonster2000 his magic sky pappy is named "special pleading"
It's interesting to me that Professor Grayling spends much of this video talking about "proof", yet offers none for atheism. Instead he attacks the religious as not having any "proof" as defined by him earlier in the video. Where is the proof the title of this video offer? It appears to me Professor Grayling isn't providing proof, but is instead saying, "I don't believe you".
The fact that the god claim cannot be tested is the proof. Once you test it apologists make up excuses of why that test failed. Just like the person with the dragon in their garage.
@@tabularasa0606 Because something "currently" cannot be proven by current "acceptable" methods is hardly proof that a truth doesn't exist. Truth is truth; whether we know it, accept it, or believe it. The fact there are those out there who believe the earth is flat doesn't make it flat.
@@tabularasa0606 "The fact that the god claim cannot be tested is the proof."
Sure it's tested in many ways. Don't blame such obvious things on anyone but you who has a tiny brain.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I thought this was John McLaughlin!
I didn't. But now that you mention it the resemblance is uncanny.
This isn't Facebook! Guy......?
Like Richard Dawkins, Anthony Grayling's understanding of theism is too narrow, and therefore it is still not possible to prove a negative.
Do tell how we got all this on its own. Supply the humor.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
The creation vs evolution debate was done to the death years ago. Evolution lost, it's protagonists could not propose any argument that the information contained in DNA could come about by mutant genes and natural selection.
It's not Creation vs Evolution. It's Creation vs Abiogenesis. This shows how ignorant Creationists are. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Even if there is no evolution, that doesn't mean there is a god. Evolution is a fact, can be shown. I don't get why some theists still try to argue against it. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life or if there is a god or not.
@@Jingleschmiede Evolution is seen as their enemy because they want to believe a Supernatural Sky-God made the Universe 6000 years ago.
It's really all about the vainglorious hope of an Afterlife. They want to believe they are "special" and "won't die" - surrendering to a soothing fantasy to salve an overwhelming fear of death is an offer too good for them to refuse. Apparently.
That's just nonsense. Evolution is the basis of ALL biology and has been for a century. It is completely uncontroversial except to creationists who tend to not know or to ignore actual science.
I wonder how he would react if I told him I'm never going to die? Just because everyone who has ever lived before me HAS died is no proof that I will.
I'm an agnostic myself. I agree with Kant in saying you simply cannot get past agnosticism. For those who claim that you can disprove God, I ask three questions: (a) How did life begin? ie how was living matter created from abiotic matter (b) Why are we conscious - what Darwinian/evolutionary advantage does that give us? (c) Why do we have compassionate feeling to others (both people and animals) that do not share our DNA?
none of your questions is remotely relevant to atheism. the fact you don't know that reflects negatively on your cognitive funtion.
@@scambammer6102 you lie to others and yourself. We know such things that have been looked at very well. We can't even get creation on its own and there's a list of things that follow that we KNOW can't happen on their own. Just as we know 2 + 2 = 4 and can't equal anything but that, you can just throw in we don't know for sure. Your tiny brain and dishonesty with evidence shows loud and clear. Your silly game will end in doom after your judgement with your Maker, God, as you're thrown into the lake of fire to be....no more, not even in memory.
the second law says your an idiot , you are going to die .
@@scambammer6102 I think they are relevant. If God is removed from the explanatory framework of our world then those questions require an answer. Until one is given then God as the explanation has to remain possible or at least cannot be eliminated as a possibility. Of course the answers may come some day and then again they may not. God/absence of God is a question that has gone nowhere over human history. We know as little about it now as did the cavemen. As far as the question of how life formed without God, we have no coherent account. The question is one for the chemist. I used to be a research chemist and I can assure you that so far there is no coherent explanation conforming with the laws of chemical science.
His counter to the ontological argument is flawed. The devil is not imperfect, he is perfect at being imperfect. Or perfect at being evil. If light is bright, you wouldn't call darkness not-bright. It's dark matter, which scientists believe exists.
@@jrgenstorm6536 But you can't explain why it's nonsense
Interesting lecture. Awful audio. They should fire their audio engineer.
The use of straw-man arguments is not helpful. No Christian equates belief in God with with belief in goddesses and fairies. Steelmaning is more helpful: in the presence of a believer set out the best version of Christianity you can arrive at and then listen as the Christian sets out the best argument against it. Then comment on whether the other person has given a fair account of one's own position. Grayling did not even touch the hem of my faith. He spoke of scientific proof, a narrow way of arguing since it is not how people live. And the somewhat sneering tone did not help. Respect for even daft people and their opinions is a better way to learn. sorry.
respect for daft people and their opinions is a better way to learn , are you stupid ?????????if you have miracles , supernatural events and any other event that requires the constant laws of nature turn on and off to allow your beliefs to be true , Thankfully im English and have no need for childish bollocks , get an education and learn to think
Delicious word salad.
Calorie-free.
I have always preferred substantive arguments even if dismissive of an opinion held rather than smart-arse comments which tell us nothing, about reasoning. That is one reason why I find Grayling so unconvincing. Christians do not always respond with patience or humility even even respect, but their profession tells them that they should. .
knowledge is information with causal power
And what caused the universe to come about?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block what has this to do with my comment?
@@stegemme you wrote..."knowledge is information with causal power"
I gave some knowledge and information we have. You could have easily agreed with the bit I gave or showed it was not correct, but you'd rather act as if nothing was given. What are you so afraid of?
Is orientation a causal power?
@@2fast2blockSo what is the relationship between the supernatural and the natural?
I used to be an atheist, but then I was persuaded by a single argument that God exists. Perhaps I should not have been, but try as I might I cannot fault any of the premises.
1. Normative reasons exist
That's the first premise and it seems true beyond reasonable doubt, for a reason-to-doubt is itself a normative reason. Normative reasons are reasons to do and believe things. They're what justifications are made of. They're the beginning of all intellectual inquiry.
2. Normative reasons are favouring relations that have a single, external source (Reason).
This premise is, I think, a conceptual truth. The normativity of normative reasons just is their favouring nature: to have a reason to believe something or do something is to be in some sense 'bid' do it. Bid do it, that is, by Reason.
3. Minds and only minds can be the source of favouring relations
I think this is a conceptual truth too. For every favouring there is a favourer, and the favourer is going to be a mind in every case. For to favour something is to be adopting an attitude towards it, and minds and only minds bear attitudes.
From these premises, none of which seems open to any reasonable doubt, it follows that Reason is a mind and that she exists, for her attitudes could not exist absent her.
And that mind - the mind of Reason - would be God, for she would be omnipotent, omniscent and omnibenevolent (those claims need defence, but I take it that we can agree that the mind of Reason would qualify as a god of sorts, irrespective of whether she turns out to have those three standard God-qualifying properties).
Is that not a proof of God? We can test it: is is valid and are the premises true?
Blah blah blah blah blah zzz zzz zzzzzz
A bizarre tirade - im not sure how any of that relates to the far-flung leap that there's some kind of mystical consciousness overseeing particularly anything.
I'm not sure why you've decided to personify rationality, as it's just a man made construct created to attempt at least half-decent and half-useful predictions. If you want to ask why a microbe makes the decisions it does, you could chalk it up to a pretty silly attempt on our part to presume consciousness rather than to maintain a healthy agnosticism to what could otherwise be a biological automaton with the decision-making capabilities of a rock. What this represents is causality - which the universe has in abundance. We can easily consider that what we think "reason" is could just be a jumble of hyper-complex equations where your actions, thoughts, and sensibilities are simply the other end of that equation.
So far, that seems to be how the world works, and within that framework I don't see where some God-like construct fits there as some logical necessity.
@@stephenwithaph1566 How is it a 'tirade'? I presented a deductively valid argument. The conclusion describes God. To reject it you need to argue against at least one of the premises. All you've done is blurt some stuff. Good job!
@@geraldharrison5787 God is Being Itself. You cannot capture God in words, only experience directly.
@@geraldharrison5787 Also, when you talk about reasons to do, or believe something: there are plenty of reasons to believe in a separate, caring being called "God" - we feel alone and afraid, need a father-figure in this frightening world - but is that proof?
I don't use the term "supernatural" referring to God because atheists mean "impossible" or " not real". God is reality. God is necessary for existence because it is impossible the existence of the creation without the creator therefore a reality that transcends the finitude of the universe of an infinite nature exists. Incredibly enough if you ask atheists to define God they would not answer correctly "the creator of the creation", and they believe they already won the debate with the most emblematic nonsensical remark of atheism "who created god?"!. Atheists don't understand if an encyclopedia was written explaining the obvious why asking "who created what is not created?" doesn't make sense!. Incredibly enough if you ask atheists to define "creation" they would not answer correctly "what has a beginning of existence or is not eternal, like for example yourself", and they are ignorant of the theological arguments like the kalam cosmological argument that says everything with a beginning of existence has a cause, because it is impossible the existence of infinite causes and effects a first uncaused cause that is the origin of the creation must exist, God. Didn't i explain enough why atheism is a cult inmune to arguments that harms innocent and vulnerable children that wants you ignorant? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The atheist fallacy would test your IQ and the error in reasoning is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy needs to be news.
You're just defining God into existence.
Creation therefore Creator
Design therefore Designer
Contingency therefore Necessity
...
The world may very well be made of both temporary and permanent things, but the permanent stuff isn't automatically a god. The permanent stuff (if it exists) only becomes a god when the animals (humans in this case) tell themselves a human-centric story about the permanent stuff in order to bring meaning and hope and importance to their lives.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Would you listen to me because I may know something that you don't? Would you change your mind because you claim to be rational, open minded, understanding and seek the truth? Would you memorize and understand a logical fallacy that is censored to preserve knowledge and not lie to innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheists commit the atheist fallacy always, everytime they open their mouths, because they believe God is sky daddy and don't believe God exists. If God is unarguably the most important and talked about idea that forms all our psychology, behavior and understanding of reality and after fortunes of public money squandered on education atheists don't know God is the creator of the universe is because the cult deceived you manipulating the information with disastrous consequences. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. And you tell them and they don't care.
Man has created many gods.
I don't have a problem with the
gods we haven't created yet.
@@donaldmcronald8989 I am a psychologist and if you don't understand what "to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news" means you need a good psychologist. A great psychologist. The best. What do you understand by "to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news"? I am joking? I am serious? An innocent and vulnerable kid would jump to the opportunity to end the war in Ukraine just by being news knowledge that should not be censored in the first place. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I have lived long enough to know Nobel Prizes are given to friends and family and humanity would not say the truth under torture to save oneself, let alone their own innocent and vulnerable children, and when they are told they don't care. Could I know something that you don't? Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong not knowing God is the creator of the universe?
@@michelangelope830 Don't know what you're smoking bro. But I don't want any. Thanks.
Great lecture. However you can be a militant anticommunist or a militant antiislamist so, with respect, you can be a militant atheist. The stamp collecting and aphilatelist analogy only goes so far. I am an agnostic who lives as an atheist but I respect people with faith. I am not sure Richard Dawkind does.
You respect that you have blind faith since you have no evidence to go by. Example: show that creation happened on its own. You can't because the evidence is against you.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
This all sounds like sophistry which makes it impossible to have a logical Occam's razor conversation with theorists.
Atheist: While there may very well be some objective Thing-in-itself at the centre of the Universe, I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God. Therefore, applying Occam's Razor, a Sky-God is superfluous to requirements.
wulphstein: Argh! You just can't have a logical conversation with these theorists!
@@donthesitatebegin9283 your blah blah shows your tiny brain.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Hilarious!
You didn't understand what I wrote so to cope you called it "blah blah" and threw-out another insult in lieu of an argument.
So funny ...
@@donthesitatebegin9283 You, " I see no reason to believe it is this-or-that subjective Supernatural Sky-God."
You see no reason for a supernatural God. Using a mocking term did nothing for you. So, you can't deal with the evidence I gave to show a supernatural God had to create the universe so you blah blah again to just simply ignore it. It's all your tiny brain can do.
@@2fast2block Hilarious!
Nobody knows for sure either way and it is total stupidity and insanity to try and prove either way ie nobody will ever ever know
Thinking people know and that's NOT you.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@jrgenstorm6536 yu are totally entitled to yur opinion but if that is so would you please tell me Einstein why is it that loads of scientists cannot and never ever ever could tell us exactly how and when the world began etc etc most scientists are atheists yet they have absolutely no idea to most basic questions which are put to them
@@jrgenstorm6536 we have a tiny brain like Miller right here that gave this as evidence that the universe did create itself and got around the laws I gave by...
"Believing in invisible skydaddies is totally stupid."
See, when I say they have tiny brains, they really make it obvious.
Pure sophistry - perfectly cogent argument developed from false premises. What's being argued is that there's no evidence for fairies or indeed an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the clouds... Eloquent childishness.
You're being disingenuous. You know very well that "what's being argued" is there's no evidence for Supernatural Sky-Gods - you've tried to reduce and re-frame the argument so it's about attacking naive caricatures ("fairies ... an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the clouds"), as if these caricatures don't accurately represent belief in the Supernatural or the naive versions of "God" that people claim to literally believe in.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 first off, this garbage of "an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the clouds" is all made up to pretend they know what they're talking about. AC doesn't even follow science, even his hair can't help him.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block AC has a glorious head of hair. You are a slaphead.
The difference is just like the intelligence gap.
Another Materalist that talks of "proof", yet likewise cannot prove very much either, yet seem to somehow know all the answers ??
I hear ya, his tiny brain hidden by his hair can't help him either. BASIC science shows he does not follow science.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Krauss has been obliterated and exposed as a substandard physicist in the NY Times article of March 23 2012 by Columbia University Professor of Philosophy David Albert; ph.D in theoretical physics (Professor Albert has also written a textbook on Quantum Mechanics).Never has a book by a physicist been so annihilated in a NY Times article for at least 2 decades. Krauss says some of the dumbest comments imaginable and can hardly state he is a qualified physicist because he is not.David Albert is 1000 times a superior physicist and philosopher.
Agreed,not to mention numerous allocations of sexually harassment and defending his friend and cash cow Epstein.
Atheism is simply the absence of theism. As such it’s very uninspired, uninteresting and not really intellectually aspiring.
that's not the point Of atheism ,
atheism is the REJECTION of the claim a theist makes Without Any Evidence , that there is a god , that's it ... nothing more to it
it's the most intellectual position Anyone Can Take , and i Do Mean Anyone
A better comparison is not being delusional. Atheism is more realistic than religions because it doesn't promote the delusions created by the ancient ignorants.
@@ThermaL-ty7bw "Without Any Evidence" That's atheism. NO evidence. I have evidence and here's just one example out of many...
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Who says the truth has to be inspiring.
@@traderzone1 as I showed, AC doesn't even follow the truth.
Animals fight for resources. Humans continued to evolve. When the concept of money came along, that fight for resources became all about the accumulation of wealth. *The rich had to exploit the poor further so they developed religion.* The starving poor didn't pay for the 'places of worship'. The illiterate poor didn't codify religion. Capitalists could whitewash their exploitation of the poor by throwing a little dough the church's way.
God / heaven / hell are all obviously illogical / impossible. Capitalists wanted cannon fodder (for war), big market places and vast labour pools. To maximise profits. Hence religion soon pushed misogyny and procreation.
Now, what's that _Occam's Razor_ thing all about?
#ZenAndTheArtOfSavingLifeOnEarth
"God / heaven / hell are all obviously illogical / impossible."
Wow. Hey tiny brain, how did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2blockIgnorino/Gepetto!
Why do you believe the resurrection happened?
Why won't you defend jesus?
He's so mad at you right now 😅
The guy spent over one hour to prove that atheism exists?
He spends his time doing blah blah hoping he'll be seen as smart with his hair maybe helping. The clueless being can't even get around basic science.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block
I'm curious to know how science's inability to know what happened pre-big bang + story of a human's resurrection based on very flimsy evidence = your god did everything. How did you come to that conclusion? Is it just because it's written in that old book? Fill us all in.
@@BubbaF0wpend too bad you're so clueless not realizing those are well-established laws, not "very flimsy evidence." I put it was done supernaturally and you can't handle the evidence I gave for that. Make more comments showing how inept you are as you embarrass your empty self. I enjoy crushing you.
@@2fast2block Spare us your Narcissistic-Grandiose Personality Disorder.
@@2fast2blockunlike yourself I make no claims on the origins of the universe, I have nothing to defend, I have no idea what happened, however you have made very strong claims about the supernatural. Your entire worldview hinges on the resurrection being true, yet you have made no effort to demonstrate the truth of this, which if false, sees everything you say fall apart. You like to pose as an evidence based believer, so show us all what resurrection evidence convinces you that it's true. Come on big man, "crush me" with the weight of evidence you rely on. Can't wait to hear all about these "well established laws".
Can't listen to the waffling on. How would he explain the incorruptible Nun, Sr. Wilhelmina, who was found this way in Missouri recently. She died in 2019. She was not embalmed. And explain all the other incorruptible people. You can't, apart from a miracle.
Yeah, sure. The very Creator of the Universe popped-down to planet Earth and saved a dead nun from rotting. He didn't save any children from cancer, or feed the starving millions while he was visiting - too busy saving a dead nun from rotting (!?).
@@donthesitatebegin9283 "The very Creator of the Universe...."
Are you aware of how creation happened on its own? Do share your great wisdom and how you defeated well-established science.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block When I want advice from a simple-minded buffoon with significant mental-health issues and a Narcissistic-Grandiose Personality Disorder, I'll ask you.
In the meantime, keep insulting people with your projections - and don't forget to copy/paste your comical "proof" that your Supernatural Sky-God must be "the correct one" - for the millionth time.
@@donthesitatebegin9283Narcissism ✅️
Delusion ✅️
Bully tactics ✅️
Zero self-awareness ✅️
Prone to belief in fantasy ✅️
Is actually Gepetto from Pinocchio ✅️
Unable to defend resurrection ✅️✅️✅️
He's the total package 😂
Fiction.
6:33 "This is one of the remarkable & wonderful things about Science, that it is very open minded & open ended & always looking to test itself & to see whether its conclusions, its theories are safe" You're talking about an entity that has no Empirical referent, "Science" has no mind, it doesn't look, it doesn't make conclusions or theories, that's what SCIENTISTS do, you're personifying & distorting the nature of Science.
I like to think that the convergence towards truth, is more like a Mandelbrot set, as the description is never the described, it could just keep getting more precise, with no end.
Sometimes an arrow has to be fired at an angle to reach its target.
The term "Supernatural", can have more than one meaning, although it's usually interpreted to mean "Beyond Nature", the prefix "Super" can also mean the exceptionally, as with "Superhuman".
When a person makes a claim, if they are not a Scientist, they aren't necessarily required to use the criteria of Scientists, of course you in turn, also aren't required to believe them.
If one's definition of Astrology is "The influence of Astronomical objects &/or systems on behavior" them the circadian cycle & seasonality, as with seasonal biology & seasonal sociology constitutes proof of concept.
So you don't think the Sun, being a star, has an influence on our destiny?
Both Theists & Atheists are Agnostics in denial, but at least the Theists accept that theirs is a position of faith.
The transverse Hall effect of the Glial network is a good candidate for self-reflexivity.
the dumb, it burns
God himself creates atheists
@Kombat Kompanion hey tiny brain, we can't get anything without a supernatural power...God.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
God didn't creates us, It created a System (universe) and that System produced us.
So far his philosophy has not gone beyond philosophy 101. I hope he gets on with his proof beyond this level.
So far he just blah blahs and doesn't offer much. We can't get this all on its own.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block🙄
@@jonnawyatt ok, basic science is over your head.
He's really very second-rate. Has no significant achievements, unless kissing butt to move up a few rungs in his career can be considered an achievement.
@Kombat Kompanion Can you name one? And going to the European Union to beg them to administer a "punishment beating" to his own country for daring to vote to leave it in a referendum doesn't count.
He's a great guy, but yet again the dreaded 'daughter-mention' is deployed. Why is this - so many intellectual speakers on UA-cam mention their daughters - not their sons - for no good reason. It is beginning to look insidious. Are they telling us that their little daughters are substitute critical-mothers, or what?
it's you
It's sad that his daughter doesn't know how clueless he is. Maybe someday she'll see it as soon as she learns BASIC science.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block"It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point ..." Really? I suppose it depends what you mean by 'supernaturally'.
@@scambammer6102 Go on ...?
@@Brian.001 yes, really! You could have looked up the word supernaturally with its meaning. It's rather CLEAR.
This lecturer should keep in mind the community guidelines.
Consciousness trying to say there is no consciousness? Makes sense?
consciousness is trivial. sponges are conscious.
@@scambammer6102 Consciousness is primary
@@rl7012 no it is not. eating is primary. stop eating and let's see what happens to your consciousness.
@@scambammer6102 Consciousness is primary, matter is secondary. Life and eating are way down the road. Consciousness exists before matter.
@@rl7012 I bet you didn't try my experiment. Seriously. Stop eating and tell me in a couple of days which is primary. BTW just saying "consciousness is primary" is worthless. I say it isn't, so there.
God started his business in a garage.
So you believe in God then?
@@2fast2block Yes, I believe in the God of the garage in the heads of those who do not understand irony.
@@karlschmied6218 OK, you were being ironic. So get serious now and show how smart you are in how the universe created itself. How can that be?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block What do you have against the laws of thermodynamics? Do not lecture me, I am an old physicist ;-) Physics today stands for some things we "know". By "know" I mean that we can "handle" things that we couldn't before. We have some consistent mathematical models. This does not mean that physics will not evolve, nor does it mean that it will one day be "perfect". Does that mean that "a god" and, from your point of view, your god of all things, has to come along to fill the probably eternal gaps in human knowledge? Not at all, in my opinion. Why should our limits of "understanding" be a proof for "your" "God"? I don't see our inability to fully comprehend a garage as evidence for your or any "god". Gods are human figments to calm the fear of loss of control and death. A certain idea of death leads to this fear and to a religious fantasy as an antidote. In my view, this is a kind of belief in a super Easter bunny for "adults." There are many groups with incompatible such religious ideas.
@@karlschmied6218 "What do you have against the laws of thermodynamics?"
I gave them in a brief fashion. I have nothing against them. Don''t blame me for your horrible reading skills, not to mention, your tiny brain.
In all your blah blah, NOTHING got around what I gave! At least realize you have NOTHING but a tiny brain.
I'm surprised people would form an association devoted to such a negative proposition
The key is at 8:49. We don’t care which the truth is, be we want to know what is the truth is. We don’t see the the answers in the negative, rather we see certainty as positive.
Great, but faith is not subject to rationality. The bible even tells people to ignore rationality. Well, it has to. Right?
I thought it was an excellent talk but while he made a good case that atheism is rational there was no proof of anything. It's still that there is no evidence that God does exists... not proof that it doesn't exist.
"The bible even tells people to ignore rationality. Well, it has to. Right?"
No, God says to prove all things. What you clueless beings do is take a verse like Hebrews 11:1 and think that's the whole meaning of faith when in that context it was talking about a future event not seen yet. It's too much for your slow mind to follow context though. Now, atheistic types go by BLIND faith. Like the universe coming about on its own with NO evidence that can be.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2blockIgnorino/Gepetto; why do you believe the resurrection happened?
@@BubbaF0wpend got it, this is how creation of the universe happened on its own and got around the laws I gave...
"Ignorino/Gepetto; why do you believe the resurrection happened?"
What other mindless replies do you have about creation?
@@2fast2blockIgnorino/Gepetto! I've never seen anyone so keen to dodge defending the core proposition of their whole worldview! It's honestly fascinating!
Seems that your belief in the resurrection is just a result of indoctrination + Texas echo chamber. Amazing one can get to 70 and still never have even questioned why they think a man resurrected 2000 years ago! Obviously it hasn't been seriously considered, otherwise you'd have taken the many opportunities I've given to give a real answer defending it. But... nothing. At. All. jesus would be sorely disappointed (if he existed today, which, obviously, he doesn't).
@@2fast2block : Something had to happen on it's own, why not a universe? It doesn't have to be constructed in some human fashion like a bicycle. The fact is that no one knows how the universe began. Creationists just make up a genie and POOF all their questions are satisfied... but that just kicks the can down the road and explains nothing of substance. Scientists are not satisfied so they examine the facts we know and try to find out.
Mr KNOW ALL AT IT AGAIN,PURELY MORE STIRRING
I dont see how is any of that proving atheism.
His brain is fried. He can only pretend to other people with tiny brains that he's smart. Could he explain how we got all this on its own? Of course not.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
This awful man appeals to the like minded. He is not Plato and is unlikely to be. He should study with an unbiased mind the works of Carl Jung. Their ideas are to be realised not just read. To understand the niceness of orange juice, you need to experience it, not just read about it.
How utterly ridiculous! A total waste of time - he has 'proven' nothing at all. In fact, I don't believe he exists - this is just an AI creation...
AC has trouble with basic science and can't see what an embarrassment he truly is.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Sagan stole the idea of the dragon in the garage from the myth of the invisible Gardner. So now we are to determine the existence or non-existence of god based on fairy tales. Seems like both sides justify their positions with fairy tales.
Yeah, we don't need fairy tales any longer. Science has pointed the way. The discovery of the Physical Constants has changed everything, the universe looks fine-tuned for Life.
Totally. New Atheism states that since the universe is too big to run an empirical experiment on, then new atheism is allowed to use METAPHYSICS - i.e PSYCHIC POWERS to carry our a survey & disprove a God. Given that its all in their own minds, they must be doing REMOTE VIEWING as well. Plus the new atheists told everyone else they were wrong to use psychic powers before going ahead with tier own.
IDIOTS
@@briansmith3791 Rather, life is tuned to the universe.
@@larryparis925 Yes, Life has adapted to the environment. All complex life is descended from the first Eukaryotic Cell. The Universe is fine-tuned.
@@briansmith3791
No, life is "fine-tuned" to their environment. If the environment changes, life evolves.
The professor proved nothing. He just took 60 minutes to say "Show me your God or I don't believe it."
How banal.
Agree. It is not necessary to “prove” atheism. The nonexistence of anything for which there is no evidence is the default assumption. Of course, anyone is free to believe anything they want to, evidence or no. Just don’t bother the rest of us about it.
Everyone is born atheist.
Religion has to be taught.
Atheism doesn't.
The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has done extensive research on brainwashing.
_____
Parents/adults start brainwashing children with religion, when they are infants. Prior to them developing cognitive skills to object or opt out.
Religion is a means and ways to con, threaten, bully, antagonize, harass and annoy others.
Religion is a means and ways of controlling others emotionally, mentally, physically, verbally and financially.
Nothing banal about it. "Show me your God" is a valid and simple straightforward question. We atheists don't want to know about all the Gods', we just want to see the evidence for one.
@@bisbeekid You are, of course, free to believe as you please. You are not owed an explanation by those who believe differently.
I clicked on this video because the title claimed that Grayling had "proved" atheism. Obviously, the title was a lie.
The conclusion regarding the non-existence is already provided by the basic assumption of speaker, and his conclusion is a foregone conclusion. That is not a proof.
He's a professor so he can say whatever clueless things he wants.
Nice try. Move the goalposts… just redefine truth, knowledge and proof and hey presto, god is banished into a black hole of non-existence.
I once asked the Prof. to explain to me why Kant’s claim in the 1st Critique that philosophy lacks the tools to either prove or disprove the existence of god is false. I’m still waiting…
Show me that Kant is wrong to claim that the bounds of sense put the noumenal forever beyond our reach.
One possible way to show that Kant is wrong to claim that the bounds of sense put the noumenal forever beyond our reach is to challenge his distinction between phenomena and noumena, or appearances and things-in-themselves. According to Kant, we can only know phenomena, or the objects of our experience as they are shaped by our forms of intuition (space and time) and categories of understanding (such as causality). We cannot know noumena, or the things-in-themselves that exist independently of our cognition, because they are beyond the limits of our sensibility and understanding¹.
However, some critics have argued that this distinction is problematic or incoherent. For example, Hegel argued that Kant's notion of noumena is a contradiction, because it implies that we can think of something that is unthinkable, or that we can have a concept of something that has no content. Similarly, Strawson argued that Kant's notion of noumena is a pseudo-concept, because it does not refer to anything that can be meaningfully described or identified. Moreover, some critics have questioned how Kant can justify his claim that noumena exist at all, or that they are the cause of our sensations, without violating his own principle of transcendental idealism, which states that we cannot make any valid judgments about things that are not given in experience.
Therefore, one might argue that Kant's claim that the bounds of sense put the noumenal forever beyond our reach is based on a false or untenable distinction between phenomena and noumena, and that we should reject this distinction altogether. Instead, we might adopt a different view of reality and knowledge, such as Hegel's dialectical idealism, which holds that reality is a dynamic process of rational development that can be comprehended by human reason, or Strawson's descriptive metaphysics, which holds that reality is a system of interrelated entities that can be described by ordinary language and logic.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/25/2023
(1) www.cambridge.org/core/books/kant-and-the-reach-of-reason/kant-on-noumenal.... www.cambridge.org/core/books/kant-and-the-reach-of-reason/kant-on-noumenal-causality/DD4C37E4D2FA93D71BEE74637C726D2B.
@@jjjccc728 I’m glad you began your reply with ‘one possible way’ (though in point of fact you gave me two possible ways) in which Kant can be answered. However, i would suggest that Hegel’s reply to the phenomena/noumena distinction does not actually refute Kant. Of course we cannot know noumena using empirical concepts, but we are, Kant says (in a certain sense) driven by the logic of the argument to postulate the possible existence of noumena as ‘that which (possibly) lies ‘beyond’ the boundary of sense experience’. Of course even the ‘beyond’ is an illegitimate move for Kant since the concept of a place or space beyond the empirical is an empirical concept and must therefore be ruled out. But of course Kant is well aware of that. The key word I would suggest, is ‘possible’. I don’t see any move by either Hegel or Strawson that eliminates the possibility of the ‘possible’. It seems to me while Hegel and Strawson do offer (on the face of it) plausible alternatives to the Kantian account of reality, neither succeeded in actually refuting him. Not exactly a knockout blow anyway.
@@philipanthony9596 Thank you for your thoughtful response. You make a valid point that Hegel's response to Kant's phenomena/noumena distinction may not necessarily refute Kant's position entirely. Kant himself acknowledges the limitations of our knowledge in regards to noumena, and it is possible that there may be something beyond our empirical concepts that we cannot fully comprehend.
However, it is also important to consider the broader implications of Kant's philosophy, particularly his emphasis on the role of human subjectivity in shaping our experience of reality. Hegel and Strawson's critiques may not necessarily completely refute Kant, but they do offer alternative perspectives that challenge some of the assumptions underlying his philosophy.
In any case, philosophical debates often involve a nuanced and ongoing discussion, and it is unlikely that any one philosopher or position will provide a definitive or complete answer. It is through engaging with various perspectives and considering their strengths and weaknesses that we can better understand the complexities of philosophical ideas and continue to refine our understanding of the world around us.
@@philipanthony9596 A possibility can be ruled out when it is shown to be logically inconsistent or when there is strong empirical evidence against it. In the context of philosophical arguments, a possibility can also be ruled out if it is shown to be incompatible with certain fundamental assumptions or principles. For example, in the case of Kant's argument, the concept of noumena as that which lies beyond sense experience is ruled out because it is inconsistent with the fundamental principle that knowledge is grounded in experience. Similarly, Hegel and Strawson's arguments may have been successful in refuting Kant's position by showing that it is either logically inconsistent or incompatible with certain fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality.
@@jjjccc728 Thank you. All reasonable points, but as a convinced Platonist I must tell you that I disagree with the proposition that knowledge is grounded in experience. As you know, Plato (or Socrates) view is that experience delivers only opinion (for reasons of inductive uncertainty) whereas the objects of knowledge can only to be found in what he calls the intelligible realm of being. You will be aware that in The Republic Socrates is challenged to show that Thrasymachus’ claim that ‘justice is the interest of the stronger’ is false. In the discussion which follows Socrates is further challenged to show what is wrong with the proposition that it may be advantageous for me to encourage everyone else to be morally good, but not why I should be, if I can thereby obtain the benefits of injustice - as long as I am not caught and can maintain a reputation for justice. This is intolerable. The only way I can see out of this dilemma is to accept Plato’s claim that the objects of knowledge (including justice) must be something to be discovered, not invented, because if invented, there seems no reason to deny the strategy of the master criminal to capitalise on everyone else acting morally to my advantage. Hence my hope that perhaps such objects of knowledge are noumenal,since clearly not phenomenal (at least as far as the master criminal is concerned). I don’t think you can simply argue that my master criminal is a sociopath, as he rejects that label as a contemptible lie propagated by the purveyors of slave morality.
Extremely poor lecture. I was expecting much more. I can't believe that someone still compares the gods of the ancient Greece with the God of Christianity. It is such intellectual dishonesty. Clearly, he does not know or doesn't want to know that the debate has moved on. He did not address any of the arguments for the existence of God, e.g. the Fine tuning or the argument from contingency even though he mentioned contingency several times. Also, some statements were misleading, for example Catholics do not worship Mary. Finally, my question for prof Grayling: Are you seriously saying that the believers are not rational because they believe in God? You might argue that having religious faith is unreasonable but to say that they are not rational is elitist. Overall, too shallow, disappointing.
"...he does not know or doesn't want to know that the debate has moved on."
He clearly does not want to know. He's so lame and as you showed, anyone looking will see God in so many ways, but he's just pretending that he's looked and all those that also pretend they've looked take AC seriously.
Thanks for taking the time to put forward the village idiots point of view.
@@mjja00 followed by your evidence of.....
(blank)
Show how rational you are. How did we get all this on its own?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
TBF this was a pretty boring speech. The "divine hiddenness" and historical arguments are valid, but he did a poor job of presenting. Anyone interested in this topic should watch Sean Carroll's "God is not a good theory" lecture. It's way better than this rubbish.
Sean Carroll is about as clueless as AC. Neither can even deal with BASIC science.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
This lecture isn’t proof of anything, it is superficial mockery. Let’s see how this superficial claim for proof holds up with a theological apologist. “To prove atheism is to test the claims of religion.” Is joke. To prove atheism will have to prove its own claim. Astrology is not a theism but atheism is.
he is pointing out that there no actual evidence of any of the gods, therefore there is no reason to give creedence to them. As a corollary, there are many gods that people address, there is no more evidence for one over another. A second point is that when people assert that there is a god, they normally also believe in a host of attending supernatural beings which are very comparable to the old Roman gods.
This lecture was supposed to prove something. The minions who are shared believers in atheism love to hear their comfortable blather as many Christians tolerate Sunday after Sunday. But there no proof of anything provided in this lecture, except that atheism needs some new arguments. These are tired and worn out.
@@dapaulson1 he demonstrates that there is no evidence that any of the gods exist. that isn't an argument, it is a fact. you can believe whatever you want, but there is the same level of evidence of gods, devils, leprachauns, zeus and apollo.
@@billjohnson9472 The truth is that there is no proof either way for a deity, pro or con. Either position requires a level of faith in your own presuppositions. The same clues for the existence of god are used to disprove the necessity of god. Whether you believe in the dogma of a god speaking the universe into existence or a spec the size of a pea, lying dormant for billions of years suddenly, for no apparent reason, it explodes into billions of galaxies, is the up to your own faith system. Believe what you would, but both positions require faith without proof for either. Both are religious theories.
When you have an urge to prove atheism or disprove theism, doesn’t that prove you are a kind of zealote who wants to convince others of your beliefs?
'Prove atheism'? You can't prove a disbelief. You either believe in a thing or you don't. There is literally nothing to prove.
A disbelief is not a belief. You can't indoctrinate others with a disbelief. 🤪🤪🤪
@@isaac1572 "A disbelief is not a belief." Sorry, but that's wrong. It is impossible, contradictory. And you really can indoctrinate others with a disbelief. The Sovjet union for instance demonstrated it.
Materialists think they are not believing in something. But they believe in materialism.
That is being blinded by your believe exponentially. Materialism is the pinnacle of a believe system. They think they are right and all the others are wrong, which is very typical for a believe system. It is sometimes funny, but most times sad to see how much believers and so called non-believers are mirrors of each other. Room for doubt for instance is absent in both.
@@stefcas You seem confused. Reread my previous response slowly enough so that you understand it, then try again.
You can't prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence.🤪
@@isaac1572 Maybe I am confused. But then, you are too. At least if you stay with your: "A disbelief is not a belief". The opposite of a belief is not a disbelief. It is doubt, or the conviction you do not know and in extremis: you cannot know, which approaches your: "You can't prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist." But isn't the same... A believer and a non-believer are both sure of themselves. They both believe something, that they are right
.
@@stefcas I don't agree that the opposite of a belief is a doubt. I think that beliefs and doubts are both thoughts to quote Decartes.....I think there for I am.
If I believe there is a god or I believe there is not a god,....Either way I have a belief and so have closed the question in my mind. I therefor think that the opposite of belief is an 'open mind'.
I see no evidence for the existence of a god, so I don't believe in god. I see no evidence that proves that god does not exist, so technically that makes me agnostic (I don't know), but I prefer to think that I have an open mind that sees no proof of gods' existence, except in the imaginations of people.
If someone tells me that there is a god, but they have no evidence, then I am welcome to say 'I don't believe you', then they are welcome to call me an atheist.
Get to your point. You are BABBLING. GOOD RIDDENCE.
Neither atheism nor theism is provable. Both are positions for faith. Physics points to a theory of a big bang. Theism claims a creater creating. Both are positions of the absence of evidence of proof. I wish both sides of this argument the best of luck.
"Both are positions of the absence of evidence of proof."
You sure don't think much. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Atheism is the default position.
@2fast2block
The first law of thermodynamics only applies to the universe. We have no idea if it applies outside of the universe.
Also the big bang was not a creation event, it was a change of state, and it still ongoing.
Time is a property of the universe, for every point in time there was a universe.
So the cause of value and intelligence is meaninglessness and unintelligence. Causally incoherent.
the cause and value are assigned by you, not some external source. therefore it has whatever coherence you have given it.
@@billjohnson9472 can I then just say the cause of the universe was by natural means and not an external source? I can say and think that but it's not coherent.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block current theories compatible with observation suggest that the universe of matter/energy was in an unknown state before expansion, and time is a property of space and also was created by the expansion. So there is no "before" the expansion since there was no time dimension.
Given that, the physics of the universe and matter/energy is not known. Since time/space was created from an initial state we can't know a lot about out. And not knowing means that no conclusions can be drawn about it being natural or supernatural.
@@billjohnson9472 in other words, you will ignore what we know, which is what I gave. Well-established science does not matter to tiny brains like you. You can't always have something naturally, not to mention, you can't have something naturally without a cause. Time, space, and matter all go hand in hand, you can't subtract one or two from another. Like AC, you will do this with creation and just about anything that follows with your embarrassing lie of we don't know.
@@billjohnson9472 Oh. So you self created and are autonomous and determine what you and life are about. This frankly sounds like a pretty common narcissistic hedonistic delusion.
It is ironical atheists call themselves humanists. The ghost of christmas present have not visited a lot in their clubhouse.
There's a saying: There's no hate like christian love.
Christians tend to be very hateful against everybody that is not christian, which is not very christ like of them. Atheists on average tend to be better people than christians.
@@tabularasa0606 Yes they tend to claim that, maybe, it sounds like someone with not clear idea of what love is would say to divert attention.
@@tabularasa0606 I don't hate you clueless beings, I LOVE showing how tiny your brains are. It's fun and so easy. You poor tiny brains.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.