The Great Debate - What is Life?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 бер 2013
- www.thesciencenetwork.org
Richard Dawkins, J. Craig Venter, Nobel laureates Sidney Altman and Leland Hartwell, Chris McKay, Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss, and The Science Network's Roger Bingham discuss the origins of life, the possibility of finding life elsewhere, and the latest development in synthetic biology. - Наука та технологія
This panel is proof that everyone understands things according to their individual intellectual capacity and we are all very limited in this regard.
Definately a very interesting discussion, giving more doubts to those who had doubts already in areas such as, is there another form of life elsewhere if we still know so little about humanity and the universe in general
And centuries after computers become "alive" they will argue whether there exists a programmer.
There's just the "program". The same goes with organic life.
There was no program without the programmer
Michael Carlsen The programmer isn't outside of the framework where the program exists.
Souls infer this type of isolation. Prove how this is true in a unified reality.
what type of isolation? if you say the same goes with organic life then you are admitting that there is no organic life without the organic life programmer just as there is no computer or computer program with out the hardware designer and the programmer. The position is not relevant unless one needs it to be to skirt the issue.
"There was no program without the programmer" - what matters is that software exists in the system to provide the intelligence. Software means information stored in a memory system. Software is automatically made by the learning process. The purpose of learning is software building.
Watching this 10 years later and very disappointed to see computers have not become self aware😂
How will they?
I really enjoy these type of discussions
Hey I’m writing for a certain blog/post and looking for old UA-cam comments and replying them, and asking how much life has changed since then. Honestly its unlikely you still use this account but if you do, it would be great if you could reply. We could go from there.
What a great title ''what is life?'' but what a lifeless debate .
+NoSense IsNonSense there's no Neil Tyson
+King Johnson f'n troll
+The Berean Did you want a strip show or something?
Looking for the living amongst the dead....
Best thing I've heard all day
An interesting debate on life, its origin and where we are headed. Made me question our rigid education system that never encouraged us to explore.
It’s 5:43 AM, three and a half hours ago I started watching silly and awkward videos and I’m here now, it’s the UA-cam magic.
How can you research something when you cant know what a definition of it????
This is amazing, so much education. advances research and science and you still have presumptions from assumptions
“Presumptions from assumptions”
Well said!! Indeed, as physicist Max Plank famously put it, “Science progresses funeral by funeral”. Equally, the fact is that…
“You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume)
The fact is that the “natural sciences” can’t “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what (is) not what (ought) to be!!
The “natural sciences” does not make any capital T truth claims regarding values, that is “oughts”.
Furthermore, I’m not making any appeals to authority but according to the award winning physicist William Bragg…
“Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - (Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1915).
@@joemen3332
“A bunch of science fiction writers could do better”
Fair point!! According to the famous science fiction writer H.G. Wells…
“Biologists can be just as sensitive to heresy as theologians.” (HG Wells)
“I must admit that I lost faith in sciences ability to pontificate on moral absolutes after Hiroshima and the Holocaust” (G.Doyle).
“The multiverse, a theory that can be used to explain away anything that inevitably explains nothing and undermines objective morality.” (G. Doyle).
We have arrived at the Ten Years from this recorded debate. How far? Anything new to this dialogue?
Dr. James Tour and other organic synthetic chemists are needed as they explain how we can not even create a single cell, let alone life
brandon jarvis Absolutley correct, it doesn’t surprise me that the one man that is best qualified to comment on this subject is not invited, he may not roll with the narrative. Interesting than none of these “experts” will debate Dr Tour. They would be embarrassed
@@tonydecorso2542
As said in "The Hangover"--"they're too stupid to insult".
Atheists Venter & Hartwell BOTH used the word "impossible",
And Altman said, "we'll know simpler forms", but not life's origin.
They can't even get atheists to play their hustle....WHEN they're ACTUAL SCIENTISTS...
Unlike fraud carny barkers Krauss & Dawkins
@@tonydecorso2542recently Dave debated James tour and humiliated tour 😂
19:04 "The archaea of the bacteria have co-existed peacefully for 3.5 Billion years"
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how a productive and unbiased discussion is done. Where all statements and questions are made purely out of facts and intelligent questioning. :)
Lawrence saw a long time ago that computers will be conscious. Salute !!
2020 just discovered this vid!
Computers will never be conscious. Krauss uses his credentials to foist his beliefs on unsuspecting victims...
absolutely wonderful vid, I love all of these ASU Origins debates
RNA World experiments involve a long series of Highly orchestrated steps which include purifying desired products, removing unwanted byproducts, changing physical and chemical conditions, adding unrealistically high concentrations of assisting substances and other interventions to ensure that the target molecules are achieved. It's highly manipulated controlled chemistry that has no relevance to the Early Earth!
Proto-cells are not life-like, the requisite ribosomes mRNA, enzymes and reagents were purchased from a chemical company or extracted from a pre-existing living system. Then added to the medium and permitted to diffuse into the manmade capsules.
The center for chemical evolution is not making progress!
The experimental setups are permeated with clever manipulations tweaking pH and temperature as needed along the way using UV radiation at the right times and durations to remove problematic side-products, highly purified chemicals, it bears no relevance to pre-biotic conditions!
So they cannot understand how life started at such a complex level on earth, so the best answer they can give is "Maybe more complex life came from a rock on Mars" ?!?
WelbeckFlooring haha
Their arrogance stops them from knowing and furthering the discovery of the mystery and beauty of the world.
@@tehdreamer Except that THEY are the ones that are doing that very thing. Odd that.
@@daverobson3084 No, their pride and arrogance stops them seeing that complex systems such as DNA could only have been designed from an intelligence, which essentially points to God and what humans believed and knew for thousands of years. Atheists are a very small arrogant minority on the planet, and they hijacked the science. All the greatest scientists were believers in God.
@@tehdreamer Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-I disagree because they are wrong and I know that they are wrong because they disagree with me and my religion-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.
" complex systems such as DNA could only have been designed from an intelligence, "
Claim without supporting evidence.
"which essentially points to God"
No. It doesn't. That is a conclusion that you, and your, have jumped to. COULD it be correct? Yes. Is it the ONLY conclusion which could be correct? Nope.
"Atheists are a very small arrogant minority on the planet"
Yes. So arrogant that, unlike theists, they DON'T assume that they are specially selected by some supreme being to be specially treated out of all of the life in the universe, and soooooooo arrogant that, unlike theists, they don't think that they are the special people that , out of all the people and religions on the planet, are the only ones who have been gifted the correct answer about the origin of the universe by some supernatural being. Wow. That is arrogant, to NOT think that they are the specialist beings in the universe. I see what you mean.
since all life on earth can be traced back to a single cell, that implies that life on earth rose only once. If that is correct, it means that the birth of life is is so incredibly improbable that scientists who tries to recreate such an event, although possible, are simply wasting their time. It would be more likely that they win the lottery ten times in a row IMO.
Or evolution did it 😂
a REALLY amazing debate from amazing guest
Basically we all know what our life is, we can confirm that by reading a dictionary,
viz.,'the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death' - but it is more interesting to discuss the types of possible fundamental chemical combinations of life, and how and where they could arise, apart from our own.
At 9:30 to 11:45, the host does a tremendous disservice to science by not letting Dr. Venter respond, and to give his considerable expertise in genetics research and a summary of that research onto the record purposefully.
@radhenitsri It's ironic, because after this event Mr. Dawkins did a video with Mr. Venter where he basically told Mr. Venter what he should believe and how it was, and Mr. Venter just nodded and went forward, and since that time I haven't seen any videos where he's come out and stated what he did here in some other way. If there are such videos I would be most interested in seeing them.
EnsignRho.....I recall whenifirst saw this video, years ago. I also recall seeing two other videos when Dawkins and Venter seemed like best buddies, Venter showing Dawkins around his "factory", the machines that could process and sequence DNA samples, up to 5000 per day, (I think). Anyway then it occurred to me that Venter pulled the rug from under Dawkins by declaring "tree of life" as false, and thought he must have known he was going to do that at some point, but in a public forum ? so why didn't they discuss it in one of their cosyone on one chats ? The other thing is if you had a facility like Venters, would you not be tempted to sequence and compare the human and ape genome, to state once and for all we are related or not?
I have to say I find it extremely unlikely it hasn't been done, but noone wants to publish the results, for obvious reason.
@@tonymak9213 I think he called Dawkins out with authority, and the people who gave Venter funding called him and said, "Rein it in, Craig. You're going to do a couple pieces with Dawkins where he's going to seem to school you and even contradict you. You'll sit there and suck it up like a good funding recipient. Got it?" That's my best guess about what happened, because Venter nailed him to the wall with science.
According to the comparison mentioned in the Bible, the difference between a human being and God is like the difference between a cup and the man who built that cup (as a cup cannot understand/conceive the man who built it, in the same way people cannot understand/conceive God, but we have His human form, Jesus, to understand easier).
Not the worst analogy ever, but top 25. You've been added to the list.
Click HERE to confirm.
filmeseverin I agree with you 100%. Great comment
@@crzyprplmnky I would go with top 10. There's still multiple layers of stupid to it...
MMM Jesús no es Dios, es el hijo de Dios!
Isaacus Neuutonus.
Jehova Sanctus Unus
I Couldn't Handle Any More After 20mins!
My definition of life: anything capable of having intent is alive
Could you define intent? Conscious intent? Unconscious intent? Do you mean intention? Something can be have intent, but lack an ability to be intentional. Rocks, for example, given what they do to serve many purposes on our planet, and so they "have intent", but they aren't "alive" in the classical sense.
Ah, yes. UA-cam is quite a hotbed of intellectual activity. The comments section is an invaluable resource -- and is arguably the first place one should visit when seeking useful input from reputable sources and credible individuals. After filtering the comments laced with bullying, anti-bullying, racist, bigoted, anti-religious, anti-atheist, homophobic, and any otherwise xenophobic or irrelevant rhetoric, there might be about 3 pages of potentially worthwhile information. How lucky we are to live in this age.
BigBoatDeluxe I happen to think that it is a strength of the internet - not the weakness. I'd rather see these people writing comments than taking actions on the streets based on their irrational attitudes. There are other positive sides to this too but this is the most obvious to me.
+BigBoatDeluxe Excellent comment! Thank you
@BigBoatDeluxe:- Such is Life!
BigBoat
Thanks for being part of the problem.
Stop whining and contribute or stop being a problem.
LOL! Comment of the day
"The more we learn about cells, the more complex they seem, they're just incredibly complex things. To go from what we can see today to try to reason where it came from, I think is really impossible."
Lee Hartwell.
It must be also understood that a physical/mathematical description of life must be factored by the equation: f=ma. This simply says, "life is, at it's base, a force".
11:28 Creationists that come here looking for Venter denying the “tree of life”, don’t forget that Dawkins rebutted, and Venter audibly agreed with him.
😂😂😂😂😂
I think one day they will discover that the universe is a living organism
So true.... Like imagine the bacteria in our body's......our body's are their world.
Hi Karen ,Ha ! I like the thinking , But would these Bacteria have a God who made their world ?, Because with the limited thinking of the human brain( that is to this day still evolving ), apparently there has to be something ?? , Why does there have to be something ? perhaps it always was .
The universe is the organism and the unified field is his cosnciousness.
Rayeon Thank you! Thank you!
After listening to it, this doesn't seem to be an absurd idea, life is just a system of self regulating systems. At a human level we are a group of systems that are working together to give an impression of "living thing", and each cell in the body is also a group of systems which we call it as life, taking it to one level up and saying that earth is a self regulated set of systems is not absurd just that it lacks the consciousness that we think we own. The very term "life" is very vague when we seriously think about it.
Ball is Life
Lmao savage
LaMasLatinaaa lol ;)
Basketball?
Basketball sucks
I am the same :)
I try to achieve inner peace though i will probably never truly have it :)
The Battle of Kohima, where British and Indian forces drove out the Japanese.
A battle that won't be forgotten any time soon.
Serious question for those more learned than I,. Am I correct in my assumption that moss, grass or any organic matter constitutes life?
Hey I’m writing for a certain blog/post and looking for old UA-cam comments and replying them, and asking how much life has changed since then. Honestly its unlikely you still use this account but if you do, it would be great if you could reply. We could go from there.
Shrek is life.
+Opethfullcovers Shrek is love
+Opethfullcovers lol
I was only 9 years old
Shrek is love, Shrek is life.
13:00 - I dont see the gap between God and science getting bigger? the more we learn about life and the universe the more I feel science points to an intelligence behind creation
The more I learn science the more I see God's action. Organised religions, though, are a matter of revelation
I suspect that life can exist at different electromagnetic frequencies, like radio,ultra violet, infra-red wave lengths etc etc
Never seen such cheerful audience
Lawrence Krauss is crazy.
When will krauss become conscious.
I don't know was he serious or just joked about computers starting to think?
Why should he joke about it? Its inevitable.
@@Pussik For one he sounds a bit as he wants to spice debate by saying something really controversial, for two it's a silly idea. Computers are nothing more than complex, complicated, electronic automats. They don't differ that much from soda vending machines, except being electronic and much more complicated. Certainly, they are no more intelligent than soda vending machines. True (not a figure of speech) “artificial intelligence”, stipulates “thinking”, hence “consciousness” (awareness of self-existence). The problem is no one is able to meaningfully explain what consciousness even is, not to mention explain its essence, inner workings, mechanisms. How is it, that blab of organic mass becomes aware of self-existence? Nobody knows! The same goes for life! What life really is?
How are you going to build artificial consciousness, when you don't know what consciousness is? How you even going to start? Connecting lots of micro transistors and hoping they become alive all the sudden is just a silly idea. I know lots of people are confused by terms (such as “intelligent”, “smart”, “artificial intelligence”) used by either let it be salesman, programmers, or computer scientists. Those are all figures of speech. Same as “smart bomb” is “smart” because it's laser-guided (as opposed to a “dumb” bomb which is not and “stupidly” “don't know” where it flies). This does not mean however that smart bomb really “thinks”. To make things worse, I am really shocked by at least some names commenting about the dangers of real artificial intelligence, take Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, which IMHO additionally spread confusion. I mean, yeah, sure, their concerns ARE valid. But,... why not talk about concerns about going back in time and changing the future, dangers of playing with the speed of light rockets, or exploding Earth with an anti-gravity engine? We are equally close to building those, as we are to building artificial intelligence. Is it inevitable? Probably,...not anywhere soon though...
By the way, the human brain has more glial cells (roughly 10^30 times more) than there are stars in the observable universe. Matter of fact also roughly 10^30 times more than glial cells, is the number of atoms in the universe.
The human brain is the most complex object known in the universe and from what we know about it, we don't even know are consciousness and brain cells part of the same universe.
@@Pussik lol then you wake up
Hahaha
11:05 I laughed so much harder than I should have done
This is very good stuff.
So, I spend almost too much time studying abiogenesis, and the more I learn, the more I become baffled at how things seem to not add up. For starters, the earth is 4.54 billion years old. The earliest life has been found inside a zircon crystal dating back 4.1 billion years. That means that life appeared in just over 400 million years! It's even less time if you include the Theia collision hypothesis. Here's where things don't add up: it took 3.3 billion years for life to evolve from single cell organisms into multicellular life-forms. Even after that, it only took 800 million years to evolve from simplistic multicellular organisms into sentient beings. It takes a minimum of 500,000 nucleotides to build one strand of DNA, let alone the 160,000 base pairs required to create a replicating organism! How is that possible within just 400 million years; all the while, surviving earth's late heavy bombardment? I guess, anything is possible; however, it's much more likely that the first life took the longest of these "three periods" to develop. This would without a doubt mean that panspermia is more than just a pseudoscience. Then again, Louis Pasteur's germ theory was too.
You make 500,000 nucleotides out to be a large number but in chemistry, it actually isn't at all.
Here's an analogy that uses the same logical argument, but you'll see that just tossing in large numbers and incredulity doesn't add up to a legitimate chemical argument.
I've spent a lot of time studying ice, studying its formation, studying ice cubes. I've put many ice cubes in my drinks, after all! Now, i have a freezer, and I put ice into the cubes and then put them into my drinks, so I know all about ice.
Did you know that an 18 gram ice cube contains over 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water?! And yet, the 'scientists' would have you believe that 600 sextillion molecules of water can just magically organize them from a chaotic liquid into a perfectly solid, and cold state, capable not only of holding still, but also of keeping things cold?
Clearly that number of molecules could NOT have organized themselves so quickly. Thus I am forced to reject 'freezing theory' and that there must be some other, supernatural explanation. Now I'm not claiming that it's Ymir, King of the Frost Giants, but can you come up with a better explanation? If it IS Ymir, however, do know that it is your sin that causes ice to turn into water, as he abandons his blessing upon the water and returns it to chaos!
Of course... we know this explanation is stupid. Water becomes a solid because of its molecular structure and its polar nature--one side is positive and one is negative, and that encourages water to organize itself into patterns when it doesn't have enough motion to separate molecules. The electrical force is so strong that freezing can happen REALLY fast, in cosmological terms.
Once you put that into perspective, can you honestly claim that millions of years are not enough time for random molecules that are even more polar than water, and more willing to bond to other similar molecules, would not be able to form chains within millions of years? And that one of those wouldn't be selfreplicating?
And that self-replicating polymer couldn't grow in complexity?
Over millions of years?
Cause... you only need -one- such molecule for life to start. One such molecule, when you have sextillions of molecules in a single gram of anything?
a self-replicating molecule -
there is a serious problem:
DNA is not replicating by itself, the DNA is not self-replicating molecule.
There is so called Polymerase which is a very complex '3rd party ' molecule, and the Polymerase is processing the replication of DNA. Without Polymerase, no DNA replication. My question, where did this very complex Polymerase molecule come from.
And, very related problem, after DNA replication, because DNA is veeery long molecule, there are copy-errors, which needs to be repaired. Otherwise you get cancer.
Now, so called DNA repair molecules come in. Very complex molecules.
My question is, where did the DNA repair molecules come from? How the cell knew, that there will be copy-errors, and that the DNA needs to be repaired after replication? An issue of logic.
--
THIS above video ORIGINALLY was a full HOUR!!!
MOTHERFUCKING BUT!!! At appx. 53 minutes Kruass DEMANDS
they all give a response to the ultimate determination/discovery of FIRST LIFE.
Venter clearly had had enough of the SNAKE HANDLING seance, he said:
"It's IMPOSSIBLE we'll EVER know first life...and not feasible we'll replicate it."
NOBEL FUCKING LAUREATE Lee Hartwell looked like he wanted to die rather than
be seen at this religious revival of atheists, said: "It's IMPOSSIBLE!"
NOBEL FUCKING LAUREATE, ALSO IN BIOLOGY (words which will NEVER be appended
to Dawkins)said: "We'll know simpler life forms..not origins".
WHY DID THE POS' CUT IT?!! So simps like this page would remain
"TRUE BELIEVERS"!!!!
+Jake Stockton
No, it in no way proves panspermia is just a pseudoscience. First off Panspermia is a hypothesis, that is not accepted as fact but even if it's wrong it doesn't make it pseudoscience (pseudoscience implies that you are making claims of science without use of the scientific method).
Furthermore the theory of Panspermia includes the idea that life could exist elsewhere in the universe, and have been transported through space debris. Meaning that life wouldn't have to have formed on earth at all but could have been transported from another satellite or planet.
Just because you don't have an explanation for how something works doesn't mean it is impossible. How can an electron be in multiple places at once? Why is the universe expanding? How did life take hold on earth so quickly?
"it's much more likely that the first life took the longest of these "three periods" to develop". Why?
You should be baffled when it comes to abiogenesis, it is far from
finished. The most knowledgeable people on the subject still find great
mysteries in it.
In my opinion, I don't think we will ever know the origin of life, but I think our best shot at it is through looking for, and then analyzing (if found) life on other planets, and moons.
Bill Mars I'm not saying panspermia is a pseudoscience, but it is very much treated as one.
is Richard Dawkins in every debate ? lol
Militant.. LOL
There is a reason they invite him not you
+Suno Suno I don't think you can abuse something doesn't exist.but I know that truth hurts.
Unless david berlinski is also debating.
Yes he's on every debate that david berlinski is not.
Same goes to lawrence krauss.
PapuStronk no
Exquisite debate
Thanks for the lesson but the question was rhetorical to illustrate the shortcomings the eats, grows, reproduces criteria of life. Cheers.
What is Krauss doing there talking about life? This is amazing, "the experts" contradict themselves and don´t have a clue about life, it´s understanding, because they denie God, the Creator of life.
Lol
"I do research" There you go. Take that pop-sci! Entertaining though...
Hey I’m writing for a certain blog/post and looking for old UA-cam comments and replying them, and asking how much life has changed since then. Honestly its unlikely you still use this account but if you do, it would be great if you could reply. We could go from there.
6:20 Because of our lack of data on this question I think all we can ask is, which is more likely: That life began on Earth as soon as it was possible for it to, or that life began on another solar system object long before life could have formed on Earth, evolved into complexity, was knocked off that body, survived an interplanetary voyage that likely took thousands, if not millions of years, survived an impact on Earth and just happened to land in a place it could not only survive, but grow, multiply and evolve further?
Looking at what it would take to get this to work, ether way you have to get life going almost as soon as you could. Which would mean life would be easy to get going, which means that it would likely get going ANYWHERE it is possible to get it going, which would include Earth. Makes the whole "life was seeded" seem a bit redundant.
Ha Ha, this stuff cracks me up. In the big picture this is only slightly better than a discussion on alchemy.
It could be that Evolution one of the Grand Designer's best inventions.
Actually evolution shows why we don't need a designer.
The system of Evolution was invented by a Designer,
You may be right. Thanks for the posting.
Please let us know when that happens.
Tom Adamson How do you know that?
42
Hey I’m writing for a certain blog/post and looking for old UA-cam comments and replying them, and asking how much life has changed since then. Honestly its unlikely you still use this account but if you do, it would be great if you could reply. We could go from there.
@@Chris-mm6mn Hello!
@@leej70 Hello! Thanks for responding. It’s very encouraging to see someone respond. So, it’s been 5 years since that comment. Is life what you expected it to be? This question is obviously very vague because a lifetime cannot be described in a difference of 5 years, but I’m sure a lot has happened since then.
@@Chris-mm6mn The last 5 years have been great to be honest. Got a much better job, travelled a lot, turned 50 and got my first grandchild on the way.
@@leej70 wow! Congratulations! I just have one more question, and a pretty cliche one at that - if someone told you what will happen within the next five years, how would you feel about it?
I much prefer the newer format to this. The desk just puts a barrier between them and the audience and prevents them from moving around the stage.
This Debate ended when it finally became interesting -_-
how can you say that a mac is far more conscious than a pc?????
You must be fun at parties.
***** i am ..especially in weed parties ;)
yeah it´s a stupid thing to say even as a joke it´s not funny. laurence must know that the computers he uses for research run a linux version or most likely windows. i´ve never seen any serious research done primarily on macs. that´s just bullshit
Symmetrie Bruch Jezus, you Apple haters are more easily offended than religious people these days
who´s hating on apple? i own macs and pcs
16:55: I love when scientists get philosophical lol - “thats what makes humans being worth being humans”
Agreed, inherent optimism bias and terror management theory always helps according to antinatalism based on consent.
Great debate!
We have the parts but can't create a sequence.
claiming to be wise they became fools. utterly amazing!
Amen
Hey I’m writing for a certain blog/post and looking for old UA-cam comments and replying them, and asking how much life has changed since then. Honestly its unlikely you still use this account but if you do, it would be great if you could reply. We could go from there.
Dawkins and Krauss might be intelligent but they lack wisdom and I find both of them arrogant. I feel they have agendas that will steer humanity away from spiritual Truth about our true forms - we are all spiritual beings of light (everything is the Light - Nikola Tesla) and in our case incarnated in the human form as we have the capacity to realise this truth and finish with the game of life by returning to the ultimate source. Some may call it God but this higher consciousness is every where and is within all of us and so we need to connect to it more. The only think of real value in life is intuition (Albert Einstein).
Robotics might be interesting (but would only eventually be used against us) and so it is important to awaken to the engineering of our own bodies and to the higher energies that we all are.
I'm with you. They should go meditating and study Walter Russell's "The Universal One" ;)
Interesting point of view, but not everyone believes in a "spiritual Truth" or "spiritual beings of light" like you - Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are great men of science, thinkers and skeptics. I can't fathom why everyone think they have an "agenda"; we should be grateful for their teachings. I learned from Krauss a wonderful, meaningful lesson: we don't need spiritual realities or superior beings to admire and be in awe of existence, nature and the universe: we have the beauty and complexity of science, and that should be enough.
I like your conscious and thought process .
@@Aria-gi2sr Science has it's place but it should not be used to stop humanity from questioning itself on a deeper human level as everything outside of us, lies within us (everything is inter-connected via energy, frequency and vibration - Nikola Tesla). If everything we say, do and think is energy then perhaps we are more powerful beings than we realise and are the creators of our own destinies (individually and collectively), as all energies are eventually balanced out through time and space. So at the end of the day there is a higher intelligence that we must all be a part of but fail to recognise it within us, as a result of the conditioning of our minds (within the system we live in). A bit of Eastern philosophy might help your understanding of spiritual (energetic) matters, as it has stood the test of time.
I find them very similar.
Both are struggles, both are hard to win and both can lead to terrible defeats or glorious victories.
Mar 7, 2013 WOW. No family Tree and I'm just finding it now
Great who invited Dawkins
These are the kind of comments I scroll down for.
Elijah Mendiola haha
probs the smartest guy there
Coffey Jo .....said no one.
haha almost 42 minutes
Hey I’m writing for a certain blog/post and looking for old UA-cam comments and replying them, and asking how much life has changed since then. Honestly its unlikely you still use this account but if you do, it would be great if you could reply. We could go from there.
"The tree of life is an artifact of some earlier scientific studies that aren't holding up"
Can we discuss that in the Science classroom?
what was the other kind of evolution that dawkins was talking about , I was not able to pick it up
Consider the following argument
Premise 1: Either there is evidence of God that I the atheist will accept or God does not exist
Premise 2: There is no evidence of God that I the atheist will accept
Premise 3: God does not exist
A circular argument with false alternatives.
The simplest way to illustrate the atheist faith:
What caused the painting?
Theist: the painter
Atheist: the paint
Why do you need to believe it was the paint?
Only if you blindly believed that a painter could not possibly exist.
+Hein van Zyl I think i can show you a more simple, and most importantly more honest way to illustrate the atheist faith.
What caused this universe?
Theist: It was god
Atheist: I don't know but there is no sufficient evidence for the theists explanation so will refrain from believing it.
I like your answer, because it's realistic. It is not possible for science to answer that question on the basis that you can not find evidence from before/beyond the universe. Please consider how I came to my conclusion. (I am not claiming that I know - I just want to bounce it off you & see where it leads)
Atheism/Theism in a Nutshell
Scientific Observations not in dispute
Observation 1: Universe had a beginning
Observation 2: Universe has an Uncaused Beginningless Cause (God/Singularity/don't know)
Observation 3: Evidence of exactly what that Cause is, can not be obtained from inside the Universe
How do you determine objectively whether the Cause was mindless or not? You could study what the Cause caused & calculate the odds. The odds that the universe accidentally has an evolution process that mindlessly caused life are less than 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. It's a number so large that you can't write it down even if you write a digit on every proton in the entire universe.
Implications:
The vast majority of humans logically conclude that the Cause has an uncaused superintelligent Mind & therefor choose to believe in God. For theists, most of the universe & the laws of nature are evidence for God.
Despite the odds & the absence of any evidence of what the Cause (God/singularity/I don't know) actually consists of, the atheist scientists do their best to show that the Cause was mindless. The discovery of evolution is irrelevant, because evolution is impossible unless you have a universe for evolution to take place in. These impossible odds put atheists scientist under pressure so they proposed the multiverse theory (M-theory) where there is an infinity of universes & humans are living in the one that accidentally had an evolution process that accidentally caused life. Unfortunately there is no evidence of other universes, so this is believed without evidence, which indicates that atheist scientists don't know & just believe in a mindless cause so they can hold on to their atheist faith.
Hein van Zyl " How do you determine objectively whether the Cause was mindless or not? You could study what the Cause caused & calculate the odds. The odds that the universe accidentally has an evolution process that mindlessly caused life are less than 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. It's a number so large that you can't write it down even if you write a digit on every proton in the entire universe."
You can't determine that. There is just no reason to claim the cause was sentient when there is no evidence that suggests it.
Good sir, we have no idea if there is a multiverse out there, so any statement regarding probability goes out the window since we have no idea of the sample sixe of universes we are working with
Furthermore, what is life? can you define life? We don't even fully understand life or conscience as it is.
Your calculation is based on an unknown sample size of universes and a vague definition of what life is at best. When your premises are unclear you should refrain from making an absolute conclusion, which means your probaility of life calculation goes out of the window.
" The vast majority of humans logically conclude that the Cause has an uncaused superintelligent Mind & therefor choose to believe in God. For theists, most of the universe & the laws of nature are evidence for God."
What most people believe has no bearing on the truth.
We atheists obviously disagree. There is nothing in the universe, or regarding the laws of nature that can only be explained by god
" These impossible odds put atheists scientist under pressure so they proposed the multiverse theory (M-theory) where there is an infinity of universes & humans are living in the one that accidentally had an evolution process that accidentally caused life."
Not even remotely true, the multiverse concept was created as a theoretical possibility within physics, NOT atheism.
" Unfortunately there is no evidence of other universes, so this is believed without evidence, which indicates that atheist scientists don't know & just believe in a mindless cause so they can hold on to their atheist faith."
False. There is plenty of evidence that suggests the multiverse even if there is no evidence to directly prove it.
For example. We have measured spacetime to be flat with such an accuracy that the margin of error is less than 1%
If spacetime is indeed flat which the measurements suggests, and we can extrapolate Einsteins equations the way we would expect to, then spacetime is infinte and there is a multiverse
Another interesting subject is the inflation modell of the big bang which is the most popular modell among modern physicists. The inflation modell predicts a multiverse
Do you see what i am getting at here? Even if the multiverse can not be directly proven, The modells that predicts the multiverse has recieved evidence for all their other predictions.
Just like how gravitational waves were not discovered untill a century after Einstein originally published the theory of relativity, If enough predictions are confirmed, it's likely that the entire modell is correct even if you can't confirm all predictions.
There is a whole universe full of evidence that indicates the possibility of an Intelligent Cause. There is no evidence to show that the universe must have had a mindless cause. It is not a necessity, unless you believe in atheism. The exact same evidence can be interpreted in many different ways.
You stated that there is nothing in the universe or it’s laws that can only be explained by God. There is also nothing in the universe or it’s laws that can only be explained by the belief that there is no God. A multiverse is also not an explanation for everything that exists, could exist or may exist. It displaces the possibility of gathering hard evidence in other possible universes, so you are going to be free to speculate anything with very vague theoretical evidence.
The universe can not explain itself. That is why you are looking at the multiverse model. If you convince yourself & me that there is enough evidence of a multiverse you will end up with an infinite number of universes that need to be explained. What caused each one of them or what caused all of them. Are scientists going to assume/believe that the multiverse had no beginning like scientists used to believe that this universe had no beginning until overwhelming evidence proved otherwise? It is highly unlikely that you will be able to know for sure whether the multiverse had a beginning/cause, since humans can hardly explain this one, so you’re going to be able to believe/speculate whatever suits you.
You have to bear in mind that you are imagining/proposing evidence of what might exist. You only have one sample of one universe. The multiverse theory did not come about, because there is evidence for it. The motivation was to allow for a natural cause & get around the impossible odds of explaining a universe from mindlessness. An Intelligent Cause for the universe or multiverse is not an impossibility or unlikely. Your examples of evidence that may indicate a multiverse may have other explanations. I will get more information on it. I do find it very interesting.
You also need faith to believe in atheism (the statement: 'God does not exist' can only be believed). You need faith to believe in naturalism (there are only natural causes) & you need faith to believe in scientism (science can observe all possible knowledge). Neither atheism, scientism nor naturalism can be objectively verified as true by using the scientific method.
The multiverse theory can not be falsified or disproved, because the evidence is beyond the universe or it’s beginning & it is an approximation-like evidence similar to quantum physics. It is not supported by enough/any concrete evidence & if you accept that an infinite number of universes could cause an infinite number of different outcomes - alien creatures, angels, demons, souls & even God could be possible. You also still have the problem of explaining what caused each universe or the whole multiverse. You have simply replaced one unexplained cause with an infinite number of unexplained causes.
Another question that remains unanswered. What is capable of making laws. Can mindless energy/matter make laws? Can this be demonstrated? We know for certain that intelligent beings can make laws.
You raised the question of consciousness. No scientist can explain how it is part of physical reality (matter). Two computers can communicate & do calculations like the brain does. Yet, they don't know that they are computers or that they are communicating or that they're doing as we command. Our brains (biological computers) are also not aware that they are brains & that they are doing what our will instructs them. I know I am an entity & Ludwig you know you're another entity & we know we're having a conversation. We are self aware & are able to see ourselves in the third person having a conversation. If your consciousness is not part of your atoms then it will continue when your body inevitably dies & your body's atoms get redistributed back into the universe. Many believe (I admit can't prove) that the consciousness is your soul.
I enjoy learning from you & I do appreciate you not resorting to name calling & tirades of anti-religious propaganda that I get from some of your fellow atheist believers & which you may have been the victim of from my fellow theist believers.
Hein van Zyl " here is a whole universe full of evidence that indicates the possibility of an Intelligent Cause. "
Not even remotely true, All the things in the universe can be explained without using god, so there is no evidence for god to be found in the universe. I think you are letting your confirmation bias affect what you see my friend, personally i prefer to not appeal to the supernatural when we don't know if we can rule out the natural.
" There is also nothing in the universe or it’s laws that can only be explained by the belief that there is no God"
Firstly, my belief is not that there is no god, just that there is no evidence that suggests a god so i see no reason to believe in one.
But you are obviously right that there is no scenario where we can excluse the possiblity of god suggesting it. No, god will always remain a theoretically possible explanation. But being theoretically possible is not the same as being likely.
So i am not saying that there are scenarios that can only be explained withot god, i am suggesting that there is no scenario or modell where god is needed so why put in god there as an superfluos extra-step?
" A multiverse is also not an explanation for everything that exists, could exist or may exist."
I beg to differ, a multi-verse combined with string theory could actually explain all of reality.
" It displaces the possibility of gathering hard evidence in other possible universes, so you are going to be free to speculate anything with very vague theoretical evidence."
Partly true, we can't directly observe the multiverse, but the evidence for it does not lie in direct observation.
You see, we have measured spacetime to be flat. These measurements have a margin for error that is less than 1% so they are very likely to be true. Now, If spacetime is flat and we can extrapolate Einsteins equations the way we would expect to, then spacetime is infinte which means it must continue even outside of our own universe.
Even if we can't observe the multiverse, this kind of evidence strongly suggests it exists, and there is nothing suggesting these equations are wrong.
Another great piece of evidence is the inflation modell, which is the modell used by a vast majority of physicists. Now the modell does predict a multiverse, and while the multiverse itself can not be proven, The modell has recieved evidence for many other of it's predictions.
Similarly to how we used the theory of relativity long before we discovered gravity waves, it's very likely that if a modell has confirmed a majority of it's predictions, the rest of them should be true aswell.
The multiverse is theoretical, but it's VERY likely that it's true. It's not vague or unsubstantiated. it's the suggested conclusion from a lot of evidence.
" The universe can not explain itself. That is why you are looking at the multiverse model."
How is this any different from god being unable to explain itself? Is this some kind of re-iteration of the Gödel's incompleteness theorem?
" If you convince yourself & me that there is enough evidence of a multiverse you will end up with an infinite number of universes that need to be explained."
They might have emerged from quantum fluctuations in energy, who knows. We have modells for the creation of universe and universes which has no need for a god, so why bring god into an equation where god is not necesarry?
" Are scientists going to assume/believe that the multiverse had no beginning like scientists used to believe that this universe had no beginning until overwhelming evidence proved otherwise? It is highly unlikely that you will be able to know for sure whether the multiverse had a beginning/cause, since humans can hardly explain this one, so you’re going to be able to believe/speculate whatever suits you."
Part of being human i am afraid. We don't have acess to all the information that we would like, so therefore we must speculate.
But what i am trying to get at is that if a natural explanation is possible, why should we bring in the supernatural?
" You have to bear in mind that you are imagining/proposing evidence of what might exist."
True, i can't know because no human knows, which goes for you aswell.
" You only have one sample of one universe."
True, and it seems unlikely that there is only one universe.
" The multiverse theory did not come about, because there is evidence for it. The motivation was to allow for a natural cause & get around the impossible odds of explaining a universe from mindlessness."
I allready explained the evidence that the multiverse modell has. But i have to point out that it was invented as theoretical concept of physics, the creation of the modell had absolutely NOTHING to do with escaping any concept of a deity. I see that claim thrown around way to much and there is not a single paper published on the inception of the multi-verse modell that suggests that to be the case.
" An Intelligent Cause for the universe or multiverse is not an impossibility or unlikely. Your examples of evidence that may indicate a multiverse may have other explanations. I will get more information on it. I do find it very interesting."
Not impossible, no. Whether or not it is unlikely is hard to estimate. Personally i feel that a lack of evidence makes it unlikely.
It may have other explanations yes, but that changes nothing as they still offer an alternative explanatory modell to god. As long as they are not disproved, they stand on solid ground.
" You also need faith to believe in atheism (the statement: 'God does not exist' can only be believed)"
I disagree as atheism is only the rejection of a theistic claim. There is no faith required in saying " There is not enough evidence for me to believe in your claim" Atheist don't have to claim that there is no god, they just have to lack a belief in one. My personal stance is that i don't know if there is a god, but i will refrain from believing in one since nobody has managed to produce sufficient evidence for me to do so.
" You need faith to believe in naturalism (there are only natural causes"
it's more or less the same thing here, I don't know if there are any causes that are not natural, but there is no evidence to suggests that there is, so i see no reason to believe that there are. Again, this is not faith.
" you need faith to believe in scientism (science can observe all possible knowledge)."
But i don't believe that. I merely believe that if knowledge about the natural world can no be explained by science, or perhaps the knowledge is not about the natural world, then there is no way to verify it or draw conclusions from it so there is no way to gain any kind of deeper knowledge from it.
There might be knowledge that science can never obtain, but that knowledge is useless in determining truth claims for us human being apart from certain philospohical axioms ( which do not include the existence of god)
" Neither atheism, scientism nor naturalism can be objectively verified as true by using the scientific method."
You seem to have a poor grasp of what atheism is. Atheism is the rejection of a theistic claim based on insufficient evidence. Even the greek origin of the word only describes a lack of belief in a god and not a claim that there is no god. So to ask if atheism is true seems like a flawed quetion, since atheism is only the principle of not believing untill there is sufficient evidence which is demonstrably a very reliable principle.
I don't believe in the version of naturalism or scientism that you described so i don't care much about how they can't be proven.
" The multiverse theory can not be falsified or disproved, because the evidence is beyond the universe or it’s beginning "
True, we have no way of disproving it. That does not take away from the evidence it has.
" t is an approximation-like evidence similar to quantum physics"
Quantum physics is actually remarkably consistent with our equations so i have no idea what you are talking about. The multiverse is not an approximation in any way i can see.
" . It is not supported by enough/any concrete evidence & if you accept that an infinite number of universes could cause an infinite number of different outcomes "
I went over the evidence allready, But i see no problem in a potentially infinte number of outcomes.
" alien creatures, angels, demons, souls & even God could be possible. You also still have the problem of explaining what caused each universe or the whole multiverse. You have simply replaced one unexplained cause with an infinite number of unexplained causes."
You don't need a nultiverse to make aliens possible. We have no idea if the supernatural is anymore likely to appear in other universes compared to our own universe.
But that is not a problem. Our universe is implied to have been created from qunatum fluctuations in energy, so that is all the explanation it needs. The other universes could have been created the same way or there is another mechanism for creating them that we know nothing about, but the point remains.
It is possible for all of these universe to come from energy which is an completely natural explanation, so there is no need whatsoever for an intellegent entity.
" Another question that remains unanswered. What is capable of making laws. Can mindless energy/matter make laws? Can this be demonstrated? We know for certain that intelligent beings can make laws."
Why do you assume that laws have to be created? perhaps the laws have just existed all along. There is nothing to suggests that the laws could not be past-eternal like your proposed god.
No it can not be demonstrated, so we will never know. Of course, us not knowing does not mean that god is a reasonable answer, it merely means that we must be content in not having all the information that we want. I'm sure that you would agree with me that a god of the gaps fallacy is not a good explanation.
Laws created by intellegent beings, (atleast the ones we have observed) are very different from the fundamental laws of nature. In fact they are different things entirely.
A human made law is an agreed upon suggestion about how a particular happening should be treated by it's participants. The obligation to obey this law is enforced by the the beings who created it, and you can violate it.
A law of nature is an occurence that ALWAYS repeats as far we have observed, and you can't break it no matter what you try. Comparing the two seems like a very flawed comparison don't you think?
"
I enjoy learning from you & I do appreciate you not resorting to name calling & tirades of anti-religious propaganda that I get from some of your fellow atheist believers & which you may have been the victim of from my fellow theist believers. "
Likewise, and thank you for keeping an open mind about this. I see no reason for why we should not be able to have a civlized conservation about this.
Krauss is a dope.
Doing away with human life isn't necessarily a bad thing.?
Does he ever think before spouting opinions.?
Well said! I find it fustrating that your point isn't more widely under stood.
Ps: if Krauss is a dope then I'm ( and no doubt the aurthor of that comment) in a lot of trouble!
Nathan Smalle *understood
(sorry, couldn't resist) - otherwise, loved your witticism...
It isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are an infinite amount of possibly better options you know. Humans as we know it may not exist in the future just as past humanoid beings have been replaced. Do you consider evolutionary progression or progression in general a bad thing?
@@nathansmalle7054 Well humans, as we know them, are hardly model custodians of planet Earth. We have reduced all other species to a tiny spattering. Either by using all the environment for our own, often ill thought out, over-breading and mismanagement. Till it's got to the point. that any habitat left for other animals, has become reduced to reserves, parks and zoos. As if that isn't bad enough, we are now - since industrialization, choking the planet as a whole, taking us ever closer to a lifeless near future. I hope that soon, with the help of cleaner technology, we shed our biological mass and evolve into a more cyber-form like hominid. Leaving the world to the fauna and flora, whilst we live of off solar power. What so fucking worthy about humanity they gave us Americans and Christianity for fucks sack
That mic malfunction at c 11:00 is cool. I subscribe to Richard's view, but it sounds like somebody doesn't ;-)
In our experience code is created, not saying there is a G in the mix, to early to say, but we have code using the elements to construct geometry who's intersections render math.
God is consciousness/awareness. I've seen it. I am that. You are that.
Idiot.
big man. talk shit over the internet. I'm glad you could use me to stroke your ego. Now that you are such a big man, I can only hope to try to be like you at some point in my life. Can you please teach me how to, one day, be as cool and big as you are, oh keyboard warrior. Please...I am so low in my thinking that I come up with something original to describe how I feel about the origins of my being. Please oh so smart person who is so intelligent that he can insult a person based on 13 words. I wish that one day, I will wake up and be you...because you are great. you are god. O_O oh god. help me god. *Bows at your feet* please...teach me your ways to be so large in my head that I can insult people for no reason. I need to be as big as you...because you are greater than I. maybe one day...until then...all i have is to look up to you and your big balls...oh keyboard warrior. Type on genius.
guitardaddy6 I don't need to debate a theist to boost my intellectual ego, is like feeling proud and strong by stepping on an ant. No merit at all. And if you think that making fun of your moronic beliefs is being a 'keyboard warrior' it only proves the constant victimization that christians pose in every social scenario. You are truly pathetic.
guitardaddy6 by the way, you still don't show some evidence to back up the claim you made in your first post about that god, consciousness/awareness and all that circular non empirical crap
Marco Estiercol I am no christian. I don't give a fuck about jesus or Muhammad. XD All religion is trash. it's disgusting. I am a non-theist. maybe you will understand my point soon.
I exist. I am. I am conscious. I am aware. That is the ONLY think I know. I know nothing other than that. I may think I know what chicken tastes like...or what water feels like...but it's an illusion. I am limited by my senses. I am tricked by the electrical impulses that are sent to my brain.
Do we agree?
so i've laid the foundation. I know nothing. I'll go as far as to say that NOBODY knows anything...other than the FACT that they are aware and conscious.
Quantum physics dictates that we create this reality in our heads...via electrical impulses. There is absolutely no proof that says you see what I see. We may both see the same thing as two completely different objects...but they are all related so we can still use the same word. communication can still be made. but my green...may be your red. etc. etc. etc.
so I cannot trust my brain. I don't know how any of this exists. In my head, i perceive it as data...because I know that the body in which I inhabit is simply translating the data into what I can perceived and understand.
so again. all I know is that I exist.
Try this example:
take it all away. you have only your awareness. you are affected by nothing. you feel nothing. you are simply aware of your self. you can't see yourself. you can't feel yourself. you feel no boundaries. so you stretch to see if you can find boundaries. you use 5 feelers. legs, arms, head. you find no boundaries. so you create them. This is where mathematics begins. Sacred Geometry. I'm sure you know about this. I love talking Sacred Geometry with Theists. XD They never follow. too used to being stupid...from their religion.
so you are floating there and you are feeling nothing around you...so all that is left is to experience yourself. so you imagine. you imagine that there is a beginning and an end. you imagine that you don't know everything. you imagine...because it's fun. and what else is there to do.
I don't know where I came from. I don't know where my consciousness came from. I don't know. I don't care. HUMANS CREATE REASONS. Not god. God is not a deity. a person. a man in the clouds. it's a catch all word to attempt to describe that which is at the root of every human that exists. That awareness is the ONE similarity that WE ALL have in common. that is it. that is IT. Consciousness. not science or math or history or biology. consciousness.
How far into your consciousness have you driven? do you understand your self? Who are you? How do you experience yourself? Where did your ideas come from? did you come up with them...or did somebody tell you and you "think about it" and decide they are right? I made this up. This is how I feel. This is what I FEEL when I get to the deepest darkest parts of my mind and consciousness. I feel like we are all one...coming from that original awareness. We are the result of thought.
I am aware. Who are you to argue? :) If you can prove me wrong, then do so. but remember...all you know is that you are aware. I know that what I am saying isn't true...but it's what I feel. lol. all I know is that I'm aware.
we all know that life is the result of a chemical reaction. Life is the result of a combustion of specific chemicals. life is like blood cell or an explosion. there is a beginning and an end. we are all experiencing the life of this single cell from beginning to end. in that order. quantum physics theorizes that there is no linear time. it's simply how we experience...maybe to make sense of it. but we are aware of the life of this cell...and when it is over...i think the awareness stays. not in the body...but it goes back to the source. not heaven or hell or anything as stupid as that. it goes back to the source of all information. the awareness behind everything.
We are lucky to be aware and to experience this individually. There is no reason. Humans create reason and purpose. At the core of that consciousness and awareness...is something more than human. and I cannot comprehend it...because my awareness is being limited by this sack of water and bacteria and it's brain that is like a memory stick. it cannot possibly hold all of the information. in the end, it's like dipping your finger in a glass of water. when you pull your finger out, all you have is the experience. XD
who are you to argue? You still know nothing more than me. I am aware. So are you. What more is there? XD do you see. lolololol. there isn't more. any perceived *more*...is an illusion. it's created. we made it up. XD
How is my logic? flawed? doesn't matter. I know it's not true. It's simply a game. in the end all we have is our experiences...and hopefully a good laugh. Peace dude. My ideas will never consume you. you are safe from my ideas.
Whilst I am an atheist and a proponent of science and reason I find comments like those made by Laurence makes at 0:56 to be very counter productive. Here we have a man who's professional reputation makes him someone we ought to know we can trust, however, he comes out and makes outrageous statements suggesting that it is inevitable they will be able to make conscious computers.
We don't know what conscious even is, let alone how it is generated. How could we ever even tell if it was truly conscious? How can he state so stridently that it WILL happen and expect to be taken seriously? This obvious example of conjecture and bias simply leaves me wondering how much else of what he says is equally biased. He's not alone, I saw Sean Caroll confidently telling an audience that science has uncovered enough knowledge for us to say definitively that death of the body is the end of consciousness. I personally suspect what he says is true, but we don't know that yet.
These people have a responsibility to share their discoveries and knowledge with the public impartially. I'm increasingly convinced this is not the case.
lebroy Great comment
lebroy
"I am an atheist and a proponent of science"---
Married Bachelors are more TENABLE !!! Ahhh...
Can you explain something to us: How in the World can you use your Computer/Smartphone which is enabled by Quantum Mechanics, and at the same time Stage 5 Cling to with a Kung Fu Death Grip that which Quantum Mechanics has Bludgeoned then Jettisoned into the Incoherent Oblivion...The Fairytale 👉 Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism, Religion?
Contradict Yourself much? Have you considered Carnival as a Vocation?
Your Fiasco is tantamount to being a Pit Boss for Richard Petty Motorsports all the while denying the existence of Internal Combustion Engines!!!
*"YOU"* are NECK DEEP in a Fairytale Religion, smh. In fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Willfully Dumb and *"Scientifically Falsified"* 'Religion: (Philosophical Naturalism/Realism, aka: atheism).
*Religion* : 'Belief without Evidence'.
" *Naturalism* , in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are NATURAL."
www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy
*Realism* : "the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them."
www.britannica.com/topic/realism-philosophy
You have some *BIG* Problems. Namely, being in *DIRECT CONTRADICTION* to literally Thousands of Experiments ---( *"Science"* ) Without Exception!! ...
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness *[Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism]* turns out to be *IN CONFLICT* with *QUANTUM MECHANICS* and with facts established *BY EXPERIMENT* ."
Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 158.
That is: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST:
*A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.*
In other words, "Matter"/Light is derivative ( *The Consequent* )
Information/Knowledge is Primary ( *Necessary Antecedent* ).
According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger, THEN... Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... :
Independent of the *KNOWLEDGE* of the *"Which-Path Information"* -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to knowledge but as a Wave of Potentialities. Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct.
*Experiments* : Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like??
1) Every double-slit experiment, 2) Every delayed choice experiment, 3) Every quantum eraser experiment, Every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3 show exactly the same results - if the *'which-path' Information* is known or can be known - No Interference ( *Matter Existing* ); Conversely, if the *'which-path' Information* is not known and can't ever be known, there is Interference ( *No Matter* ).
Another "Fatal" Dagger: *"Non-Locality"* ...
To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...
Please take up the *Quantum Randi Challenge* (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012) ...
"The Quantum Randi Challenge, henceforth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist *[ YOU, as it were ]* who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model."
A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation "Knowledge" Dependent.
6 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?
Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your Fairytale 'religion'.
How does it feel to Stage 5 Cling with a Kung Fu Death Grip to a Fairytale *"Scientifically Falsified"* Religion in DIRECT CONTRADICTION with the most Experimentally Validated Field in the History of ACTUAL "Science"(!!!) ??
regards
It's pretty clear that they do the same thing they accuse religious people of doing... Belief and blind faith... But there is zero evidence for God.
@@remainhumble6432
"But there is zero evidence for God."---
WRONG-O-RAMA...
*1. Scientific Law:* Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever *CAUSED* by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!
That is...whenever we find *INFORMATION* existing and trace it back to its source...it invariably leads to an *Intelligent Agent* EVERY SINGLE TIME !!
SUPPORT:
1. Library of Congress.
2. ALL Books.
3. ALL Newspapers.
4. ALL Languages.
5. ALL Computer Software.
6. *THE INFORMATION AGE !!!*
*Null Hypothesis in Support* : Nature/Natural Phenomena Causation *CAN NOT* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION).
If you 'cry foul' and claim there is No "Information" or "CODE" in the " Genetic CODE ", you're screwed...
"DNA has two types of *DIGITAL INFORMATION* - the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: *The Digital Code of DNA:* Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410
"The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by *THE SAME PRINCIPLES found both in the GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM and in MODERN COMPUTER and COMMUNICATION CODES* ."
Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000
I have roughly 1.8 Million more in SUPPORT, if needed.
Sooo...
My Position: *The Null Hypothesis* : Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN NOT* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. (DNA -- Transcription & Translation)
Your Position: *Alternative Hypothesis* : Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes.
So essentially, you *MUST SHOW* : Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?
If Not: Therefore: *'A CREATOR'.*
Essentially...
CODE contains Information (Such as a Book, Morse Code, DNA, Instructions, etc).
Information is only created by Authors.
DNA is a CODE.
Therefore, DNA has an Author. ( *'A CREATOR'* )
*2. Quantum Mechanics:*
a. *Observe a Phenomenon* : Photons/elementary particles/atoms/molecules exhibit both "Wave-Like" and a Particle behavior.
b. *Alternative Hypothesis* : If the "Which-Path Information" is KNOWN or can be KNOWN then we will observe "No Interference" (Wave-Function Collapse: *Matter Existing* );
*Null Hypothesis* : If the "Which-Path Information" is KNOWN or can be KNOWN then we *WILL NOT* observe Wave-Function Collapse. (i.e., "Interference": No Matter).
i.e., If the Environment is the mechanism for Wave-Function Collapse (i.e., "Decoherence" --- interaction of quanta with a physical measuring device "Slit Detectors") then we WILL NOT observe any change in pattern (All Detectors will denote ' No Interference ').
c. *Experiment* : Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like??
1. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226.
"The presence of *PATH INFORMATION* anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."
[THEREFORE, The LACK of *'which-path' Information* anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. *NO FORMATION OF MATTER !!* ]
2. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1-5.
The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of *'which-path' Information* SOLELY collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005.
In conclusion, this Experiment Unequivocally Validates:
a. Knowledge (Knowing) the *'WHICH-PATH' Information* ALONE causes Wave Function Collapse.
b. Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) *DOES NOT* cause Wave Function Collapse.
c. QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space. i.e., Space-Time has *NO MEANING* in Quantum Mechanics.
ERGO: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST:
*A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information* .
That is MATTER is Derivative ( *The Consequent* ).
Consciousness -- "Knowledge" is Primary ( *Necessary Antecedent* ).
Another "Fatal" Dagger: *"Non-Locality"* ...
To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...
Please take up the *Quantum Randi Challenge* (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012) ...
( "The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist *[ YOU, as it were ]* who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model."
A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.
4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?
Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your religion.
Therefore: *'A CREATOR'.*
cont...
@@remainhumble6432
cont...
*3. Laws of Thermodynamics:*
*1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT)* : The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. (Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy).
*2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)* : The amount of energy available for work is running out, the Universe is moving inexorably to *"Maximum Entropy"* or Heat Death.
If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the Universe will End - the *'Heat Death’* (The Big Chill) of the Universe; ERGO...it had a *BEGINNING (CREATION)* ---and not the 'big bang' Pseudo-Science Trainwreck.
Since the First Law (1LOT) states that Nature/Natural Law *CAN NOT* create or destroy Matter/Energy.
AND...
Since the Universe had a BEGINNING (2LOT),
AND...
Since there are ONLY Two Choices, (Nature vs Intelligent Design)--- for 'The HOW' of that Beginning...
AND...
Since "Matter" (Nature) *CAN'T* Pre-Exist before it's Existence then Poof itself into Existence (before that... Poof itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence)...
Therefore: *'A CREATOR'.*
*4. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity:*
Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, Interlinked Systems, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED !!! ; without deterministic law like necessity.
There are 3 Types of Complexity:
1) random sequence complexity (RSC),
2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), AND...
*3) Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)."*
Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk...Aftermath of a Tornado.
Order (OSC): hhhhdddduuuu...Crystals, Snowflakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals.
*Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC):* "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.
So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct.
*FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.*
"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their *SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY* . Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity".
Leslie E. Orgel; The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973)
"The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or *SPECIFICITY* must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors".
H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390.
What Professor Yockey is attempting to tell you is that Ink Molecules won't conspire with other Ink Molecules or the Paper to construct letters into meaningful sentences (information) due to: Fluid Dynamics/ Magnetism/Brownian Motion etc etc. Follow?
“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the APPEARANCE of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions [Snowflakes]. Unfortunately this principle *CANNOT EXPLAIN the formation of BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES* .”
I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)
btw: No amount of RSC or OSC or the combination thereof, will EVER lead to *FSC* .
Examples FSC:
Cholecystokinin: is a Peptide Hormone "Functional Protein" produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption...
Without it, you die.
Albumin: a "Functional Protein" is ONLY produced by the Liver. It consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids. Of its many functions, it's Main Function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis...
Without it, you die.
They are *Functionally Specific/Sequentially Complex* ...you cannot interchange them. They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions.
If you're still having a case of the *'Willful Stupids'* or *Mindlessly PARROTING* your Pseudo Science Priests, call/email the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and ask them how they tell the difference between RSC/OSC and *Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)* ; they'll 'Tighten Your Shot Group' right quick! 😌
btw, *"INFORMATION"* (All of Biology (LIFE): The Genetic Code ---Replication/ Transcription/Translation, ALL Metabolic Pathways etc; All of Physics: Quantum Mechanics), *Basically, ALL OF REALITY !!!* , are the Quintessential Examples of FSC.
Therefore: *'A CREATOR'.*
ps. You (and Billions of others) have been DUPED by Fairytale Philosophers Masquerading as "Scientists". Why?? Well you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your face, spun around, and whistled dixie !!! And the Fairytale Pseudo-Science Philosopher Priests...they *KNOW IT* so they...
*EXPLOIT IT!!*
*Wake the #### UP !!!*
Hope it helps
19:00 Wasn't there an Outer Limits or TZ about an astronaut that went around the sun and found another identical, but mirror image Earth. He couldn't possess the food because it was wrong somehow.
Awesome debate
dawkins and kraus are clowns
man first intoduce yourself..
but,is it not enough have only 90IQ to discover that
+Borna Tona why?
+Ludvig Burman there
zen drax ????
+Ludvig Burman they are not scientists they are author's for non educated general public with IQ below 100.."National geographic scientist "
God's greatness is unsearchable! Psalm 145:3, “Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and His greatness is unsearchable.” When I pause to consider the magnificence of creation and the complexity of the universe, I am amazed and left in awe. God is truly incredible and amazing!!! The picture to the right is an accurate display of the earth's crust thickness and molten interior.
There is MUCH debate amongst scientists and geologists as to whether the earth's innermost core is solid or liquid. The deepest hole that mankind has ever been able to drill was only 9 inches wide and 7.5 miles[1] down into the outer crust. The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter. So scientists only have another 3,992.5 more miles deeper to go to reach the earth's center. They'll never be able to drill that deep because of the intense heart and movement of the earth's mantle. It is commonly believed that Hell is located in the earth's hot mantle. The Bible often refers to Hell as being located “down.”
Did you know that the Old Testament in the King James Bible mentioned the word “earth” 654 times? And the King James Bible's New Testament mentions the word “earth” 188 times? That's a total of 842 times that the word is mentioned in the Bible. Wow! The earth is important to God. 1st Corinthians 10:26 says that the earth is the Lord's and all the fullness thereof. Amen! It is God's creation! We ought to respect and be good stewards of God's creation. We should care for the earth instead of bombing it with radioactive nukes, polluting the oceans with plastics, and cutting down most of our rare and precious rain forests.
Men pollute the earth. 5,000,000 barrels of oil spilt into the Gulf of Mexico has done major ecological damage. I read recently that fisherman have been catching millions of shrimp with no eyes, spots and mutations from the oil contaminating in the Gulf. It is sad. The odds of life happening by natural selection or chance is not only astronomically a non probability; but it is plain IMPOSSIBLE!
How did the earth end up at just the precise distance from the sun to sustain life on earth? How does the earth maintain a heated mantle (7,000 to 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit) by gravitational accretion (20%) and the decay of radioactive isotopes (80%)? Do you really believe it just happened?
The earth each and every day, for ages has been a boiling ball of lava; yet the earth doesn't melt away nor do the continents remain afloat. How did the earth develop a magnetic field and an ozone layer to protect life on earth from the sun's bursts of energy? It's a perfect system that all works together. It would be impossible for all this to just HAPPEN as atheists, humanists and evolutionists would have us to believe. IMPOSSIBLE!
A person would have to willingly believe that a universe of order and complexity somehow evolved from a BIG BANG. Even if there was some kind of massive explosion at some point several billions of years ago, scientists cannot even begin to provide logical answers to explain what caused that BIG BANG. You cannot have an explosion without matter and energy. Where did that matter and energy come from? Nothing? That would be scientifically IMPOSSIBLE.
There are many atheists and God-haters in the world today, who attack the content of the Bible, attempting to portray God as a fiend. However, those same skeptics and unbelievers leave off the magnificence of this universe and the impossibility of it all just HAPPENING. They are ingrates. Romans 1:21, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” The fact that the Bible is brutally honest is further proof that men didn't author the Bible, for if they did to deceive others, they wouldn't have wrote it in such a manner. The Bible is truly God's inspired Word.
If you think about it with a sincere heart and open mind, it is IMPOSSIBLE that there was once a time when there was no time. Where did time begin? Could there have been a time when there was no time? An atheist can go insane trying to figure out the beginning of time or the size of the universe. How big is the universe? Can it have an end? If so, what is beyond that end? Nothing? That would be IMPOSSIBLE!
I was thinking recently about the source of life on earth and the universe. How could such an awesome universe have just HAPPENED? As Christian believers, we believe that the Bible is God's Word, which teaches that Jesus Christ spoke the universe into existence by the Word of His mouth.
Hebrews 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed BY THE WORD OF GOD, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
2nd Peter 3:5, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that BY THE WORD OF GOD the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.” Amen.
John 1:1-5 and 14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
Revelation 19:13, “And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God.” The Godhead was manifest to mankind in the fleshly Person of Jesus Christ. 1st Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Colossians 2:9, “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Jesus Christ is the living Word of God, by Whom the universe was spoken into existence. That makes more sense than all the insane theories that evolutionists have concocted over the past couple centuries.
Ecclesiastes 3:17, “God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.”
+Kassyni Savior dont cry you will fine your real mother lol, so she can keep beat you like she did when you were a child lol,
Jesus is not Christ. He told us specifically not to believe in the Christ and the false prophets because they are vultures who feed on dead meat. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Life, like space, time, gravity, and God, is metaphysical, unobservable, and unknowable by humans, even by Jesus for Jesus is a human. To write or say something is God, the Will of God, or the Words of God is blasphemy, and prophets are blasphemers. That is why Jesus never prophesized and never pretended to know God. Jesus told us to love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our soul, and to love one another as he loved us. He said on these two commandments hanged all the laws and the prophets. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
Truth is Hate to Those Who Hate the Truth! Good job. So JESUS IS THE VERY CHRIST God with us. SELAH AMEN .
+MorbidManMusic Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The truth will set us free. Jesus taught us to love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our soul, and to kove one another as he loved us. Do you love God ? May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
What is courage? What is duty? What is honor? What is glory compared to love?
Nothing.
I'm going to use my life to do something BIG even if it isn't big to everybody it will be big to me! The biggest accomplishments in life are those that inspire others to do the same. Live BIG!
It's already 7 years ,
Did you do something big ?
@@failedsociety0 I've done at least one atm
*_Life is simply "that which is", everything that exists in the present moment. We will never really know what God/Life is, but we can know how it works. Know it so well that you become it and live it. Search for "Truth Contest" on Google for the truth of life._*
^ This guy knows
Purnamadah Purnamidam So typical of the wishy-washy Indian mystic view, which ends up, like the ourobouros, simply eating its own tail. It leads nowhere but back to itself. I much prefer the Western outlook.
Purnamadah Purnamidam How do you know 'we' will never really know what god/life is? Do you think it's sensible to throw around such suggestions based on absolutely nothing? maybe a child or a fool will read this (or maybe that's what you hope to get a quick conversion). It may seem like a big game to you, but i assure you in reality it isn't.
Purnamadah Purnamidam Epic fail explanation yo.
Kai Wen "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" Here's the DEFINITION OF IT CONTORTED TO HILARITY:
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0
The Ultimate Truth transcends the temporal minds of these materialistic reductists. One day they will be gone, but the Truth of Creator and Sustainer will remain.
Fortunately there exists books so knowledge can transcend temporal minds. I.e. the knowledge we have has not be generated in our life time but spans far beyond our "temporal minds". Or as often put "we stand on the shoulders of giants". Therefore, when someone rejects mans knowledge then it is not man and his "temporal mind" which is rejected but the knowledge of giants which "transcends the temporal minds". So, what make you think you figured it all out but the "giants" got it all wrong?
no matter what we did or achieved in the end we all die but what happens then thats what i want to know?
Same as before you were born/conceived: Nothing.
As wildly enlightening as this panel was, and others like it also, there continues to be an absolutely mandated man who is always missing----That man is Ray Kurzweil who would bring infallible knowledge to the discussion. His concepts are unique.
Saying that God did it is not telling us how but who. Science can investigate the how until they hit the "nothing." Then they will have to ask God,"how?"
@Charles...... Why don't you people who have direct communication with god ask her "how", and then tell us thinkers what it said.
+Dan Jacob Thinkers? Atheist say, "everything BUT God. I say everything And God. Who's mind is limited? I don't believe in the garbage, free hand out, method of prayer. It's not what you think it is nor what religionists think it is. Of course if you could Think for yourself, oh mighty thinker, you would understand what I'm talking about.
I say "Everything and a few fairy tails." You say "Everything but science."
+Dan Jacob That's where you are completely wrong. I embrace science. I look at what facts are available, watch and learn. I am fascinated by cosmology, quantum physics hurts my brain but it is amazing! There is ample evidence to give place to an intelligent designer. I'm not suggesting any particular religious God but an un-embodied mind, space less, immaterial, timeless, powerful and personal.
not a troll here looks like you are getting angry as well. listen guys this life here on earth is to learn stop being so insecure about your faiths amd beliefs.. just stop
None of these people (with the exception of the guy on the far left) have any fucking clue what they're talking about.
Urban Chaos 2.0 lmao
We have the elements and the 4 letter code, but we have no idea of what this means. We also have phi, fractional fractals and pi, again we have no idea what all this means.
I FIND IT VERY AMUSING, VERY SAD ALSO, AND KIND OF INCOMPREHENSIBLE, THAT WE HUMANS ARE LIVING BEINGS AND HAVE THAT GREAT MYSTERY THAT WE CALL LIFE WITHIN US, BUT WE STILL DO NOT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT LIFE REALLY IS!
*ANGEL MAKING SURE SLEEPING AUDIENCE HEARS DAWKINS ADMISSION of IGNORANCE?*
11:05
Lawrence Krauss is sooo arrogant ... poor guy.
Lawrence, you should think about this:
you have to build a robot.
Robot requirements:
- The robot supposed to be totally stand-alone
- it has to make its OWN ENERGY ( e.g. by food metabolism )
- it has to MOVE on its own
- it has to solve more or less complicated tasks and GET ADVANCED IN TIME by solving more difficult tasks
- it has TO COMMUNICATE with other robots,
- it has to REPLICATE itself !!!!
How the best engineers in the World would do that?
Todays engineers take the following approach: they use metal parts, stepper motors, cables, printed circuits, CPUs, cameras, batteries (which need to be recharged), operating software is needed (which needs to be coded by very smart IT guys) etc.
All these parts is very sophisticated technology developed by very very intelligent people. And still, their metal robots are far far away from humans (bio robots).
And as far as i know, their metal robots CAN'T REPLICATE itself.
Not to mention, the engineers are 'intelligent entities', they do not operate based on random mutations.
Lets compare a human to a high advanced bio-robot with all that features i have named above.
So now i should believe, that to create all this, a long time ago molecules got together spontaneously in the ocean next to hot vents? or on a surface of some mineral?
How retarded do i have to be to believe this?
martin rag . You forgot to add, it has to regenerate its parts so that they don't wear out, or if gets damaged and springs a leak in its hydraulics, it has to self repair, it can think up its own tasks depending on what it thinks it needs. Maybe it should also thank its maker occasionally, and respect other robots, ( ha ha, optional I suppose ).
Exactly. There is still one thing missing : life. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
He has zero humility.
+Jason C WTF is that ? May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
+MorbidManMusic Lawrence Krauss is a fucked up obnoxious, arrogant child, an imbecile of sort. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
I don't think life can be defined, only described. Defining it produces it's own paradox. Life is dynamic. Defining it too abstractly can permit too many false positives. Defining it too specifically can permit too many false negatives. Therefore, an unending debate/argument is created and takes on a life of its own. Familiar with the book Gulliver's Travels? It's about a traveler who encounters giants in one land, and in another land HE is the giant. Life is similar. In our domain, we're larger than life. In someone else's domain, life is larger than us. It's all relative. But then again, maybe not. Who knows? Infinity is a hard place to explore. You could get lost and never come back. Then life will never be the same, and any definition of it will be obsolete/invalid.
I love stuff like this :D
Clinging to naturalism and evolution at all cost. Even resulting to the concept of directed transpermia, not as truth, but as the only option remaining, though it's a none option. At 6:00 they pretty much admit we don't have a clue but what we do know is life couldn't be natural here or anywhere else and that life is not all connected, and then Dawkins mocks people of faith who are so bound to their presuppositions that they wouldn't ever consider an alternative but that's precisely what he and they are doing. Life shows up fully evolved and too early for it to have occurred naturally...they said it. God created it fully formed and loves us. Take a look at Hugh Ross with an open mind. If the evidence is false then keep evolving. But give it a really good look. You must.
They aren't advocating panspermia, only that it is a possible way for life to spread and that it could explain why life appears quite complex so early in Earth's history. We know that material is spread between worlds, so why not life along with it? It's a remote possibility, but certainly not nonzero. But even if abiogenesis or panspermia is a myth and a god did form that first life, evolution is still real and the emergence of the diversity of life thereafter has nothing in common with the biblical account - or that of any other religion.
Mark Brown did you pay attention to what Venter said ? All life is NOT related. How does that not kick evolution into oblivion ?
Life is not science..
LIFE IS NOT SCIENCE... YOU WERE NOT MEANT TO UNDERSTAND MUCH OF IT... FOR BELIEVERS, GOD SIMPLY WANTS PEOPLE THAT "BELIEVE" AND HAVE "FAITH" IN HIM.... GOD DIDNT PUT CREATE PEOPLE TO QUESTION HIM AND BE FILLED WITH PRIDE.... ITS PEOPLE THEMSELVES THAT "DECIDED" TO BE REBELLIOUS.
its important to understand this life first than looking else where? life here itself is more complicated why look some where ??
That's a good start. Now fill in the answers and put it on the teacher's desk when you're finished.
35:00 this trans-humanistic fairytales is the reason I began skipping over Krauss.
Why do they laugh when Krauss says "when computers become conscious" like it's even possible that that won't happen, barring an asteroid strike or nuclear war.
Because it sounds like science fiction to people until the reality starts staring them in the face. I don't know it's taken to seem to seem so strange or ludicrous.. undoubtedly there's alien life out there as well given the vastness and unexplored nature of most the universe. It's just probability and it's telling us yes.
Not to mention the law of conservation of information which logically states that computational systems are limited to producing logical consequences from a given set of axioms or starting points, and thus can create no novel information.Godel's incompleteness therom and Chaitin’s algorithmic theory, which expands on Godel's work, both work into it also. Together they logically suggest theorems deducible from an axiom system cannot contain more information than the axioms themselves do. Saying that a computer can become conscious is saying that it can somehow come to have a will of its own, what we call free will. Life as we know it thus far is complex beyond our full comprehension. It has been in the works for billions of years making relationships, branching out, searching and complexifying. We're still halfway stuck in the reductionist philosophy which explains why we still haven't figured out consciousness among other things. If we don't know what it takes for consciousness to emerge then how can we logically assume that computers in all their limitations will develop it? It's not logically coherent.
Wow. OK, first of all,
"computational systems are limited to producing logical consequences from a given set of axioms or starting points"
A conscious brain IS a finite computational system! AI has absolutely nothing to do with completeness. Why would it?
"Life as we know it thus far is complex beyond our full comprehension"
That does NOT mean it's beyond all possible comprehension. This computer used to be behind humanity's full comprehension.
Tell me, do you fully comprehend how you're able to read these words right now? Do you know exactly how data is read from your hard drive and turned by your monitor into colored light? Do you have to in order to say it's possible to simulate it completely?
" and thus can create no novel information"
A computational system generated this random number:
1 2 0 3 5 8 1 0 9 4 5 0 1 2 3 1 5 0 1 3
So is that not novel information? Are you telling me the computer already had that number saved?
If life can become conscious by accident, of course machines can become conscious by design.
The human brain happens to be the most complex thing we know of. Just DNA is more more complex than any technology ever created. Bill Gates said that. That should put it in perspective. The brain can do computation of course but it does much more than that. Out of all its complexity that we know of and we don't yet know of arises consciousness. You could say the brain is a computation system of an entirely different nature but that's still just a silly human comparison because you don't know what else to call it. It's just being abstract and reductionist to compensate for ignorance.
Do you even know what Godels incompleteness theorm is? It sound like you really don't and you just read the word "incompleteness" and wen't of that.
Life is of a completely different order than computers. That's not a logical comparison. It may be possible to understand in a very long time when we upgrade our brains or plug into computers or something.
You really didn't understand anything i stated. You must not be very mathematically literate. That number was is a consequence of a set of axioms. The first part of that sentence which you seem to have just ignored all together is ...computational systems are limited to producing logical consequences from a given set of axioms or starting points. That's how computers work. Do some research. It's really fascinating stuff.
" That should put it in perspective. "
...yeah, the perspective of you thinking that misquoting (mis-paraphrasing, rather) Bill Gates will impress me.
The brain is not infinitely complex. It's a biological system. AI is orders of magnitude more complex than, but no fundamentally different from simulating a wing or a heart.
Or is there some part of the human brain that operates under different laws of physics, or none?
"...computational systems are limited to producing logical consequences from a given set of axioms or starting points"
Of course. Your brain does that. How is that relevant? Are you saying it's impossible to simulate ANY computational system? Or just biological ones? Why?
I was going to right out a big thing about life in our society and physically and basically scream my opinions at everyone. But.....Life is something we all share, and I am happy to share it with you guys. Whatever happens after we die or before (Probably nothing).
Dammit I brought opinion into it again.......sigh.....this is hard. Yay Life WOOP
There was a program designed on basic concepts/rules of life. And it was referenced with Othello. (If my memory serves me correctly.)
What came out was rather interesting. I can't remember the video it was in, though.
It actually appeared like "something" was walking across the screen. Some even became asymmetrical which is just amazing.
I wish I had the video for you.
But you probably want the program, itself, to come to life or evolve.
What makes you think we have 0 non working code?
God created life.
He apparently created idiots too.
life created god
Roy Boy with his design yes
god is a fantasy story
"god created life", this is about 2000 year old argument.
Its outdated.
if these guys keep talking I dare say that they will have no choice but admit to creation. the only thing they will not see is deep time vs sallow time. they're all talking peacefully amongst each other but put a creationist in there and they would flip their lid. they're willing to listen to evolutionists but not creationists. definition of ignorance and bias. they're all smart guys and know that their theory is falling apart in front of their eyes, which is why they keep doing research. the problem is the more research they do the more evolution is falling apart.
+Jake Jake lol you obviously know nothing, evolutionary theory is stronger today than ever before!
Alex Kosh not according to the information in this panel.
Kassyni Savior thats not why i believe in God at all. I believe the evidence supports a devine creation and that the creation has a cause. I dont believe in pure random, incomprehensible chance.
+Jake Jake they don't believe in random incomprehensible chance either. The universe (and life) is governed by physical laws. Everything has a reason, a physical cause. Science seeks to understand those physical laws that result in everything you see. Nobody on this panel has given up on the ability of science to tell us more about creation and the beginning of life. Indeed, most on the panel thought it likely we would have a rather complete understanding of abiogenesis within their lifetimes. Does religion inform you of anything regarding this? Does it make any predictions? No. You will never have a greater understanding of the natural world if you are handicapping yourself to an ideology that pretends it already has all the answers you need.
Mark Brown you have obviously not heard of the word called "prophecy."
Why isn't Dr. James Tour on this panel?
Because if James Tour was there the evolutionists would refuse to take part
There is one creation, one reality, we sit in it, yet we introduce faith and mystery to explain that which we sit in. We are at the beginning, can we avoid the end.