Brian Josephson - Evolution and God?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- What's the relationship, if there is a relationship, between God and evolution? 'Theistic evolution' is the claim that while evolution is real, God makes critical interventions. But could God not have created the laws of nature so precisely that evolution would not need intervention? Of course, if there is no God, the discussion is moot.
Click here for more interviews on evolution and God bit.ly/2tMs5l5
Click here for more interviews with Brian Josephson bit.ly/1RdfCcu
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
I love everything about this channel. The lighting, sound, camera work, the set, and above all 2 people just sitting down discussing big ideas.
Matter has specificity of action which we call laws. Laws are a description the specific action of matter. There is no outside force making matter act in specific ways. Matter and its' specific actions are 2 aspects of the same entity which are inseparable. The idea of god comes from our sense that our mind/thoughts are separate from our brains because we perceive them differently. God is a concept.
Until science admits psi and near death and other indices of non-local consciousness it remains in the place of religion -- ignoring half of reality to misinterpret the other half. Binary thinking incarnate. Problem is the world is -- always considering three things in any conscious thought -- a sign, an index and a symbol -- or reality, ethics and aesthetics. We decide and may do harm or improve things. But that is how it works. Binary thinking has accounted for the world we are happily now about to leave.
Non-local consciousness is bullshit!
@rf4life How wonderful that you are enlightened! My pleasure, to say the least.
@rf4life Same to you! My pleasure again!
An argument for the existence of God...
If God created everything, where did God come from or who created God?
This question is where logic stops being useful, for it attempts to understand infinity and limit and it just bounces between these two concepts as it rejects one and seems to only have the other as the only answer and they both do not seem to make sense. Let's try it:
Take any theory that attempts to tackle the where did it all start at, you have our present, you have the past all the way up to but excluding the beginning point and then the beginning point. All the theories that attempt to explain it all start with some basic point who is not a super natural ineligient designer. So, where did that basic point come from? Who made that basic point? How do we account for the obvious intelligent design that is evident everywhere? Let's try God as that beginning point vs all other possible theories that attempt to explain it all:
God created everything (the beginning point is a super natural intelligent designer who we do not completely understand ) we can ask who made him, to which the only answer is infinite regression, our mind rejects it, and sends us to limit (God as that limit; that beginning point), our mind bugs us again... but where did God come from? So, with God as the beginning point i have a limit that i do not understand how it came to be, but it answers who the designer is. With every other possible theory that does not have a supernatural intelligent designer as its beginning point we have a basic beginning point and design by chance/accident. Did a building just came to be, no designer? How about the car you drive, it just happened by chance? No designer?The various systems in the human body, no designer?
1:01 totally, well said.
A question for Brian. If god works the way we work and is subject to laws of nature (trial and error, making mistakes, tweak now and then), why do we need god? We have humans, don't we? Hinduism can give 7 billion gods, if you want...
And the purpose of the question is? Are you pouring your own personal desires on what you want the reality to be on your question? It seems like an intelectually dishonest question.
@ 'Why do we need a god' is a dishonest question ?
He believes hindu philosophy not in hindu gods. Both are entirely different.
They are not hindu gods but Indian gods. There are folkores, spritual practices and philosophy in India foreigner indologist just defined them as under one umbrella of hinduism.
Let's start by trying to work out how we define a few things such as, law, information and intelligent design.
Law is a relationship with features that are consistent, this could be fundamental or emergent. A fundamental law would have a static quality and an emergent law would fall within some range of application.
Information is a relationship of association and would be context dependent. Meaning is never static, and information uses process to convey. Information could appear in a static form but meaning never does.
Intelligent design is more concerned with value than truth. Value creates a feedback loop that builds even more value and truth is only valuable within some range of resolution where false positives have more value than false negatives, in such cases as a prey species identifying a predator.
I can simplify that:
Law: a principle that must not be broken.
Information: the reduction of uncertainty.
Intelligent Design: ...
What do you think?
"EXCELLENT"..... thanks 🙏.
if evolutionary theory were to show convergent progress instead of unstable flux these questions wouldn't even be up for discussion
Je suis le temps de BRIAN JOSEPHSON . Le Temps Physique. Longue vie à Charles III.,
Technically evolution has a god or something with all the characteristics of a god. It is called time
Nope. Time is a factor of evolution. Like the fuel. Not the engine that impulse it.
1:11 God play role
This is...silly. I mean, are humans that infatuated with their own ego that they think 'God' is an ego-complex? God, surely, would be absolutely beyond concept, so how is it that humans feel comfortable essentially worshiping the idol of this egoic god?
What Is the problem, kid?
I just cannot get over how much effort people go to rationalise the idea of a god. Just make any rubbish up and make a claim.
Friedrich Schopenhauer My priorities have shifted over the last year or so, that's for sure. I still have quarrels with the same groups I've had for a long time now - left-wing apologists for conservative Islam, Christian fundamentalists, religious illiberals and sophists in general - and I still think religion is a major driver of suffering in the world. But the ascent of Trump, the Brexit vote, the recrudescence of the far-right have made me reconsider things, at least a little. Frankly, if a person's priorities haven't changed after the last twelve months I think there's something suspicious going on.
Even so, contra your post, there's no logical reason why criticism of religion cannot go hand-in-hand with the fight against Trump. And if you only criticised religion because doing so was "fun" then there's nothing much to be lost if you stop. The political right and religious demagoguery have always marched in lockstep, and if you're consistent opposition to one necessarily entails opposition to the other.
p.s. I've assumed here that you were just calling for us to lay off religion because there are more important things to worry about in the political world. Maybe that's not what you meant. Maybe you just think criticising superstition is just not cool any more, but that'd be a pretty pathetic reason for stepping back.
I stand by my post. A hell of a lot of people think there is a "god". You are right in that there is no real definition of a god or it would be simple to disprove. The fact that there is no evidence to back up any god and the lengths people will go to, to invent something to rationalise there belief is what I'm flabbergasted by.
No-one's claiming that the universe 'popped into existence from nothing', at least not the 'nothing' you're thinking of. What many atheistic philosophers and physicists say is that 'nothing' is a meaningless concept which negates itself, and is therefore not a possibility. And if it's not a possibility then 'reality' is a necessary truth, ie. it must exist. It cannot _not_ exist.
Thus, 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is a nonsensical question. 'Nothing' is not an ontological possibility. There is no alternative to 'something'. To think otherwise you would have to do the impossible job of defining the term 'nothing' without conceptualising it in some way, and thus turning it into 'something'.
That is the philosophical response. From that point onwards theoretical physics takes over, and explains how going back in time to t=0 in the universe's history means we reach a 'north pole' in spacetime. This means there is no normal beginning which requires an explanation. It also has the pleasing characteristic of supporting/agreeing with the philosophical explanation.
To not rationalise on any subject, is to eliminate the possibility of something existing on bad faith. Try rationalising the alternative, you and I, and everything that exists, is a product of cosmic coincidence. In other words, unguided evolution that results in intelligent beings discussing meaning, purpose, morality, and existence itself. You have much to learn young man. Open your mind to true knowledge.
@rf4life "the idea of atheism" Lookup the definition of atheism. Some people are so bloody ignorant on what it is. Think of it like this and atheist says "I *do not imagine* there is a god" That is all.
A theist asserts that the god they *imagine* is real.
So all the rest of your assertions. What fact based sources did you get them from?
Is this the consensus among those who actually went the effort of studying the subject?
Lastly a tip. The world is natural. What we claim is know is based evidence of the real world. Base your life on what is real. Denying reality based on imaginary beings is just going to make you look stupid.
Everyone is worried about god and evolution, and I'm just thinking "MOVE YOUR DAMN JAWS WHEN YOU SPEAK!! I CAN'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING!!"
Wtf
Why do the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Jewdaism) have problem with Evolution and not with other scietific theories? Simply because God said, He created Man somewhere outside of Earth and later sent him to it. There is no way for us to reconcile with it.
However, God did not leave us without any sound argument against any kind of falsehood. Some of them are below:
1. where did the 1st complex cell that began the Evolution come from? Yes, it's complex because it said to have done complex functions like replicating itself... why would it divide itself? that detail will make it an essay instead of a comment
2. Why male and female that could reproduce? what is the chance of evolving into exactly opposite partners? why are they attractive to each other? Why only 2? Why not many? Why reproduction? All of this by chance?
3. Paleontology, the only supposed evidence for evolution, shows thausands of fossils that were preserved millions of years ago that are exaclty same as today's speicies.
Harun Yahya and Don Patton have done good job exposing this false theory.
salman Amoodi you need to be properly informed on tbe theory of evolution. anything by professor Richard Dawkins should be easy as a read on the subject. or check out tbe channel on youtube by Aron Ra.
also even if the answers to your questions were in line with your beliefs, which they aren't, you still would not have presented any proof of a G*d.
>Why do the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Jewdaism) have problem with Evolution and not with other scietific theories?
They don't, at least not the Catholic Church. Although they recognize that the theory is, at best, incomplete. Just like the scientific community does.
You are wrong about islam , islam never said God created man outside of earth , He said " we created you from earth! " we arose you in steps from earth ,
@@GB-fk7eqAte you serious? Dawkins is a joke. More of a pathetic bitter old Man than a thinking mind. Why the questions aren't in line with His believes? Who are you to decide that? And also, the same pathetic attitude aroukd Dawkins lovers. Who the fuck need to present evidence on God in order to put a comment on RUclips. Grow up man. It's a fucking comment on a fucking opinion on a fuck internet video. Come on. Ridículous
Great
wow
It's a great lesson that an incomparably brilliant person can also be a total fool.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and it is foolish to think they (at least automatically) are. They are both different entities that serve different purposes, in the end.
@@GwladYrHaf Anything but thinking for yourself, huh?
You don't have the calibre to say anything about him.
@@russ8156 LOL. That's a troublesome way to view the world, and the people in it.
@@GetMeThere1
So you spit a silly opinion based on someone else points of view saying that your opinion Is correct because the other person points are not of your liking. You sound brilliant and a fool on your own 😂
hey guys don't do god, it's boring
Do they let this guy out into the community every few weeks? His input to these videos is comedy gold.
He's a Nobel Prize winner. And you play drums in a crap bar band. Hahahahaha.
More contrived BS.
First lol
?
Anyway, some of the responses to the ideas posed in the video are that - if you have an 'intelligent' creator, then you need another MORE intelligent creator to create the creator add infinitum and so it becomes a ridiculous regress. Other responses to some of the ideas are that .... we could be in a simulation which would mean that our universe is inside another one where there are creators which we could call a 'god' but this is just an interesting conjecture at this point, and lastly, if we want to actually be scientific, it is important that we dont draw any conclusions without a good reason to do so like - evidence. Brian is making allsorts of assumptions here which, to be scientific, are bullshit.
Total rubbish.
ITS BOLLOCKS