Isn't Dawkins just saying in an atheist way, that God is beyond our level of understanding. Our minds are not complex enough to full understanding God. He just doesn't realise he is say that. It's funny because he accepts that somethings are beyond our level of understanding, but hasn't noticed the sort of irony of his thinking.
"I said if I could convert everyone in the world, not convert, if I could convince to be a non-believer, and I'd done it brilliantly, and there was only one left. One more, and then it would be done. There'd be no more religion in the world. No more deism, theism. I wouldn't do it. Dawkins said, 'What do you mean you wouldn't do it?' I said, 'I don't quite know why I wouldn't do it.' And it's not just because there wouldn't be anything left to argue with, and no one left to argue with. It's not just that. Though it would be that. Somehow if I could drive it out of the world, I wouldn't. And the incredulity with which he (Richard Dawkins) looked at me, stays with me still. I've got to say." - Christopher Hitchens Even Hitchens could see how fanatically devoted to atheism Dawkins happens to be. All Dawkins has done is replace traditional religion with his own. It's paganism 2.0.
Does anybody know what happened to Reese (channel Give Light)? He hasn't uploaded for a long time and a lot of people are worried. He makes great videos and is exposing islam, he is an ex-muslim.
I used this argument 25 years ago, during my atheism phase. Worse, I spent two years learning the math to not understand what I was talking about, so I could smugly tell others that I was clueless🤦🏿♂️. Thank the Lord for delivering me.
I ditched atheism for a handful of reasons 1) a worldview needs to account for a duty to believe in truth otherwise there's no point in even debating what's true. 2) You need to have free will, otherwise, why debate? 3) You need to have a consciousness that's processing all of this 4) the consciousness needs to be capable of rational thinking 5) The truth needs to be something that is able to be learned by this consciousness. I eventually realized materialism can't account, and even makes impossible, every single one of these. I realized I believed all them and had to believe all them in order to even claim I didn't believe them. Christianity housed them all. Atheism did not.
Well put. In fact, I would like to point out that your statement in number 1 is actually an objective value that demonstrates the existence of objective morality, and by extension, God's existence. You're pointing out a value foundational for the ability to reason in the first place, an unchanging value independent of human opinion that logic cannot successfully deny without being self-refuting/contradicting.
You and I both brother. Jesus helped me find my way back to him 2 months ago after nearly 2 decades of atheism. I cannot even express how lighter i feel all of a sudden. Jesus is right , his yoke is light and in him we shall all find rest. In Jesus Christ's name Amen!
Your channel is faith building. I’m not an emotional Christian. I resonate more from Bible study than I do listening to Gospel music, which I never listen to. Not trying to disqualify those who do, it’s just how my brain works, I think. I get my “spiritual high” by listening to great speakers like you. Thank you.
"The 👑GREATEST MAN in HISTORY" had no servants, yet they called Him Master. Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. He had no army, yet kings feared Him. He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. He did not live in a castle, yet they called Him Lord, He ruled no nations, yet they called Him King, He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today! "His name is JESUS❤"
@@mockupguy3577 BC atheism denies free Will, morality and all yet atheists Who deny these, use these to attack religions, Dawkins Is One of these atheists
Dawkins is fond of mocking faith as being "belief without evidence," but he seems to be exhibiting (his definition of) faith in "what the physicists say". He can't comprehend their evidence, but he trusts their word; he doesn't grasp their intellect, but he finds them credible. So on what grounds does he mock faith in Christ??
@@jhoughjr1 We Christians trust Christ because we find His word credible, and Dawkins mocks us for it. Why is Christ less credible than the scientists? Dawkins mocks the whole idea of faith, but in fact 99% of what everyone believes is taken on faith, and not because they have weighed the evidence.
Except physicists have yielded results time and time again so its perfectly reasonable to place your faith in them. Everything that modern civilization runs on is the work of physicists. The device you used to type this asinine comment challenging the credibility of physicists was built by physics. What results has your magical overlord yielded?
On grounds that there are mountains of credible evidence that make the likelihood of a god so infinitesimally small that it is as close to zero as makes no difference..simple.
@@Manic154 Um..yes. I know atheists talk this way--as if the only reason someone could remain religious is if they are too stupid, too lazy, or too dishonest to examine "the mountains of credible evidence" against their views. Personally, I haven't heard any atheist give any "credible evidence" for atheism that remains compelling upon close scrutiny. But since ostensibly clever people seem to be on opposite sides of this question, I'm inclined to think that something more than the weight of "credible evidence" ultimately sways one's conclusion, whichever direction it goes.
no, he meant there is no intuition for this, it doesn't mean you can't understand when you learn the mathematics, but it's extremely complex, took Einstein years with a personal mentor to master it so he could write his equations. Anyway, go on with your fairy tales
@@FinianLohbar Most Christian philosophers presuppose nothing, neither atheism nor theism. While the most popular atheist presuppose atheism. Now internal critique is destroying atheism.
I love it when a secular philosopher relies on secular physicists for definitions that the philosophers should be making. And then the philosopher acts like that definition is sufficient because it’s been half-explained in a completely different field which can’t even begin to understand concept of the supernatural BECAUSE THE FIELD ITSELF ONLY STUDIES NATURAL PRINCIPLES
This is one of the reasons why I came out of agnosticism as a young teen. Some of the most qualified scientists who were on the side of intelligent design pointed out that the universe could never have existed without divine intervention, now Richard Dawkins is helping to confirm it. Lol
Well they are wrong. Fact is we dont and likely never will know the complete history of the universe. The queation then becomes, what can we know about it and how bad do we want it?
Dawkins argument doesn't make any sense at all. Essentially he's saying "just trust me, we don't know". Then 10 seconds later he's explaining he does know. What a silly man
His argument is we don't know and there is no evidence for God. Talking about God if you have any sort of logical or scientific mind is utterly pointless because there is no testable evidence.
@@wrongthinker843 Sure, there are things in science for which the evidence is almost as bad as the evidence for God. But I hope that you don’t think that this is a good argument.😂
@@wrongthinker843we don't know is a perfectly valid answer. It's not anyone elses problem that your lightweight brain can't handle it and has to come up with fictional answers to make you feel all warm and fuzzy. yes you are still the illogical ones honey.
RD: "Who am I to question Physicists? They are the experts and if it goes against common sense, I just accept it" Also RD: "I can and will question Theologians. Even though they are the experts, if it goes against my common sense, I reject it" No bias at all, just an objective scientific mind 🤣
Theologians are "experts" in a made up religion. They are not experts in anything else. We can all be experst in a religion, just read the holy text enough times so you know it by memory. If only the experst in the religion could agree on it, though. Saying "who am I to question physicists" is just acknowleding, that I do not know as much as this person about this specific topic, so I just accepts the current scientific consensus. It's like me accepting that a dentist knows more about fixing a tooth ache than I do. Or a mechanic knows more about fixing cars that I do. I how can with no problem question a theologion about their god, seeing the theologion is not able to prove the god. If it is about the biblical texts how ever, they probly know more than men.
Yeah, he does have a scientific mind. You see, physics is based upon falsifiability; theology is not. The proposition of whether or not a god or gods exist is an unfalsifiable proposition. It's not scientific. Get it??
Clever, but untrue. There is a way to prove God exists, but it involves seeking Him until He reveals Himself to you. The interesting thing is that I can have a short conversation with several different people, and I will be able to tell which ones actually know God, and which ones don't, within a very short time. While each of us that experience God do so in some unique ways, there are commonalities that every person who actually is in relationship with Him share. These become obvious to those in relationship with Him, but not to those who are not. To put it in simple terms, if you're in His family, you will quickly recognize others in the family, on a level that is difficult to describe in relatable terms. The recognition is difficult to quantify, but is very real. I can usually tell even from comments those in relationship with the Lord. That's not something I was ever able to do until He revealed Himself to me, and tutored me in His nature and ways.
@@ApostleOfGod8862 Your comment is ridiculous. It's completely subjective with no demonstrable evidence involved. But hey, since what you are asserting without demonstrable evidence, Muslims and Hindus who claim to have the same capabilities are equally accurate about their gods. Ergo, you have not proved anything more than your belief. Beliefs are not necessitated by knowledge.
This what popped into my head. So Dawkins is saying that he he has FAITH in the men in white lab coats talking about things that are incomprehensible... and that is logical and scientific while people who have FAITH in the men in black robes that talk about things that are incomprehensible are foolishness.
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator." ~C.S. Lewis Examine the fathers of the modern science and the scientific method: these were not 'nominal' believers. Indeed, many a scientist views the study of nature to be a form of worship: to "Think God's thoughts after Him", so to speak! How separated is this view from the view of Richard "Our minds aren't made for that" Dawkins!
@@ramigilneas9274 What makes you think that they disproved any part of the OT? Even if you are going to insist that the first few chapters of Genesis are scientifically impossible (which requires you to insist on a very particular interpretation of those texts) the science your interpretation is incompatible with came long after the fathers of modern science and the scientific method.
not build, evolved. And yes we were all dumb, from the beginning. That is why we go to school to learn things. How ever, you can not learn what came before the Big Bang, because we do not know this.
@@222ableVelo if you saw the entire interview, you would understand, that he is actually saying "I do not know anything about, what came before the Big Bang, go ask a physicist" It is like you going to a mechanic and asking him to do a root canal on you. I mean sure, maybe the mechanic could try, but Im pretty sure he would suggest you went to a dentist instead. Problemis that Pierce Morgan kept asking him about it. Then Dawkins told Morgan, what he had learned from physicists seing that Dawkins actually do know some physicist.
Humans can be smart or humans can be stupid, they can't have it both ways. We can't be smart enough to make up religion to describe the world but stupid to the point where we have to make up religion to describe the world. That's what we call a circle.
"Atheism is not the knowledge that God does not exist, but only the wish that He did not, in order that one could sin without reproach or exalt one's ego without challenge. The pillars upon which atheism mounts are sensuality and pride." -Archbishop Ven. Fulton Sheen.
That's literally not what atheism is. But expecting an original opinion from a religious person is obviously impossible anyway. Quoting people who had no clue what they were talking about and believing it blindly.
Atheism is nothing to do with that, atheism is just the acknowledgement that there is no proof for the existence of a deity. Especially not one described in any religious text.
@@friendlyreaper9012 And expecting an original thought from an atheist is likewise impossible. You follow your "experts" who contradict themselves even as they speak.
Unfortunately, Dawkins has already completed his life’s work. He undermined his own culture and the one group that protected the west from Islam and Marxism. There is of course hope and redemption, but he will need to find it outside of his work in this life - in something eternal. I pray he comes to faith in Jesus.
@MarkStein-b5b The biggest victory Satan has won so far is convincing modern people that evil isn't real and that life's value is subjective. Things are going to get much, much worse if we don't stem the tide.
I like that. See this is what all theists should do to atheist. Instead of making up dumb arguments and proven things, you should just pray, that your god, will show us the truth. That way we can remaing atheist (seeing that god for some reason never shows us the truth) and you can stay in your delusion that praying actully do something. Its a win win situation for both sides.
Okay, but deterministic naturalism posits that people being religious was an unavoidable causation determined by unguided natural laws, as are your beliefs. Under this system, how can you believe you have any intellectual high ground? Are your ideas not products of the same system? Please explain how your random precaused ideas are somehow superior, when your reason is created by the same random, precaused conditions. Or is it just cope? @larsrathsach3477
you have to watch the entire interview. Dawkins means "evolved" not as in build by a builder. But as a biologist he understands that the human brain evolved over millions of years, so it "build " itself with every new offspring.
@@wrongthinker843 I have no idea what that sentence means. What is a specific design of a human brain?? What do you mean by denying a specific possible one??
@@larsrathsach3477 Without a creator there can be no specific intended design. Therefore to make a claim that people are "not made" a specific way is absurd.
@@wrongthinker843 The Bible does not condemn r ape or slavery a single time. So where is your morality coming from? It surely couldn't be be from your culture or anything silly like that, right?
@@angelman906 The Bible definitely does condemn rape and prescribes the death penalty to whomever commits such a crime. See Deuteronomy 22. Everytime rape is mentioned in the Bible it's always negative and sinful. As for slavery, the Bible does not condemn bonded servitude but it does condemn kidnapping people and forcing them to work like animals like the slavery most of us think of, like in the American south. That kind of slavery also would merit a death sentence. See Exodus 21:16. The Bible did allow for a person in debt to work off their debt through bonded servitude. There are guidelines for how such a person must be treated, and it did not allow for lifelong servitude unless the servant/slave desired it. It was a limited arrangement so a person could pay back something they owe and then their obligation was over.
@@Are_You_Sure_Bro I know about Deuteronomy 22:28. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. This isn’t a condemnation for the action it is a condemnation for sullying property. As for the slavery part, owning a person is bad no matter how well you treat them, though the Bible allow you to beat your slaves and the slaves are passed on from generation to generation, Hebrew slavery was absolutely terrible, as all slavery is.
welll, its not really such a complicated matter. Atheism = I do not believe there is a god How is that difficult to understand Just say I do not believe in Unicorns Same result
@@NotSoCradleCatholic there is no atheistic world view.... what on earth are you talking about. Atheims is just the rejection of the claim - there is a god what world view do you think atheists have??
@@larsrathsach3477 >How is that difficult to understand This raises the next question: if you don't believe in a Creator, then you're essentially believing in self-creation, which honestly doesn't make much sense given the current state of scientific knowledge. >I do not believe in Unicorns Here’s where your misunderstanding lies: unicorns are not creators; they are material creatures. If you can see the difference, there's hope you'll grasp the subject. Otherwise, you're just engaging in a childish intellectual game.
It's been a while since I've heard Dawkins talk. He sounds like a cartoon character. He looks like about the right age. Did he escape from a Monty Python skit?
The whole of humanity has to wait for Richard Dawkins to tell us what we're capable of understanding and whether we are even allowed to try. Look who's playing god.Ironic.
So next Christian in a debate with him just has to wait for him to ask why a good God would allow suffering and then they just say "It's counterintuitive. I don't understand it. You don't understand it. We're not theologians. Our brains were built to hunt and gather in the African savannah. They weren't built to understand the profundites of God, right Dr. Dawkins?" 😂
The Oxford mathematician and Christian, John Lennox, says something about this to sceptics/atheists who are confident in their conclusions: if you had a computer which was generated by random chance and random mutations, would you trust anything it said?
Hm, so a mathematician talking about biology is somehow more credible than Dawkins, a biologist who refuses to talk about physics? Not sure I buy that, even though I think Dawkins is a jókě.
@@MrSeedi76 Lennox tries to understand biology as best he can but seems to completely rely on those biologists who cast doubt on evolution. Which is essentially a fringe group. I like |Lennox's writings, but it's a shame he largely rejects evolution as the way God had life develop on earth, despite so many other Christians accepting it as the best explanation. I agree with him, however, that the beginning of life may require the divine spark, but even that is open to question. But for me that does not negate God.
@@MrSeedi76 it’s not that Lennox is lecturing biologists on their field. He is asking them a question based on their field to help everyone arrive to a conclusion. He asks biologists and scientists of other fields: “If you were told that your computer spat out information that was the result of a mindless, unguided process, would you believe the information it spat out?” Every time they say: “No”
The trouble with Dawkins is that he rejects the notion of the "immaterial" but because information is immaterial in nature he is forced to reject information. It's easy to reject information about X if you have a preassociated bias against the existence of information to begin with. Imagine someone saying "electricity doesn't exist because I can't see it" or "gravity doesn't exist because I can't see it" It's wilful silliness. Our understanding of electricity and gravity are made known to us via the medium they affect in nature. The same is true with information and God. God became known to man when he made his word to become flesh. Dawkins is like the hungry snake eating his own tail to fulfil his hungry.
"God became known to man when (H)e made (His) word to become flesh" Not exactly true. God was known to man before that. Judaism was around long before Christ became flesh, which was founded on the law that God provided Moses. As just one example. The Old Testament does exist and it points TO Christ long before He was born of the virgin Mary.
The main problem with Dawkins is that to really argue for atheism you have to have a good understanding of physics, of metaphysical philosophical principles, of theology and what Christians are claiming, etc. And Dawkins has only a very surface level knowledge of all this stuff that’s easily challenged by someone who knows what they’re talking about and then he flounders around helplessly.
Dawkins is essentially saying that we should not only throw away our common sense when it comes to the origin of the universe, but also that we should put our complete trust in what physicists say about it - physicists who come from human stock that did not evolve with the mental faculties to understand the origin of the universe. I love physics, but does he understand how contradictory that sounds? And he thinks we’re nuts for believing God created the universe?
“The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.’ So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength. Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18-29 NLT
Ya, this is the problem, when you do not see the entire interview. What Dawkins said and kept saying to Pierce Morgan was "I do not know what was before the Big Bang, you would have to ask a physicist" It's the same if you go to a dentist asking him about having a dark spot in you eyesight. The denits would most likely say "I do not know what that is, you should go ask an optometrists. But Pierce Morgan kept asking him about. You people do know, that Richard Dawkins is a biologist, righ???
I regularly go toe-to-toe with a particularly militant atheist/materialist. He just left this comment under another video: “Jesus’ ideas in the Sermon on the Mount are crazy and civilization would instantly collapse if taken seriously.” Gonna reply by quoting my new favorite Christian apologist: “Yes it’s totally counter-intuitive. It’s counter-intuitive to me, it’s counter-intuitive to you… You cannot use human intuition!”
@@newme1589thats what happens anyway. You either pass ur genes on or u dont. Multiply that by millions and billions of individuals and time and populations change. It cant not happen.
no Atheist ever quoted that sentece. I how ever am willing to go toe-to-toe with you. Calling Richard Dawkins a new Christian Apologist is just moronic. And when citing quotes you should ad the most importan part, else you are just being disangenous. "You cannot use human intuition to understand the beginning of the Universe" (I think that was what he said) Science does not care about human intuition. See if it did, we would not be able to use airplanes, because our human intuitin tells us, that things can not fly unless if is a bird, insect or a bat. If we only went with human intution we would not know, that stars are larger than the sun. We would not kow that the world isn't flat. We would not be able to use electricity. and so on Human intuition is just - I must eat - I must not get eaten - I must reproduce - me scared, me glad, med happy, me sad rest is not intution.
Christ's teachings have been the fundamental beliefs of many nations for almost two millennia; the most successful nations in history have been among them. If anything, western civilizations were doing MUCH better under the statutes of Christianity than what is currently happening. Our modernist rejection of Christ and worship of self, state, science, and "freedom" is why modernity is collapsing in on itself more rapidly than a crate of tungsten hurled into a black hole.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that time, space, the laws of physics, atoms, elements, the nuclear forces, etc, were created by a random explosion which arose out of nothing. Foolishness to the extreme.
This is actually not what atheists/naturalists believe. The "arose out of nothing" part is not an element of any serious scientific theory. It's literally just a disagreement about how high the bar should be for evidence used to justify particular claims and beliefs.
The chances of it are supernaturally small. Literally. The extreme balance between the forces of the universe exceeds even if they invoke unprovable bubble universes. The number of atoms in the visible universe times the number of seconds of the universe would not be a number large enough to explain the chance.
Okay, I admit, I was kinda drunk, and thought it would be a funny prank, but definitely don't eat those berries. Unless you really do want to turn into a toad.
@@matswessling6600 science has it's uses, but not in philosophical areas. people like dawkins should be humble and say "i don't know", since the existence of god can't be denied. instead he says "i know" though what he means is "i think". in no way has he confirmed his hypothesis. so be careful with the "experts" (I say this holding a PhD in Biology myself)
@@Kit-kk9cb existence of god cant be denied? So what? A teapot orbiting the planet Mars cannot be denied either. Whay is important is that no one has showed good evidence of any god. so.
@@matswessling6600you should look up the definition of scientism. Not just look it up, but seek to understand the term and where it's application is necessary. Science can't answer certain questions and demanding science must be used in philisophical matters to answer those questions is committing a fallacy of scientism.
This is more a mouse than an elephant, as Dawkins is not arguing that Physicists have the answers. Rather , he is making the claim that through their experiments, Physicists have presented the best model of the universe that comports with our understanding of reality. No recognized physicists has attempted to claim that they know what happened at T=0.
@@Biblestudies658 Yes, do not offend the god-physicist s by questioning their knowledge of the origins, functions and purpose of the universe. Bow down, y'all.🤠
Brother David, thanks for every single upload and God bless you. I have watch your video's from the time with Nabeel, God bless his soul. You are 1 true soldier of Christ, my brother
"That Hideous Strength" is dawning on Dawkins. He's realising he's in the wrong army, but doesn't know how to get out of it himself, stuck and wallowing in the slippery mud of the trenches he dug himself into, stubbornly refusing the hand of the One who 𝘤𝘢𝘯 easily lift him out of it.
Wasn't it Dawkins that said God Himself could come down out of heaven and greet Dawkins and he would just assume he was having a psychotic episode and still deny God? Do not dust off your sandals and do not pray peace on that man's house. Move on to the next.
@@VVooshbait I'm merely saying that he's got a double standard. He always claim he loves to reason, but when he can't give a defense, he appeals to authority even without reason. He trusts the physicists even without scrutinizing them, and he cherry picks.
@@VVooshbait it's Dawkins, he will always go "but we have authority and noble station so you can't question us" (paraphrased obviously) whenever someone challenges his points. And if we go to his statement, well it's kind of an insult to people's intelligence, because he's asserting that only a select few humans are worthy of even trying to understand physics. And yet he's trying to claim to understand it all better than us, he argues about the big bang and time not existing before then, yet he denied the existence of things quantum physics routinely hypothesize about. Either he thinks he's special and above all others, or he like the video ends with, he knows humans were made for greater understanding and reasoning but he suppresses that knowledge.
"Your computer wasn't designed to calculate prime numbers; therefore, it's not worthwhile, meaningful, or useful to use it to find them" "Your computer isn't a Super Nintendo. Constructing an emulator to play Super Mario doesn't make sense"
Don't mind me, I'm just posting this comment because my random mind-particles made me do it. Though I'm not sure why they also made me aware of them. Nor what being aware even means. Nor what "I" am. Nor what anything really is, including "is". Nevertheless I'm going to argue with anyone whose randomness "thinks" differently than mine, because mine is obviously more true, since I think that it is and as such I have no choice in the matter. Just how I have no choice but to believe that I have no choice. Unlike those who believe that they can choose, with whom I also argue because their conclusion that was forced on them makes them idiots, while my conclusion that was forced on me makes me intelligent. I did the IQ test and I'm super smart, my Particles be praised.
Actually, this isn't a person expressing any thoughts at all, it's just random electrical pulses resulting in lines on a screen. There is no mind behind the random union of electricians or lines that result from them. Should you stumble across this in your doom scrolling, disregard it has no bjdssyjbgdesffgh...uhh do cg
@@stewystewymc3929 I have presented plenty of arguments even to you. Your turn to live up to a fraction of my "fairy tales", mr "intelligent" "moral" atheist.
common sense is not something that works in science. Common sense will say, that the world is flat. Common sense will say, airplanes can not fly. Common sense will say the sun disappears from the sky. Common sense will say that stars are smaller than the sun. Common sense will say there are no planets in the solar systemt.
What is hilarious is that what Dawkins is saying here is the exact opposite of what Sam Harris said in another video where he stated that in Science you are allowed to ask questions and challenge scientists and that science is self correcting.
The other issue I had with him in that interview was that he was using religious language akin to when Muslims defend their theology, by saying they can’t explain it but their scholars understand it so it makes sense. He’s making physicists an extra human priest class and evangelizing his religion.
@@cthulhucrews6602 that wasn’t the argument he made. It would be wrong to assume someone that isn’t a mathematician can’t understand math or learn math; or that oncologists have some secret knowledge of cancer that’s not understandable by layman.
@@cthulhucrews6602 You’re trying to reframe what he said into a inconsistent steel man. If that was his point he would simply tell people to learn physics to understand the concept, as any academic would. Instinctively no empirical science is known but I’ve never seen a biologist say understanding cell membrane structure requires a special mind. Not only were your prior examples inconsistent with what you’re saying now, for example mathematics don’t follow the scientific method; your application isn’t parallel. He’s a renown PhD researcher in an empirical field, learning physics, unless he was inept in math, wouldn’t be a problem for him. He should be used to complexity in his field. He’s saying that the upper echelons of physicists have special knowledge that can’t be taught to someone who’s not predestined to have that capacity. It’s a priest class. Years of study don’t make you a physicist, accreditation does. Do you know what usually happens when someone has knowledge no one has, they publish papers and allow you to read it to understand it, not go through years of schooling to finally have access.
@@cthulhucrews6602 common sense and intuition aren’t synonyms. Your epistemology is incorrect, the scientific method doesn’t require sound judgment in practical matters? Which is the definition of common sense. The irony is lost on me that all other physic laws don’t have that barrier of understanding except the theory that holds Dawson’s worldview together. This isn’t a theory, hardly an hypothesis, it’s a preposition. An hypothesis would need to have at least at least a structured logic tree, which Dawson is provided exception for.
@@Rundvelt No, he doesn't. No human has observed the beginning of the universe or time. And if time had a beginning, somebody must have made it happen, because everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Uh its almost like that's the entire point of science. Science is all about filling in the gaps in our understanding with science. You clowns attempts at reversing the script is so pathetic
@@stewystewymc3929 Yeah, filling the gaps with "god particles" that can't be observed, measured, captured, identified... but they're totally real because we observe other phenomena that isn't explained by particles we can observe.
@@wrongthinker843 except those god particles have been observed and detected. Try again. And even if everything you said was true, so what? Do you know of this thing known as the scientific method. All science begins with making hypotheses to try to explain phenomenon we observed and then trying to verify and make predictions with them. We don't just come up with hard facts right of the bat. You lacking enough creases up there to understand it doesn't make it invalid.
It is crazy to believe the universe happened for no good reason and accidentally created conscious, intelligent life. A designer/guided process is a much more logical conclusion.
@@Manic154 Not at all. Would it be presumptuous if you found a diesel generator in the middle of a forest to assume that that generator was built by an intelligent entity? No not at all. On the contrary, it would be absurd to assume that something that complex with a clear purpose to its design was just thrown together by random processes like wind, rain eroding the soil and lightning strikes. Likewise the physical universe, galaxies, the solar system, earth's weather systems, ecological systems, individual organisms etc. when looked at together are so drastically, enormously more unlikely and more irreducibly complex (meaning that without one piece of the puzzle the whole system would not function), that's it's actually impossible for all that to arise as a result of random processes.
@@cthulhucrews6602 There's so much more to it than that. Look into cosmology, biology, microbiology, ecology, physics. There's so many areas of life that have clear indications of design all over them. Most of all, DNA, a complex series of encoded, syntatic information that has more information in one cell than 100 encyclopedia volumes.
I will take them serious when they will show how single cell organism can evolve into anything remotely complex, even in perfect conditions , which life on Earth never was.
Physicist here. We don't trust our intuition because we have a so much better tool: mathematics. Special Relativity is extremely counterintuitive and in a way it MAKES NO SENSE to any average person, yet it works perfectly fine because we understand it in mathematical terms.
This is basically a presuppositional approach, and it is very strong. If you believe in determinism then you must also believe that you are determined to believe in determinism
This is one of the best, if not the best argument against Atheism. Thank you for bringing back memories of your video featuring the Caveman. A moment of silence in honour of Thag the Caveman.
I can’t really say with good conscience that our brains were, as Dawkins would put it, “made for surviving on the African Plain” and that we therefore weren’t developed to understand the profundities of the universe. The things our brains can do are absolutely unprecedented if they were simply developed only for survival. Our long-term memory has pretty much infinite capacity, the areas of our brains that dictate higher learning and thinking are so advanced that even incredibly stupid people can do things that no other species could even fathom, we reason on a moral level, regret our actions, question the very nature of our existence constantly, search for a grand purpose in life, have parts of our brains detected to solving advanced math equations, and so much more. If our brains were only developed for survival on the African Plain, then it’s pretty remarkable that so much of human nature, unlike every other species, just so happens to lend itself to striving for higher purposes and solving complicated problems.
THANK YOU!! This is exactly how I reasoned my way to belief in God as a teen, but I could never put the thoughts into words as well as that. I just thought, if my brain is just neurons firing based on deterministic realities, then none of my thoughts have any... meaning? Heft? Truth? But that itself is a thought. Do any truth claims merit belief? It eventually became self- evident that IF thoughts are caused by the material world, they have little to do with me or my choices or truth. So I was determined to it. Thinking would become pointless. But we can't stop! Thoughts seem to come from another realm. As if we choose to have thoughts. As if the synapses in the brain are sort of portals to the dimension the real us inhabits. As if the body is a vehicle for our soul and mind. I realized from that, even if it's false, I must believe in a supernatural existence to believe in my thoughts at all. That's how I became a seeker. Then I read various scriptures until I found the kind of God I loved and respected. I gave my life to Christ at 17.
@@Manic154 Of course it does. "Our brains were not built to/for" is an assumption that he cannot back up. How can you say that we don't understand much of our brain functions in one half of a sentence, then immediately claim that it should be obvious what it is mostly for in the next breath? We either understand it, or we don't. We either know the function or we don't. You can't pick and choose.
@@alexwr It's not binary. You need not know entirety how an internal combustion engine works to understand the overall function and limitations of a car. By the same token, we know enough about the brain to understand it's overall function and as for limitations....well, those are quite apparent to us every day! : )
MadebyJimbob made a similar argument, but its more vicious. "If I'm determined to believe in Christianity, and you're determined not to, and its all based upon chemicals in motion that you've got no control over. How can I be wrong, how can you be right? Who can ever find the truth if their truth is made by the same stuff?"
Exactly, so the only way we can ever be right about something is if we conduct various experiments and come up with scientific theories, that is the only way
@@dext1352 But you conducting a scientific experiment is still determined. Whatever thing you end up finding out will still be determined. Christians do science and find more "evidence" for Christianity. Same goes with the atheist doing science and finding evidence for atheism. And thus both the theist and atheist's conclusions would still end up being determined. You can't control the outcome. The brain is just doing whatever its meant to do forever unchanging.
The only way this can be fixed is with immaterial things. Such as truth being a thing discovered rather then created. Or a soul inside you controlling your brain to make free decisions on what You believe is true or not.
He’s simply disqualifying anyone who disagrees from arguing with him. And creating an unassailable mental construct - “oh it was before time, so all rules don’t apply. It’s magic”.
Dawkins: "it's amazing some human brains can even understand physics. My brain can't. Your brain can't...." I got straight A+s in high school physics and was never genuinely interested in it so I don't know what he means😅
He was pretending to be humble. Except he ruined it by bringing Piers and Stephen Meyer down to the same level as him, JUST in case he looked inferior. 🙄 He's willing to give full credit to a faceless, generic, unnamed physicist, of course, because he weighed it up and realized he'd rather look dumber than a physicist if it meant he could use it as an argument against God. 😂 Oh, the first great sin of pride, it consumes this one. I guess his brain is just ... predetermined to make him arrogant 😏
Yes because hes a biologist not a physicist. It does seem to be a christian thing to pretend to know every field of science somehow through "common sense".
Can you image Richard Dawkins as a hunter/gather - mate-hunter or any other form of hunter? I can't imagine him making a spear,, let alone throwing one... lol!!!!!!!
Oh yeah, one other thing. Computers were *made* for inventory management (the first British compiler, the LEO, managed inventory for Lyons' Corner Tea-House) and doing calculations for war. That doesn't stop them being *able* -- as a logical consequence of what they had to be for their original purpose -- of finding proofs for theorems, writing sonnets (I asked ChatGPT to write a sonnet about weasels today, and my word, it DID), optimising engineering designs, playing games, and all sorts of things the original designers didn't have in mind. So "our brains originally had the job of keeping us alive in Africa" doesn't even come close to implying "therefore our brains can't be relied on to reason correctly." Tracking animals requires not only good observation but clear reasoning.
@@retrictumrectus1010because its a word machine not a fact machine. It literally doesnt know what its doing. Yet can easily appear like it does. Like some p zombie
@@jhoughjr1 "NOTHING in Africa got us to the moon." Wrong in a very basic way. Let's just list four things that got Americans (not my lot) to the moon. Organisation of large groups working to a common end. The trajectory of thrown objects. Aiming for where things will be, not where they are now, And above all, FIRE. All those things served us well in Africa. There was also an enormous amount of excellent engineering and a mountain of money, but the basic mental abilities that took Americans to the moon are very very old. Oh, and"you can only reason on what you know as familiar" is also wide of the mark. For things that are familiar, we rely on memory. It's *un* familiar things where we resort to reasoning. How could we have multidimensional geometry except by reasoning? How did any of us ever get *familiar* with 5-dimensional space?
Your penultimate sentence is straightforwardly wrong. "Our brains originally had the job of keeping us alive in Africa" clearly implies "So it's entirely possible that that is still their primary focus, which must be a very significant bias that we can have no independent means of measuring and therefore correcting for when we make truth claims."
@@el_killorcureaccording to atheism cars, buildings, smartphones should be able to evolve or randomly assemble to their complex structure without the need of any external intervention. I mean if humans and animals that are more complex can do it, what stops cars, phones etc......
@@richardchallenger7739 To deny the existence of God is synonymous to denying your existence. Where did you come from? Did you create yourself? Nothing can be more illogical than for a created and finite being to say he does not have a creator. The creator put expiry date (death) on us all and that is enough to let any person with ability to think know that there is a Greater Being that decided our existence. Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God"
As soon as Dawkins said what he said about our inability to understand these things due to evolutionary limitations, my mind immediately went to David's old video on the argument from reason.
Your problem is that understanding physics requires maths and is much harder to figure out than any religion. What pastors do isn't teach: they indoctrinate.
He assumes that “before” only refers to temporal sequence, but “before” can also refer to logical dependence. In other words, something can be the cause or explanation of another thing without being earlier in time. For example, the foundation of a house is logically prior to the house, but they exist simultaneously. In the case of the Big Bang, asking “what came before” refers to what logically led to or caused the Big Bang, even if there was no time as we understand it.
Id also point out, there kinda is no way to say things happen simultaneously. Given that it seems all events have an order in time. Ur mind will melt quick once you really ponder wtf universe we are in.
Hey I appreciate your response but again it assumes chronological time not logical ordering. It’s a category mistake. If you assume I’m speaking chronologically then yes, they do not happen at the same time. The foundation comes first in time. However the statement i made said they “exist” at the same time though the foundation is logically before the house. In other words, there would be no house without its foundation. There is a distinction between chronological (events in time) versus logical dependency (the relationship of necessity between things). For example, in mathematics, the truths of geometry (e.g., a triangle’s internal angles summing to 180 degrees) are logically dependent on the definitions of geometric shapes, but this dependence is not something that happens over time-it’s a simultaneous logical relationship. Hope this helps. Thanks for your input.
So you prefer believing in magic! We unbelievers just say we don't know, because we despise lying and leave it to Christian apologists, who are experts in that art.
I love how Dawkins was going to say, "our brains were made on the African plains," but had to catch himself and add "by evolution" in there. Atheists assign essentially the same creative power to evolution that we would God. You see it all the time in popular shows and books about nature, but also in scientific papers. Using language like "nature in her wisdom" or "nature ordained" or "this thing was designed by nature" etc etc
Yes because it gets old very quickly to express the full reality of what they deacribe. I xan say my AC wants to keep the temperature where I set it. He adresses this in his books so many claim to have read.
I don't even think God and Evolution are incompatible. Evolution is a mechanism of adaptability from energy efficiency, which is something that could clearly make a trend over a long period of time. Even if that period of time was not "real", the APPEARANCE of it would be. When a writer creates a world, it usually has a backstory.
@@ulyx9804 it's not incompatible per se, but that's not how Dawkins talks about it. Life had to arise naturally. To Dawkins, naturalism is incompatible and in fact falsifies theism. Even creationists allow for some kind of evolution. They refer to it as adaptation and variation. It's a scope issue. We obviously observe finches beaks changing size via environmental pressures. The question surrounds can that reasonably be extrapolated out to account for all biodiversity. I don't think God would make it appear like life evolved over eons if that isn't what happened. He's basically setting people up to disbelieve.
@@jhoughjr1 I'm sorry, but using the "wisdom of nature" is completely unacceptable if you're a naturalist. Nature has no wisdom. It's not alive. There's no forethought or planning. Using words like "created" or "made" or "built" is more forgivable.
Isn't Dawkins just saying in an atheist way, that God is beyond our level of understanding. Our minds are not complex enough to full understanding God. He just doesn't realise he is say that.
It's funny because he accepts that somethings are beyond our level of understanding, but hasn't noticed the sort of irony of his thinking.
That's why it's a heart problem.
He will say he is a scientist and science cant comment on things it cant quantify
"I said if I could convert everyone in the world, not convert, if I could convince to be a non-believer, and I'd done it brilliantly, and there was only one left. One more, and then it would be done. There'd be no more religion in the world. No more deism, theism. I wouldn't do it. Dawkins said, 'What do you mean you wouldn't do it?' I said, 'I don't quite know why I wouldn't do it.' And it's not just because there wouldn't be anything left to argue with, and no one left to argue with. It's not just that. Though it would be that. Somehow if I could drive it out of the world, I wouldn't. And the incredulity with which he (Richard Dawkins) looked at me, stays with me still. I've got to say." - Christopher Hitchens
Even Hitchens could see how fanatically devoted to atheism Dawkins happens to be. All Dawkins has done is replace traditional religion with his own. It's paganism 2.0.
Does anybody know what happened to Reese (channel Give Light)? He hasn't uploaded for a long time and a lot of people are worried. He makes great videos and is exposing islam, he is an ex-muslim.
@@jhoughjr1 He keeps commenting though, and demanding we reject what we know for what he doesn't know.
I used this argument 25 years ago, during my atheism phase. Worse, I spent two years learning the math to not understand what I was talking about, so I could smugly tell others that I was clueless🤦🏿♂️. Thank the Lord for delivering me.
Amen 🕊️🙏🏽🕊️
Which maths is that?
There is still no god.
@JhonJairoBernal-i3j If you believe in naturalism then you can't trust your own brain to tell you the truth. It's a self defeating argument
@@JhonJairoBernal-i3j That's because you don't think hard.
There's more probably a God than not
I ditched atheism for a handful of reasons 1) a worldview needs to account for a duty to believe in truth otherwise there's no point in even debating what's true. 2) You need to have free will, otherwise, why debate? 3) You need to have a consciousness that's processing all of this 4) the consciousness needs to be capable of rational thinking 5) The truth needs to be something that is able to be learned by this consciousness.
I eventually realized materialism can't account, and even makes impossible, every single one of these. I realized I believed all them and had to believe all them in order to even claim I didn't believe them. Christianity housed them all. Atheism did not.
That’s some real deep thinking there. I never thought of it that way
God bless you brother
@@CustomGamesStudios yes it is.. Amazing
Well put. In fact, I would like to point out that your statement in number 1 is actually an objective value that demonstrates the existence of objective morality, and by extension, God's existence. You're pointing out a value foundational for the ability to reason in the first place, an unchanging value independent of human opinion that logic cannot successfully deny without being self-refuting/contradicting.
You and I both brother. Jesus helped me find my way back to him 2 months ago after nearly 2 decades of atheism. I cannot even express how lighter i feel all of a sudden. Jesus is right , his yoke is light and in him we shall all find rest.
In Jesus Christ's name Amen!
Your channel is faith building. I’m not an emotional Christian. I resonate more from Bible study than I do listening to Gospel music, which I never listen to. Not trying to disqualify those who do, it’s just how my brain works, I think.
I get my “spiritual high” by listening to great speakers like you. Thank you.
Have you ever considered learning any science?
"The 👑GREATEST MAN in HISTORY"
had no servants, yet they called Him Master. Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. He had no army, yet kings feared Him. He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. He did not live in a castle, yet they called Him Lord, He ruled no nations, yet they called Him King, He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today!
"His name is JESUS❤"
I cant stress this enough but... AAAAAAAMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNN!!!!!!!!!! 🙌🙌🙏🙏🙏
Sigma
"He had no servants" . Well .... since he was basically God in the flesh , we were all his servants ...
Excellent comment! 🙏
All that without existing in the first place.
I am at minute 3, Dawkins said:Human Brain should not deal with this.... Yet he trusts HUMANS who deal with this, that checks Ig
Atheism = contradiction
No, he trust maths and peer reviewed scientific papers.
@@ndibunwapeter9013, where?
@@mockupguy3577 but he doesn't trust human mind so he contradicted himself since this Is from humans lol
@@mockupguy3577 BC atheism denies free Will, morality and all yet atheists Who deny these, use these to attack religions, Dawkins Is One of these atheists
Dawkins is fond of mocking faith as being "belief without evidence," but he seems to be exhibiting (his definition of) faith in "what the physicists say". He can't comprehend their evidence, but he trusts their word; he doesn't grasp their intellect, but he finds them credible.
So on what grounds does he mock faith in Christ??
Most people dont even understand what their dr prescribes. Whats ur point?
@@jhoughjr1 We Christians trust Christ because we find His word credible, and Dawkins mocks us for it. Why is Christ less credible than the scientists? Dawkins mocks the whole idea of faith, but in fact 99% of what everyone believes is taken on faith, and not because they have weighed the evidence.
Except physicists have yielded results time and time again so its perfectly reasonable to place your faith in them. Everything that modern civilization runs on is the work of physicists. The device you used to type this asinine comment challenging the credibility of physicists was built by physics. What results has your magical overlord yielded?
On grounds that there are mountains of credible evidence that make the likelihood of a god so infinitesimally small that it is as close to zero as makes no difference..simple.
@@Manic154 Um..yes. I know atheists talk this way--as if the only reason someone could remain religious is if they are too stupid, too lazy, or too dishonest to examine "the mountains of credible evidence" against their views. Personally, I haven't heard any atheist give any "credible evidence" for atheism that remains compelling upon close scrutiny. But since ostensibly clever people seem to be on opposite sides of this question, I'm inclined to think that something more than the weight of "credible evidence" ultimately sways one's conclusion, whichever direction it goes.
Atheism refutes itself logically, pride however clings to it
You wouldnt know what logic is if it bit you in the a33
_"Atheism refutes itself logically"_
How so?
@@MarkH-cu9zi they have no answer.
@@MarkH-cu9zi > Human reasoning is unreliable
> Science, which is the product of human reasoning, is reliable
@@wrongthinker843who says human reasoning is unreliable?
I do like it when the enemy hands you their sword. 😂
Nah bro!! These guys aren't the enemy, we are all cell mates in Satan's prison called "this world" ❤
@@donaldkeith139careful with the gnosticism
@@Weebgamer236 oh is it gnosticism?! Why do you say that? I'm genuinely asking btw
@@donaldkeith139if Christ recognized there are enemies by saying to pray and bless your enemies why are you not recognizing existence of enemies?
@@milosrajkovic4272 when we love our enemies, do they remain enemies in our eyes?
Physicists aren't human you see. They didn't evolve like us from apes, they instead were created by the supreme intelligence.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂
Atheism is just illogical on so many levels
Were they dwarfs that stole his map and stole through time?
no, he meant there is no intuition for this, it doesn't mean you can't understand when you learn the mathematics, but it's extremely complex, took Einstein years with a personal mentor to master it so he could write his equations. Anyway, go on with your fairy tales
Atheists are building castles in the air. Dawkins appears to be their best architect.
😂😂😂
i dont think atheists presume upon gods, thats you
Correct, the presume upon logical contradictions, even worse.
@@philipmitchener28what logical contradiction?
@@FinianLohbar Most Christian philosophers presuppose nothing, neither atheism nor theism.
While the most popular atheist presuppose atheism. Now internal critique is destroying atheism.
I love it when a secular philosopher relies on secular physicists for definitions that the philosophers should be making. And then the philosopher acts like that definition is sufficient because it’s been half-explained in a completely different field which can’t even begin to understand concept of the supernatural BECAUSE THE FIELD ITSELF ONLY STUDIES NATURAL PRINCIPLES
This is one of the reasons why I came out of agnosticism as a young teen. Some of the most qualified scientists who were on the side of intelligent design pointed out that the universe could never have existed without divine intervention, now Richard Dawkins is helping to confirm it. Lol
Well they are wrong. Fact is we dont and likely never will know the complete history of the universe.
The queation then becomes, what can we know about it and how bad do we want it?
@@jhoughjr1 "We don't know and we're right" is an absurd statement.
@@cthulhucrews6602 Too bad they can't recognize the edges of their field of expertise, huh?
Dawkins argument doesn't make any sense at all. Essentially he's saying "just trust me, we don't know". Then 10 seconds later he's explaining he does know. What a silly man
"We don't know" is not really an answer, yet they demand you accept it as truth.
And they call us illogical...
His argument is we don't know and there is no evidence for God. Talking about God if you have any sort of logical or scientific mind is utterly pointless because there is no testable evidence.
@@oliver6257 Neither is there for at least 50% of "quantum" physics and 99% of astrophysics, yet that's scientific for some reason.
@@wrongthinker843
Sure, there are things in science for which the evidence is almost as bad as the evidence for God. But I hope that you don’t think that this is a good argument.😂
@@wrongthinker843we don't know is a perfectly valid answer. It's not anyone elses problem that your lightweight brain can't handle it and has to come up with fictional answers to make you feel all warm and fuzzy. yes you are still the illogical ones honey.
Good argument David.
*angry atheist noises*
CS Lewis made this argument many years ago. But it is well worth repeating.
When you try to defend your belief in something that is false, you will inevitably end up contradicting yourself.
Fully agree, but this is true for both the Theist and the Athiest.
@@JohnSpencer90 So true! Remember to hydrate with a refreshing glass of pavement.
@@wrongthinker843 ???
RD: "Who am I to question Physicists? They are the experts and if it goes against common sense, I just accept it"
Also RD: "I can and will question Theologians. Even though they are the experts, if it goes against my common sense, I reject it"
No bias at all, just an objective scientific mind 🤣
Theologians are "experts" in a made up religion. They are not experts in anything else. We can all be experst in a religion, just read the holy text enough times so you know it by memory. If only the experst in the religion could agree on it, though.
Saying "who am I to question physicists" is just acknowleding, that I do not know as much as this person about this specific topic, so I just accepts the current scientific consensus.
It's like me accepting that a dentist knows more about fixing a tooth ache than I do.
Or a mechanic knows more about fixing cars that I do.
I how can with no problem question a theologion about their god, seeing the theologion is not able to prove the god. If it is about the biblical texts how ever, they probly know more than men.
Yeah, he does have a scientific mind. You see, physics is based upon falsifiability; theology is not. The proposition of whether or not a god or gods exist is an unfalsifiable proposition. It's not scientific. Get it??
Clever, but untrue. There is a way to prove God exists, but it involves seeking Him until He reveals Himself to you. The interesting thing is that I can have a short conversation with several different people, and I will be able to tell which ones actually know God, and which ones don't, within a very short time. While each of us that experience God do so in some unique ways, there are commonalities that every person who actually is in relationship with Him share. These become obvious to those in relationship with Him, but not to those who are not.
To put it in simple terms, if you're in His family, you will quickly recognize others in the family, on a level that is difficult to describe in relatable terms. The recognition is difficult to quantify, but is very real. I can usually tell even from comments those in relationship with the Lord. That's not something I was ever able to do until He revealed Himself to me, and tutored me in His nature and ways.
@@ApostleOfGod8862 Your comment is ridiculous. It's completely subjective with no demonstrable evidence involved. But hey, since what you are asserting without demonstrable evidence, Muslims and Hindus who claim to have the same capabilities are equally accurate about their gods. Ergo, you have not proved anything more than your belief. Beliefs are not necessitated by knowledge.
This what popped into my head. So Dawkins is saying that he he has FAITH in the men in white lab coats talking about things that are incomprehensible... and that is logical and scientific while people who have FAITH in the men in black robes that talk about things that are incomprehensible are foolishness.
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator." ~C.S. Lewis
Examine the fathers of the modern science and the scientific method: these were not 'nominal' believers. Indeed, many a scientist views the study of nature to be a form of worship: to "Think God's thoughts after Him", so to speak!
How separated is this view from the view of Richard "Our minds aren't made for that" Dawkins!
David also pointed this out in his video when reviewing Jordan Peterson's Logos and Literacy.
@@Derek_Baumgartner
And then those men accidentally disproved many of the stories of the OT.
The claim that we are made for a specific high purpose answers a number of important issues. How can we trust our mind, what constitutes 'me', etc.
@@ramigilneas9274Did they really now?
@@ramigilneas9274 What makes you think that they disproved any part of the OT? Even if you are going to insist that the first few chapters of Genesis are scientifically impossible (which requires you to insist on a very particular interpretation of those texts) the science your interpretation is incompatible with came long after the fathers of modern science and the scientific method.
I was built to be dumb, therefore I believe nonsense. - Dawkins
not build, evolved. And yes we were all dumb, from the beginning. That is why we go to school to learn things. How ever, you can not learn what came before the Big Bang, because we do not know this.
lol exactly. Dawkins is essentially saying he's too stupid to know. So why are we listening to him??? 😂
@@222ableVelo if you saw the entire interview, you would understand, that he is actually saying "I do not know anything about, what came before the Big Bang, go ask a physicist"
It is like you going to a mechanic and asking him to do a root canal on you.
I mean sure, maybe the mechanic could try, but Im pretty sure he would suggest you went to a dentist instead.
Problemis that Pierce Morgan kept asking him about it.
Then Dawkins told Morgan, what he had learned from physicists seing that Dawkins actually do know some physicist.
Humans can be smart or humans can be stupid, they can't have it both ways. We can't be smart enough to make up religion to describe the world but stupid to the point where we have to make up religion to describe the world. That's what we call a circle.
Wow, what a blatant misrepresentation of what Dawkins actually said. That seems telling.
Dawkins must not feel pain because he just shot himself in the foot and didn’t even realize it.
"Atheism is not the knowledge that God does not exist, but only the wish that He did not, in order that one could sin without reproach or exalt one's ego without challenge. The pillars upon which atheism mounts are sensuality and pride."
-Archbishop Ven. Fulton Sheen.
no. atheism is simply to not claim there at gods.
That's literally not what atheism is. But expecting an original opinion from a religious person is obviously impossible anyway. Quoting people who had no clue what they were talking about and believing it blindly.
@@friendlyreaper9012 Irony is another thing beyond an atheist's capability, I see.
Atheism is nothing to do with that, atheism is just the acknowledgement that there is no proof for the existence of a deity. Especially not one described in any religious text.
@@friendlyreaper9012 And expecting an original thought from an atheist is likewise impossible. You follow your "experts" who contradict themselves even as they speak.
Unfortunately, Dawkins has already completed his life’s work. He undermined his own culture and the one group that protected the west from Islam and Marxism.
There is of course hope and redemption, but he will need to find it outside of his work in this life - in something eternal. I pray he comes to faith in Jesus.
@MarkStein-b5b The biggest victory Satan has won so far is convincing modern people that evil isn't real and that life's value is subjective. Things are going to get much, much worse if we don't stem the tide.
I like that. See this is what all theists should do to atheist. Instead of making up dumb arguments and proven things, you should just pray, that your god, will show us the truth. That way we can remaing atheist (seeing that god for some reason never shows us the truth) and you can stay in your delusion that praying actully do something. Its a win win situation for both sides.
@@larsrathsach3477 God resists the proud and its clear by your comment you're blinded by your pride.
Okay, but deterministic naturalism posits that people being religious was an unavoidable causation determined by unguided natural laws, as are your beliefs. Under this system, how can you believe you have any intellectual high ground? Are your ideas not products of the same system? Please explain how your random precaused ideas are somehow superior, when your reason is created by the same random, precaused conditions. Or is it just cope? @larsrathsach3477
@MarkStein-b5b Those actions are evil to humankind. The universe isn't sentient; it doesn't have any opinions.
It's the funniest, when an atheist begins a sentence with: " we were not made TO do..., we were not built TO..."😂
Yep. By whom.
you have to watch the entire interview. Dawkins means "evolved" not as in build by a builder. But as a biologist he understands that the human brain evolved over millions of years, so it "build " itself with every new offspring.
@@larsrathsach3477 If the human brain lacks a specific design, how can he specifically deny a possible one?
@@wrongthinker843 I have no idea what that sentence means. What is a specific design of a human brain??
What do you mean by denying a specific possible one??
@@larsrathsach3477 Without a creator there can be no specific intended design. Therefore to make a claim that people are "not made" a specific way is absurd.
It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist...
Actually, none at all. :)
@@Leszek.Rzepecki You're thinking of honesty and morals.
@@wrongthinker843 The Bible does not condemn r ape or slavery a single time. So where is your morality coming from? It surely couldn't be be from your culture or anything silly like that, right?
@@angelman906 The Bible definitely does condemn rape and prescribes the death penalty to whomever commits such a crime. See Deuteronomy 22. Everytime rape is mentioned in the Bible it's always negative and sinful. As for slavery, the Bible does not condemn bonded servitude but it does condemn kidnapping people and forcing them to work like animals like the slavery most of us think of, like in the American south. That kind of slavery also would merit a death sentence. See Exodus 21:16. The Bible did allow for a person in debt to work off their debt through bonded servitude. There are guidelines for how such a person must be treated, and it did not allow for lifelong servitude unless the servant/slave desired it. It was a limited arrangement so a person could pay back something they owe and then their obligation was over.
@@Are_You_Sure_Bro I know about Deuteronomy 22:28. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. This isn’t a condemnation for the action it is a condemnation for sullying property. As for the slavery part, owning a person is bad no matter how well you treat them, though the Bible allow you to beat your slaves and the slaves are passed on from generation to generation, Hebrew slavery was absolutely terrible, as all slavery is.
The more I think about atheism, the less sense it makes.
welll, its not really such a complicated matter.
Atheism = I do not believe there is a god
How is that difficult to understand
Just say
I do not believe in Unicorns
Same result
@@larsrathsach3477 no, I mean the belief that there is no God, that worldview makes 0 sense
@@NotSoCradleCatholic
there is no atheistic world view.... what on earth are you talking about.
Atheims is just the rejection of the claim
- there is a god
what world view do you think atheists have??
@@larsrathsach3477
>How is that difficult to understand
This raises the next question: if you don't believe in a Creator, then you're essentially believing in self-creation, which honestly doesn't make much sense given the current state of scientific knowledge.
>I do not believe in Unicorns
Here’s where your misunderstanding lies: unicorns are not creators; they are material creatures. If you can see the difference, there's hope you'll grasp the subject. Otherwise, you're just engaging in a childish intellectual game.
@@larsrathsach3477 "There is no atheistic world view but you must accept it"
Oh boy here we go again.
It's been a while since I've heard Dawkins talk. He sounds like a cartoon character. He looks like about the right age. Did he escape from a Monty Python skit?
😂😂😂
With those sideburns he looks very 19th century.
insulting people smarter than you isn't going to make you any less stupid honey
😂😂
He sounds like we used to when we were kids and used to inhale the nitrous oxide from balloons to sound funny.😂😂😂
The whole of humanity has to wait for Richard Dawkins to tell us what we're capable of understanding and whether we are even allowed to try. Look who's playing god.Ironic.
Exactly, atheists are experts at being hypocrites.
Nah the majority here dont even understand high school math.
@@jhoughjr1 Like you?
@@wrongthinker843 chill
What an absurd stretch.
So next Christian in a debate with him just has to wait for him to ask why a good God would allow suffering and then they just say "It's counterintuitive. I don't understand it. You don't understand it. We're not theologians. Our brains were built to hunt and gather in the African savannah. They weren't built to understand the profundites of God, right Dr. Dawkins?" 😂
The Oxford mathematician and Christian, John Lennox, says something about this to sceptics/atheists who are confident in their conclusions: if you had a computer which was generated by random chance and random mutations, would you trust anything it said?
Hm, so a mathematician talking about biology is somehow more credible than Dawkins, a biologist who refuses to talk about physics? Not sure I buy that, even though I think Dawkins is a jókě.
@@MrSeedi76If it’s chance, then both computers and chance are very much within a mathematicians knowledge base.
@@MrSeedi76 You missed the point!
@@MrSeedi76 Lennox tries to understand biology as best he can but seems to completely rely on those biologists who cast doubt on evolution. Which is essentially a fringe group. I like |Lennox's writings, but it's a shame he largely rejects evolution as the way God had life develop on earth, despite so many other Christians accepting it as the best explanation. I agree with him, however, that the beginning of life may require the divine spark, but even that is open to question. But for me that does not negate God.
@@MrSeedi76 it’s not that Lennox is lecturing biologists on their field. He is asking them a question based on their field to help everyone arrive to a conclusion. He asks biologists and scientists of other fields: “If you were told that your computer spat out information that was the result of a mindless, unguided process, would you believe the information it spat out?”
Every time they say: “No”
The trouble with Dawkins is that he rejects the notion of the "immaterial" but because information is immaterial in nature he is forced to reject information.
It's easy to reject information about X if you have a preassociated bias against the existence of information to begin with.
Imagine someone saying "electricity doesn't exist because I can't see it" or "gravity doesn't exist because I can't see it"
It's wilful silliness.
Our understanding of electricity and gravity are made known to us via the medium they affect in nature. The same is true with information and God. God became known to man when he made his word to become flesh.
Dawkins is like the hungry snake eating his own tail to fulfil his hungry.
Wow snudgwick I didn’t realize you were this smart. You barely say anything in chat. 😊
@@corning1 lol im not smart, I like the chat but it's always 1am when they go live and I'm in bed by then most the time 😴
"God became known to man when (H)e made (His) word to become flesh"
Not exactly true. God was known to man before that. Judaism was around long before Christ became flesh, which was founded on the law that God provided Moses.
As just one example. The Old Testament does exist and it points TO Christ long before He was born of the virgin Mary.
The main problem with Dawkins is that to really argue for atheism you have to have a good understanding of physics, of metaphysical philosophical principles, of theology and what Christians are claiming, etc. And Dawkins has only a very surface level knowledge of all this stuff that’s easily challenged by someone who knows what they’re talking about and then he flounders around helplessly.
-.- what a retard ....
Dawkins is essentially saying that we should not only throw away our common sense when it comes to the origin of the universe, but also that we should put our complete trust in what physicists say about it - physicists who come from human stock that did not evolve with the mental faculties to understand the origin of the universe. I love physics, but does he understand how contradictory that sounds?
And he thinks we’re nuts for believing God created the universe?
“The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.’
So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.
But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.
Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God.”
1 Corinthians 1:18-29 NLT
Ya, this is the problem, when you do not see the entire interview. What Dawkins said and kept saying to Pierce Morgan was "I do not know what was before the Big Bang, you would have to ask a physicist" It's the same if you go to a dentist asking him about having a dark spot in you eyesight. The denits would most likely say "I do not know what that is, you should go ask an optometrists. But Pierce Morgan kept asking him about. You people do know, that Richard Dawkins is a biologist, righ???
@@larsrathsach3477 "I don't know but I'm right"
I don't think biologist is the term for that kind of behavior.
@@wrongthinker843 please ad, where he is saying that.
@@larsrathsach3477 The entire time.
The four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing 🤣
I regularly go toe-to-toe with a particularly militant atheist/materialist. He just left this comment under another video:
“Jesus’ ideas in the Sermon on the Mount are crazy and civilization would instantly collapse if taken seriously.”
Gonna reply by quoting my new favorite Christian apologist:
“Yes it’s totally counter-intuitive. It’s counter-intuitive to me, it’s counter-intuitive to you… You cannot use human intuition!”
I wonder what he thinks we should do then, like a nature law, survival of the fittest, type of thing ?
@@newme1589thats what happens anyway.
You either pass ur genes on or u dont.
Multiply that by millions and billions of individuals and time and populations change. It cant not happen.
no Atheist ever quoted that sentece.
I how ever am willing to go toe-to-toe with you.
Calling Richard Dawkins a new Christian Apologist is just moronic.
And when citing quotes you should ad the most importan part, else you are just being disangenous.
"You cannot use human intuition to understand the beginning of the Universe"
(I think that was what he said)
Science does not care about human intuition.
See if it did, we would not be able to use airplanes, because our human intuitin tells us, that things can not fly unless if is a bird, insect or a bat.
If we only went with human intution we would not know, that stars are larger than the sun.
We would not kow that the world isn't flat.
We would not be able to use electricity.
and so on
Human intuition is just
- I must eat
- I must not get eaten
- I must reproduce
- me scared, me glad, med happy, me sad
rest is not intution.
Christ's teachings have been the fundamental beliefs of many nations for almost two millennia; the most successful nations in history have been among them. If anything, western civilizations were doing MUCH better under the statutes of Christianity than what is currently happening. Our modernist rejection of Christ and worship of self, state, science, and "freedom" is why modernity is collapsing in on itself more rapidly than a crate of tungsten hurled into a black hole.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that time, space, the laws of physics, atoms, elements, the nuclear forces, etc, were created by a random explosion which arose out of nothing. Foolishness to the extreme.
This is actually not what atheists/naturalists believe. The "arose out of nothing" part is not an element of any serious scientific theory.
It's literally just a disagreement about how high the bar should be for evidence used to justify particular claims and beliefs.
The chances of it are supernaturally small. Literally. The extreme balance between the forces of the universe exceeds even if they invoke unprovable bubble universes. The number of atoms in the visible universe times the number of seconds of the universe would not be a number large enough to explain the chance.
@@EricKay_Scifi how are you determining the probability of these forces and other parameters in physics?
@@landonpontius2478 his source is he made it the F U C K up. Thats all they can do. Make sh3t up
@@landonpontius2478 The existence of the universe goes against the entropic principle.
The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
Every atheist has a reason for why they dont want God to exist
Where did you read that? A book telling you about God? Better stay away from sales manuals my dude.
You know that passage doesn't refer to atheism, right?
Read that verse in context.
I think David has a video on this.
The fool is everyone who sins and in that moment they forget God sees them. I am that fool. You are that fool too.
"Professing to be wise, they have become fools. "
You're talking about religious apologists, right?
“Because I believe they have been cursed by an angry wizard” 😂
Okay, I admit, I was kinda drunk, and thought it would be a funny prank, but definitely don't eat those berries. Unless you really do want to turn into a toad.
@@nisonatic It's the angry part that kills me. Like not just a wizard.... but he's angrily walking around cursing berries lol
Can you trust a scientist? Ask the scientist: "What is a woman?"
so you dont trust people that actually confirms their hypoteses before trusting them?
@@matswessling6600 science has it's uses, but not in philosophical areas. people like dawkins should be humble and say "i don't know", since the existence of god can't be denied. instead he says "i know" though what he means is "i think". in no way has he confirmed his hypothesis. so be careful with the "experts" (I say this holding a PhD in Biology myself)
@@Kit-kk9cb existence of god cant be denied? So what? A teapot orbiting the planet Mars cannot be denied either.
Whay is important is that no one has showed good evidence of any god.
so.
Dawkins agrees with you on that
@@matswessling6600you should look up the definition of scientism. Not just look it up, but seek to understand the term and where it's application is necessary. Science can't answer certain questions and demanding science must be used in philisophical matters to answer those questions is committing a fallacy of scientism.
Thanks!
Is everyone missing the elephant in the room? If humans are incapable of understanding the profundity of everything... are the physicists non-humans?
Dawkins can't see that elephant. It's eclipsed by his ego.
yes. They are the 'gods' to which you must submit your beliefs and the 'priests' of nature.
This is more a mouse than an elephant, as Dawkins is not arguing that Physicists have the answers. Rather , he is making the claim that through their experiments, Physicists have presented the best model of the universe that comports with our understanding of reality. No recognized physicists has attempted to claim that they know what happened at T=0.
@@Biblestudies658except that’s not true
@@Biblestudies658 Yes, do not offend the god-physicist s by questioning their knowledge of the origins, functions and purpose of the universe. Bow down, y'all.🤠
Brother David, thanks for every single upload and God bless you. I have watch your video's from the time with Nabeel, God bless his soul. You are 1 true soldier of Christ, my brother
Me too, I love his collab with AP, too. Nabeel 2.0
"That Hideous Strength" is dawning on Dawkins.
He's realising he's in the wrong army, but doesn't know how to get out of it himself,
stuck and wallowing in the slippery mud of the
trenches he dug himself into,
stubbornly refusing the hand of the One who 𝘤𝘢𝘯 easily lift him out of it.
He has no courage to admit he is wrong.
@@irelandishsac13 May God help him
Wasn't it Dawkins that said God Himself could come down out of heaven and greet Dawkins and he would just assume he was having a psychotic episode and still deny God?
Do not dust off your sandals and do not pray peace on that man's house.
Move on to the next.
@@James_Beethats what most people would think and theyd be right.
God doesnt talk to people.
Challenge Dawkins not to appeal to authority
*IMPOSSIBLE*
I mean tbh its hard to not appeal to authority whenever you talk about philosophy, history and physics
@@VVooshbait I'm merely saying that he's got a double standard. He always claim he loves to reason, but when he can't give a defense, he appeals to authority even without reason. He trusts the physicists even without scrutinizing them, and he cherry picks.
@@VVooshbait it's Dawkins, he will always go "but we have authority and noble station so you can't question us" (paraphrased obviously) whenever someone challenges his points. And if we go to his statement, well it's kind of an insult to people's intelligence, because he's asserting that only a select few humans are worthy of even trying to understand physics. And yet he's trying to claim to understand it all better than us, he argues about the big bang and time not existing before then, yet he denied the existence of things quantum physics routinely hypothesize about.
Either he thinks he's special and above all others, or he like the video ends with, he knows humans were made for greater understanding and reasoning but he suppresses that knowledge.
Appealing to authority is quite fair, I think.
It's certainly more honest than claiming to know something major about the subject yourself.
@@Eliza-rg4vw You don't know Dawkins then. Welcome to reality! I and Codyraugh already explained above
"Your computer wasn't designed to calculate prime numbers; therefore, it's not worthwhile, meaningful, or useful to use it to find them"
"Your computer isn't a Super Nintendo. Constructing an emulator to play Super Mario doesn't make sense"
Don't mind me, I'm just posting this comment because my random mind-particles made me do it. Though I'm not sure why they also made me aware of them. Nor what being aware even means. Nor what "I" am. Nor what anything really is, including "is". Nevertheless I'm going to argue with anyone whose randomness "thinks" differently than mine, because mine is obviously more true, since I think that it is and as such I have no choice in the matter. Just how I have no choice but to believe that I have no choice. Unlike those who believe that they can choose, with whom I also argue because their conclusion that was forced on them makes them idiots, while my conclusion that was forced on me makes me intelligent. I did the IQ test and I'm super smart, my Particles be praised.
Perfect.
😂🤣
A good summation.
I've always thought if it were true why work? Now I'm retired but I would have hit the beach much earlier
Actually, this isn't a person expressing any thoughts at all, it's just random electrical pulses resulting in lines on a screen. There is no mind behind the random union of electricians or lines that result from them. Should you stumble across this in your doom scrolling, disregard it has no bjdssyjbgdesffgh...uhh do cg
Dawkins: I’m an atheists, I don’t deal with common sense…
@@Ex-MuslimTestimonies says the guy with no common sense. Don't type while looking in the mirror sweetie
@@stewystewymc3929 You have anything beyond personal attacks?
@@wrongthinker843 do you?
@@stewystewymc3929 I have presented plenty of arguments even to you.
Your turn to live up to a fraction of my "fairy tales", mr "intelligent" "moral" atheist.
common sense is not something that works in science. Common sense will say, that the world is flat. Common sense will say, airplanes can not fly. Common sense will say the sun disappears from the sky.
Common sense will say that stars are smaller than the sun. Common sense will say there are no planets in the solar systemt.
Wow!! No words.
Does it suprise you? Athiests cannot fathom the very words that they speak.
What is hilarious is that what Dawkins is saying here is the exact opposite of what Sam Harris said in another video where he stated that in Science you are allowed to ask questions and challenge scientists and that science is self correcting.
It's like, they're completely different people or something.
The other issue I had with him in that interview was that he was using religious language akin to when Muslims defend their theology, by saying they can’t explain it but their scholars understand it so it makes sense. He’s making physicists an extra human priest class and evangelizing his religion.
@@cthulhucrews6602 that wasn’t the argument he made. It would be wrong to assume someone that isn’t a mathematician can’t understand math or learn math; or that oncologists have some secret knowledge of cancer that’s not understandable by layman.
@@cthulhucrews6602 You’re trying to reframe what he said into a inconsistent steel man. If that was his point he would simply tell people to learn physics to understand the concept, as any academic would. Instinctively no empirical science is known but I’ve never seen a biologist say understanding cell membrane structure requires a special mind. Not only were your prior examples inconsistent with what you’re saying now, for example mathematics don’t follow the scientific method; your application isn’t parallel. He’s a renown PhD researcher in an empirical field, learning physics, unless he was inept in math, wouldn’t be a problem for him. He should be used to complexity in his field. He’s saying that the upper echelons of physicists have special knowledge that can’t be taught to someone who’s not predestined to have that capacity. It’s a priest class. Years of study don’t make you a physicist, accreditation does. Do you know what usually happens when someone has knowledge no one has, they publish papers and allow you to read it to understand it, not go through years of schooling to finally have access.
@@cthulhucrews6602 common sense and intuition aren’t synonyms. Your epistemology is incorrect, the scientific method doesn’t require sound judgment in practical matters? Which is the definition of common sense. The irony is lost on me that all other physic laws don’t have that barrier of understanding except the theory that holds Dawson’s worldview together.
This isn’t a theory, hardly an hypothesis, it’s a preposition. An hypothesis would need to have at least at least a structured logic tree, which Dawson is provided exception for.
I don't think I've ever trusted anything I heard from the mouth of Richard Dawkins - and I'm not about to start trusting him now.
You don't have to. Dawkins argues against himself here.
@@annep.1905 As is inevitable of any atheist.
Signed, someone raised atheist.
@@annep.1905 He doesn't. The video author confuses observation with understanding.
Your statement proves lack of understanding.
@@Rundvelt No, he doesn't. No human has observed the beginning of the universe or time. And if time had a beginning, somebody must have made it happen, because everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Physics of the gaps
HA! Nice.
Uh its almost like that's the entire point of science. Science is all about filling in the gaps in our understanding with science. You clowns attempts at reversing the script is so pathetic
@@stewystewymc3929 Yeah, filling the gaps with "god particles" that can't be observed, measured, captured, identified... but they're totally real because we observe other phenomena that isn't explained by particles we can observe.
@@wrongthinker843 except those god particles have been observed and detected. Try again. And even if everything you said was true, so what? Do you know of this thing known as the scientific method. All science begins with making hypotheses to try to explain phenomenon we observed and then trying to verify and make predictions with them. We don't just come up with hard facts right of the bat. You lacking enough creases up there to understand it doesn't make it invalid.
@@stewystewymc3929 They haven't. That's why they were given that "ironic" name.
Just like an atheist to lie immediately.
It is crazy to believe the universe happened for no good reason and accidentally created conscious, intelligent life. A designer/guided process is a much more logical conclusion.
That's very presumptuous.
@@Manic154 The existence of the universe goes contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, unless we assume an external influence.
@@wrongthinker843 All laws break down at the point of the Big Bang, you doughnut.
@@Manic154 Not at all. Would it be presumptuous if you found a diesel generator in the middle of a forest to assume that that generator was built by an intelligent entity? No not at all. On the contrary, it would be absurd to assume that something that complex with a clear purpose to its design was just thrown together by random processes like wind, rain eroding the soil and lightning strikes. Likewise the physical universe, galaxies, the solar system, earth's weather systems, ecological systems, individual organisms etc. when looked at together are so drastically, enormously more unlikely and more irreducibly complex (meaning that without one piece of the puzzle the whole system would not function), that's it's actually impossible for all that to arise as a result of random processes.
@@cthulhucrews6602 There's so much more to it than that. Look into cosmology, biology, microbiology, ecology, physics. There's so many areas of life that have clear indications of design all over them. Most of all, DNA, a complex series of encoded, syntatic information that has more information in one cell than 100 encyclopedia volumes.
Naturalism it's basically the Calvinism of Atheism
Dawkins is that kid riding his tricycle in the house wearing a circular hole in the carpet.
Came to say the same thing haha
@@santiagodelpilar6701
Well, naturally stays true provisionally until someone presents verifiable evidence for anything supernatural.
I will take them serious when they will show how single cell organism can evolve into anything remotely complex, even in perfect conditions , which life on Earth never was.
Natural selection is not complex.
Why not just start at abiogenesis instead 💁♂️
I remember hearing they actualy have observed evolution in a lab environment some time ago
@knutolavbjrgaas1069 I guess PureRogue is feeling rather charitable and granting them that particular miracle.
I'd like them to explain how mold can grow in a hermetically sealed container for a start.
In other words "Trust me bro"...😂
no in other words "I do not know what was before the Big Bang"
@@larsrathsach3477 "... but I'm right and you're wrong REEE"
Physicist here. We don't trust our intuition because we have a so much better tool: mathematics.
Special Relativity is extremely counterintuitive and in a way it MAKES NO SENSE to any average person, yet it works perfectly fine because we understand it in mathematical terms.
Very true, and physicists have known this at least since the days of Newton- who was not an atheist.
“When your adversary is making a mistake, don’t stop him.” Napoleon Bonaparte
This is basically a presuppositional approach, and it is very strong. If you believe in determinism then you must also believe that you are determined to believe in determinism
Yes.
also if determinism is true, why i'm determined to not believe in it?
This is one of the best, if not the best argument against Atheism.
Thank you for bringing back memories of your video featuring the Caveman.
A moment of silence in honour of Thag the Caveman.
I can’t really say with good conscience that our brains were, as Dawkins would put it, “made for surviving on the African Plain” and that we therefore weren’t developed to understand the profundities of the universe. The things our brains can do are absolutely unprecedented if they were simply developed only for survival. Our long-term memory has pretty much infinite capacity, the areas of our brains that dictate higher learning and thinking are so advanced that even incredibly stupid people can do things that no other species could even fathom, we reason on a moral level, regret our actions, question the very nature of our existence constantly, search for a grand purpose in life, have parts of our brains detected to solving advanced math equations, and so much more.
If our brains were only developed for survival on the African Plain, then it’s pretty remarkable that so much of human nature, unlike every other species, just so happens to lend itself to striving for higher purposes and solving complicated problems.
Watching Dawkins attempt to defend atheism, I am reminded of the Black Knight defending the bridge in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
Someone else alluded to Monty Python after you and I didn't get it until I read your comment. Brilliant!!! 😅
"It's just a flesh wound!"😂😂😂
@@donttreadonrick9981 😄😄🤣🤣🤣
THANK YOU!! This is exactly how I reasoned my way to belief in God as a teen, but I could never put the thoughts into words as well as that. I just thought, if my brain is just neurons firing based on deterministic realities, then none of my thoughts have any... meaning? Heft? Truth? But that itself is a thought. Do any truth claims merit belief? It eventually became self- evident that IF thoughts are caused by the material world, they have little to do with me or my choices or truth. So I was determined to it. Thinking would become pointless.
But we can't stop! Thoughts seem to come from another realm. As if we choose to have thoughts. As if the synapses in the brain are sort of portals to the dimension the real us inhabits. As if the body is a vehicle for our soul and mind. I realized from that, even if it's false, I must believe in a supernatural existence to believe in my thoughts at all.
That's how I became a seeker. Then I read various scriptures until I found the kind of God I loved and respected. I gave my life to Christ at 17.
Love it! Keep going David!
“Our brains were not built to understand the profundity of the universe”……so what I heard was him saying our brains were “built” and not evolved….
"Our brains were not built to ..." assumes a world view in advance.
No it doesn't. We do understand much of our brains functions. It should be obvious - even to you - what it is mostly for.
@@Manic154 Of course it does.
"Our brains were not built to/for" is an assumption that he cannot back up.
How can you say that we don't understand much of our brain functions in one half of a sentence, then immediately claim that it should be obvious what it is mostly for in the next breath?
We either understand it, or we don't. We either know the function or we don't. You can't pick and choose.
@@alexwr It's not binary.
You need not know entirety how an internal combustion engine works to understand the overall function and limitations of a car.
By the same token, we know enough about the brain to understand it's overall function and as for limitations....well, those are quite apparent to us every day! : )
MadebyJimbob made a similar argument, but its more vicious. "If I'm determined to believe in Christianity, and you're determined not to, and its all based upon chemicals in motion that you've got no control over. How can I be wrong, how can you be right? Who can ever find the truth if their truth is made by the same stuff?"
Exactly, so the only way we can ever be right about something is if we conduct various experiments and come up with scientific theories, that is the only way
@@dext1352 But you conducting a scientific experiment is still determined. Whatever thing you end up finding out will still be determined. Christians do science and find more "evidence" for Christianity. Same goes with the atheist doing science and finding evidence for atheism. And thus both the theist and atheist's conclusions would still end up being determined.
You can't control the outcome. The brain is just doing whatever its meant to do forever unchanging.
The only way this can be fixed is with immaterial things. Such as truth being a thing discovered rather then created. Or a soul inside you controlling your brain to make free decisions on what You believe is true or not.
Asking the question "what was there before time" is not a SCIENTIFIC question it is a PHILOSPHICAL ISSUE. Don't ask the electrician to fix the sink.
He’s simply disqualifying anyone who disagrees from arguing with him.
And creating an unassailable mental construct - “oh it was before time, so all rules don’t apply. It’s magic”.
Nailed it. That's exactly what he's doing 👍
Dawkins: "it's amazing some human brains can even understand physics. My brain can't. Your brain can't...."
I got straight A+s in high school physics and was never genuinely interested in it so I don't know what he means😅
He was pretending to be humble. Except he ruined it by bringing Piers and Stephen Meyer down to the same level as him, JUST in case he looked inferior. 🙄 He's willing to give full credit to a faceless, generic, unnamed physicist, of course, because he weighed it up and realized he'd rather look dumber than a physicist if it meant he could use it as an argument against God. 😂 Oh, the first great sin of pride, it consumes this one. I guess his brain is just ... predetermined to make him arrogant 😏
He's referring to quantum physics. It is mysterious, but reality is mysterious..
Lol high school physics is nothing.
Many people get a's and dont know shit five minutes later.
High school physics is nothing.
@@sliglusamelius8578 I think he meant physics per se.
@@E45F678 Meyercis waybabove Dawkins' level. Dawkins has been called out publically for publishing lies.
Slight difference.
Dawkins really just replaced theologians with physicists
Yes because hes a biologist not a physicist. It does seem to be a christian thing to pretend to know every field of science somehow through "common sense".
@@jhoughjr1It does seem to be an atheist thing to strawman with no end and brush off hypocrisy.
@@jhoughjr1 i see the strawman, but not the wheat fields
@@cthulhucrews6602 Yes, hypocrisy. Because he claims "humans aren't made to know" yet demands I defer to human knowledge.
Reminds me how David used Goliath's sword against Goliath!
This video needs more views. This needs to be heard!✝️
...so, basically, Dawkins is saying that physicists are not human, and came into being outside of nature.
Mr. Woods on point. Now let us all pray for Dr. Dawkins for his good and for God's grace and mercy upon him, for God's glory.
Richard Dawkins believes his own brain wasn’t built to discuss the origin of life with Piers Morgan yet he still does it.
I don't believe in fairies, even though I can't prove they don't exist.
Yes guys, we have to have faith!!! Thank you Richard
Can you image Richard Dawkins as a hunter/gather - mate-hunter or any other form of hunter? I can't imagine him making a spear,, let alone throwing one... lol!!!!!!!
A very clear example of evolution. What an own-goal lol
What are you talking about?
@@Manic154😂 how is that evolution? He's still the same species our hunter-gatherer forefathers were.
Dawkins constantly contradicts himself, he will make one argument with Morgan and then say the complete opposite when talking to Lennox.
give one example of that.
To all my American brothers and sisters in Christ, I hope you are all doing well and safe 🇺🇸 🇬🇧
This is amazing. Reminds me of debates between Dawkins and Lennox from years ago
I nneeded this while driving to work 😁
Cheers from Chile 🇨🇱 fellow travelers
Oh yeah, one other thing. Computers were *made* for inventory management (the first British compiler, the LEO, managed inventory for Lyons' Corner Tea-House) and doing calculations for war. That doesn't stop them being *able* -- as a logical consequence of what they had to be for their original purpose -- of finding proofs for theorems, writing sonnets (I asked ChatGPT to write a sonnet about weasels today, and my word, it DID), optimising engineering designs, playing games, and all sorts of things the original designers didn't have in mind. So "our brains originally had the job of keeping us alive in Africa" doesn't even come close to implying "therefore our brains can't be relied on to reason correctly." Tracking animals requires not only good observation but clear reasoning.
Computers are designed by the conscious human mind, including ChatGPT
You can only reason on what you know as familliar.
Nothing in africa got us to the moon
@@retrictumrectus1010because its a word machine not a fact machine.
It literally doesnt know what its doing.
Yet can easily appear like it does.
Like some p zombie
@@jhoughjr1 "NOTHING in Africa got us to the moon." Wrong in a very basic way. Let's just list four things that got Americans (not my lot) to the moon. Organisation of large groups working to a common end. The trajectory of thrown objects. Aiming for where things will be, not where they are now, And above all, FIRE. All those things served us well in Africa. There was also an enormous amount of excellent engineering and a mountain of money, but the basic mental abilities that took Americans to the moon are very very old.
Oh, and"you can only reason on what you know as familiar" is also wide of the mark. For things that are familiar, we rely on memory. It's *un* familiar things where we resort to reasoning. How could we have multidimensional geometry except by reasoning? How did any of us ever get *familiar* with 5-dimensional space?
Your penultimate sentence is straightforwardly wrong. "Our brains originally had the job of keeping us alive in Africa" clearly implies "So it's entirely possible that that is still their primary focus, which must be a very significant bias that we can have no independent means of measuring and therefore correcting for when we make truth claims."
To deny the existence of God is contrary to common sense.
Kinda like denyingthe existence of your car / computer / smartphone designer & manufacturer...
@@el_killorcure I can point and look at my car. Can you point and look at God?
@@el_killorcureaccording to atheism cars, buildings, smartphones should be able to evolve or randomly assemble to their complex structure without the need of any external intervention.
I mean if humans and animals that are more complex can do it, what stops cars, phones etc......
@@richardchallenger7739 i cant point and look at your mind therefore im going to assume you dont have one
@@richardchallenger7739 To deny the existence of God is synonymous to denying your existence. Where did you come from? Did you create yourself? Nothing can be more illogical than for a created and finite being to say he does not have a creator. The creator put expiry date (death) on us all and that is enough to let any person with ability to think know that there is a Greater Being that decided our existence.
Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God"
Wow, Richard Dawkins sounds like a politician.
15:20 "your mutant berry finding ability" 😂😂😂🎉🎉
Famous "Athi-vangelist" states his brain cannot be trusted. I love it. 😆👍
David you just destroyed atheism. Amazing 😆😆
lol hardly.
@@Manic154 Indeed, can't destroy what came to ruin within a day of creation.
As soon as Dawkins said what he said about our inability to understand these things due to evolutionary limitations, my mind immediately went to David's old video on the argument from reason.
Free will and conscience are Supernatural phenomena.
Trusting physicists in the context sounds a lot like trusting the church. Except usually my pastors try harder to help me understand things.
Your problem is that understanding physics requires maths and is much harder to figure out than any religion. What pastors do isn't teach: they indoctrinate.
So good! Thank you, David!
He assumes that “before” only refers to temporal sequence, but “before” can also refer to logical dependence. In other words, something can be the cause or explanation of another thing without being earlier in time. For example, the foundation of a house is logically prior to the house, but they exist simultaneously. In the case of the Big Bang, asking “what came before” refers to what logically led to or caused the Big Bang, even if there was no time as we understand it.
Great point!
The foundation still occurs before the house in time so i dont think it works.
Id also point out, there kinda is no way to say things happen simultaneously.
Given that it seems all events have an order in time.
Ur mind will melt quick once you really ponder wtf universe we are in.
Hey I appreciate your response but again it assumes chronological time not logical ordering. It’s a category mistake. If you assume I’m speaking chronologically then yes, they do not happen at the same time. The foundation comes first in time. However the statement i made said they “exist” at the same time though the foundation is logically before the house. In other words, there would be no house without its foundation. There is a distinction between chronological (events in time) versus logical dependency (the relationship of necessity between things). For example, in mathematics, the truths of geometry (e.g., a triangle’s internal angles summing to 180 degrees) are logically dependent on the definitions of geometric shapes, but this dependence is not something that happens over time-it’s a simultaneous logical relationship. Hope this helps. Thanks for your input.
@jhoughjr1
It’s unbelievable what unbelievers have to believe.
So they don’t have to believe.
So you prefer believing in magic! We unbelievers just say we don't know, because we despise lying and leave it to Christian apologists, who are experts in that art.
They have a 'God'
They have a 'Theology'
They have 'Priests and Prophets'
They have a RELIGION
Dawkins is essentially telling us about the naturalism story, and how we must (cough cough) take it on faith.
I love how Dawkins was going to say, "our brains were made on the African plains," but had to catch himself and add "by evolution" in there. Atheists assign essentially the same creative power to evolution that we would God. You see it all the time in popular shows and books about nature, but also in scientific papers. Using language like "nature in her wisdom" or "nature ordained" or "this thing was designed by nature" etc etc
Yes because it gets old very quickly to express the full reality of what they deacribe.
I xan say my AC wants to keep the temperature where I set it.
He adresses this in his books so many claim to have read.
I don't even think God and Evolution are incompatible. Evolution is a mechanism of adaptability from energy efficiency, which is something that could clearly make a trend over a long period of time. Even if that period of time was not "real", the APPEARANCE of it would be. When a writer creates a world, it usually has a backstory.
@@ulyx9804 it's not incompatible per se, but that's not how Dawkins talks about it. Life had to arise naturally. To Dawkins, naturalism is incompatible and in fact falsifies theism.
Even creationists allow for some kind of evolution. They refer to it as adaptation and variation. It's a scope issue. We obviously observe finches beaks changing size via environmental pressures. The question surrounds can that reasonably be extrapolated out to account for all biodiversity.
I don't think God would make it appear like life evolved over eons if that isn't what happened. He's basically setting people up to disbelieve.
@@jhoughjr1 I'm sorry, but using the "wisdom of nature" is completely unacceptable if you're a naturalist. Nature has no wisdom. It's not alive. There's no forethought or planning. Using words like "created" or "made" or "built" is more forgivable.
Have you ever heard of these things known as figures of speech? They teach about them in 8th grade where i live
I prefer your recorded videos rather than your live streams... Make more videos like this more often, please
What kind of reasonable person even takes Dawkins seriously anymore? He’s mostly just an angry old man at this point.
Can't question what came before big bang, but you can question what came before God??? Yeah, makes no sense to me either.