Don't you wish everyone was this intelligent, articulate and kind? We would have peace on earth. Blessing to you, Mr. Dawkins and thank you for bringing some light to the world.
To you it would be nice if everyone was a loser like Dawkins. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@2slow2learn Firstly we need to distinguish which nothing you are referring to. Do you mean the scientific nothing? Which can have a number of definitions. Or the philosophical nothing. (The absence of existence)?
In the ‘70’s and ‘80’s he put out two groundbreaking books, The Selfish Gene. and The Extended Phenotype. He invented the word/idea meme. His later books were tremendously influential especially The God Delusion. He’s so articulate, funny and brilliant. A true legend.
He's a true nut case. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
It is easy to disprove a Darwinian evolutionary creation, since the science fiction tale is still being called speculative science and it is being speculated in all kind of directions. One of its main evangelist, Atheist Dawkins is regarded as a story teller and a quack by many of his eminent congeners. Atheist Dawkins claims that the different creatures in the creation, like hummingbirds, peacocks, lions etc., could only be designoid objects, presenting only an illusion of being intelligently designed. The Darwinist evangelist coined the neologism, which he is also using towards the human eye, the human brain and all the other organs of the human body. The word designoid never made it to the Oxford dictionary or to any other respected dictionaries because of no definition that would make sense could be found for it. Meaning of Designoid: That came up by accident but appears to be designed. This definition of the word Designoid is from the Wiktionary dictionary
Atheist Dawkins also coined the word designoid about 2 decades ago when he realized that his atheist brain was so confused and that his eyeballs were deficient to the point that brought him to conclude that they could not be the creation of an intelligent entity. He came with the conclusion that natural selection would be a blind and dumb watchmaker who created everything randomly and purposelessly. That did not affect the level of arrogance and haughtiness of the Darwinist preacher
Yes, losers enlightening other losers. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
He doesnt get religon the bible itsnt a science book yet he trys to compare them both it's a guild book for life it's why the free world is Christian and we have so much advancements other's have copied but civilisation as you see it was build on Christian beliefs many advanced civilisations didn't make it it's not a debate there is no evidence the free world could exist without the bible
HOW did non life become life? where did the laws of science come from? where did the material for the big bang come from???????????? why are all the planets the same shape????why are they differing materials if we started from the same ??????
Have a friend who's a traveling salesman and Christian. In each hotel he finds a Gideon Bible, and inside the cover is a sticker asking if you're truly in despair and need help: call this number. And when you call it, you get the local liquor store. All the best of Amurka right there.
Love this guy! Love the idea of translating into all four languages! Dawkins keeps me sane and I so miss Christopher Hitchens. One of the Hitch's books with his photograph sits across from my toilet and I scold him for the cigarettes and booze...same thing my young beauty of a mom died from. So wish he'd been more moderate. No room in my home is without the Hitch or the Dawkins.
@@robertthomas4234 Hitchen's own wife told a reporter who asked about the boozing that he "might be an alcoholic" and the Hitch found that funny. As for cigarettes, did you ever see him without one? I adored the man and cannot conceive of how great a tour de force he might have been without the dulling of his senses.
Only to nuts it's a brilliant move. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins must be thrilled that his science fiction tale of a Darwinian evolutionary creation has become the fastest growing pagan religion, and that it got him filthy rich.
Great to see Richard Dawkins still being savage with dogmatic religion and being thoroughly rational. He is 80+ and has lived a happy and healthy life. I wish him a few more decades of healthy and happy life :)
@@davidbanner6230 World and humanity will outlive your silly religion, and it is happening right now Christianity is slowly dying, and eventually it will be put on shelf with other mythologies.
@ Evolutionism is a creation myth masquerading as a science. For evolution to have some credibility, life would have had to have been invested with an evolutionary mechanism from its origin as a microorganism, which could only be a sorcerous concept not supported by science. Natural selection is the main deity of the modern pagan creation myth
You habve referred to evolution as a fact. Yet in the 'Ancestor's Tale' you use probably, presumably, possibly, plausibly, and presumably repeatedly. This contradicts the very definition of fact. In 'The Greatest Show on Earth ' you acknowledge that evolution cannot be proved like a geometry theorem. You invent a new word 'theorum' to refer to proof for evolution because there is no absolute proof for evolution. Will you not acknowledge this at a popular level?
I read The God Delusion during lockdown and it was inspiring. It truly changed my perception of atheism and atheists. Open-mindedness, belief and faith.
In code Genesis 38 starting with the Hebrew for B and 49 letters on and on: The names Boaz, Ruth, Obed, Jessy and David appear; all in the genealogy of Christ.
I am so glad you read it. I was fortunate to have read it about 6 years ago and recollect the same mind-opening experience. I hope more people will get to. Have a wonderful life.
st, you opened your mind so much, your brains fell out. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block ...you make snide comments about people's brains falling out and then you talk absolute drivel! ...you really ought to put the bible away and go and read some scientific papers regarding the origins of the universe. You will find that most do not claim that something came from nothing. You will also discover that none of them claim to know the process by which this reality came about. Unlike your average theists making unfounded claims that their particular god did it all.
I look at Richard Dawkins with such admiration. His knowledge empowered speech that can create change in the world truly inspires young entrepreneurs like me. He is not afraid to speak his mind, not afraid nor bothered by backlash, and every one of his works are Intricately written with perfect precision. His level of scientific pursuit is awe inspiring and continues to wow the public with incredible works. Keep up the astonishing work, we support you!
He's an inspiration to his fellow losers, not to those that actually think. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block yea like bro, you dont need a lot of braincells to understand that, idk line scientist really believe in magic like, "yea we know that in reality nothing can come from absolut nothingness, but we hope some type of magic happened and somehow the univers was created" at least this is what i hear when they are talkin
The thing about Atheism is that it allows no quarter in tolerance to accommodate the many ways we have to adjust to for the sorrows that can befall the lives of people. Atheism does not come with means of forgiveness, which is an essential component for coping with the many pitfalls that can trap the lives of people. We can have all smart-ass pontifications in the world about how the physical world came about, but that offers no answers to remedy the demons that can haunt people’s lives, and lead them down paths they where they have no control? In fact, by making people believe that’s all there is, they inhibit their motivation to search for meaning. DB: Such a narrow interpretation of what reality is all about? 25-09-2022:DBDavid Banner David Banner James Wright :Ignorance is all you stupid people you have to live by...... Not Logic? You have nothing that compensates, or understands how people can lose their way? You live in evil ignorance, but you are lost like anyone can be so, it's not really your fault. You are deserving of forgiveness also? 26-09-2022:DB “I Respect you too much to respect your beliefs”. What a Meghan Marklish, arrogant thing to say? 04-10-2022: D DB : As a member of Richard’s fan club, you may remember a month or two back, I wrote an attention seeking post about how our lives can be interpreted in different ways, according to what we attach meaning to? I proposed that we subconsciously can disregard forces that may influence the reality that we exist in. Now, such an idea will probably not be present in the consciousness of Atheists, even the carpetbaggers amongst them, because by the very nature of their perception, or perhaps the survival the self-image they like to project, they cannot allow what will destroy them? Such is the case recognising the influence ‘need’ has in our lives. I will not elaborate, because more can be revealed to those who explore themselves…. search and ye shall find? 05-10-2022:DB DB: Such heartless wisdom, as if everyone has the opportunities as you have been fortunate enough to find in your life? As if there are none whose upbringing has not been subjected to bad parenting, bad teaching, bad associations and just bad luck, that for a myriad of reasons they didn’t know how to cope with, because they were not tough like you? I don’t want to be critical, even though you may have stuffed all your understanding into a shopping bag, because it suits what you want to believe, which is your right? So it serves no purpose to point out how some religious guidelines trump your (probably well intentioned) Atheisms, but you are missing so much? PS: please note I always use the same name..... Beacuse it's my real name... which you wish you could do.....? 06-10-2022:DB L.Ron Dow "by making people believe that’s all there is, they inhibit their motivation to search for meaning" this is like people claiming they have a right to have job. What's wrong with working for yourself? Give your own meaning to your own life? Or do they lack that ability? My meaning in life is to leave it a better place to be for our children than the one I was born into - and I didn't need to be told that. Perhaps you are saying that some people need to be told how to be a good member of society - and religion is for them (but you don't need it)? DB: Does “working for yourself” entail taking some profound question, which everyone askes, at some time in their life, and making it sound like It’s your personal quest and immutable crusade.. 07-10-2022:DB DB: @L.Ron Dow : I already know who you are..... And some people sometimes really need a crutch to help them, while some people abuse people as a crutch to help themselves..... Regarding your no-one has the right to a job, when people are born into a community, they do have a right to some kind of life and some kind of happiness. This is where Atheism loses its way, what you are saying is "I'm alright Jack stuff you", because there's nothing else in your logic to live by? DB: @L.Ron Dow : Truth without understanding and compassion is a monster.... "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive merc mercy? And don 't use that to write me off as a creationist, we know your get-outs? @L.Ron Dow : What the hell has that got to do with people asking "what have I done to deserve this"... Stop making it easy for me to shoot you down...? You always are talking about "truth" as if only you know what "truth" is......Then you go on about child abusers, because you - craftily - know it is an emotive problem? What about the "TRUTH" of what caused people to become child abusers, was it they were failed by their parents....they had lousy teachers.....they had horrible experiences themselves..... Are such things not "truths" also, yet in your shallow thinking they are somehow a separate species of humanity.... Stop trying to be a champion of "truth", when you don’t understand what you are talking about? Put that in your next paperback...if you understood it? DB: @L.Ron Dow : By pretending to be what you are not, and understanding what you do not....by omitting truths to suit your self-serving agenda? DB: @L.Ron Dow : You will keep sticking your neck out, and I keep chopping it off... "but not at a cost or burden to anyone else “ Modern social systems are all (or should be) about sharing the burdens of caring for the disadvantages upon the whole of society. Not everyone likes the sharing, as demonstrated by your responses, yet the quality of life in enriched for the whole community, by such modern attributes. For instance, the Nazis had a policy of doing away with defective children - even if they had normal intelligence - which resulted in a culture people accepting that it was ok to murder people who were deemed to be unfit? In fact, your philosophy is pretty close, but I don’t think you are aware of it? DB: More off-the-cuff conclusions, with not the slightest evidence “we are the only living things that know that”, they have the nerve to talk about evidence for there being a god? DB: @L.Ron Dow Wow! you mean you don't inflict your views on other people, oh come on dicky.
I have red the God Delusion. It is very important book. It gives a new view to religion but also to view our universe in a new way. One reason for this is your skill to lighten things through history. Thank you for your splendid work and courage.
Why would an absurd person be of help to you? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@davidbanner6230 now there's not but in the past there was. I showed that and you ignore it because you can't get around it. You just felt something though to respond as if you accomplished something in your doofus mind.
It's his ending that won't be so nice. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ruclips.net/video/PS5buGnHVZw/видео.html
@Erin K we are told to judge. John 12:44-48 Hebrews 4:12 John 7:21-24 And much more bot loser you can't think and get the context right... ----Jesus cannot be saying that we are never to be discerning about ourselves or others. How would we know there is a plank in our eye or a speck in our brother’s? Think about other things he said in the Sermon on the Mount. He spoke about “hypocrites” (you can see the root work “critic” in hypocrite). A hypocrite is one who judges by a false standard. Jesus also said that we can’t “serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24). By what standard do we decide? He also warned about “false prophets” (Matt. 7:15). By what standard do we know they are false? ----Once again, the point Jesus is making is that we are not to judge by our own standard. Rather, we are to judge by God’s standard. First, I must judge myself by this standard. The more I am aware of the beams in my eyes, the more I am aware of God’s grace and mercy and Jesus Christ’s strength to help me. Jesus does not say we should not be concerned about a speck in our brother’s eye. He simply tells us that we will not be able to effectually help someone else with his issues if we have a telephone pole sticking out of our own eye. The more I am aware of my own “planks” and God’s solution, the more I can see this for you and help you. -----It is interesting that I must see both my old nature and my new nature in their respective depth and height. In my relationships, I must be especially aware of “the sin that dwells in me” (Rom. 7:17) and of the spirit of God that dwells in you. That will help me keep myself from judging you according to my perverted standards. It is significant that the Greek word for “hypocrite” refers to a theater actor who wore a number of masks. Thus, a hypocrite is one who appears to be something he is not. The opposite would be someone who allows “into-me-see,” which is a way of understanding what “intimacy” is all about. In other words, I say to someone, “Here’s how Jesus Christ helped me, and he can help you also” (see Gal. 6:1).
@@claires9100 too bad your eyes can't open enough to see what a loser you are. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@It is easy to disprove a Darwinian evolutionary creation, since the science fiction tale is still being called speculative science and it is being speculated in all kind of directions. One of its main evangelist, Atheist Dawkins is regarded as a story teller and a quack by many of his eminent congeners. Atheist Dawkins claims that the different creatures in the creation, like hummingbirds, peacocks, lions etc., could only be designoid objects, presenting only an illusion of being intelligently designed. The Darwinist evangelist coined the neologism, which he is also using towards the human eye, the human brain and all the other organs of the human body. The word designoid never made it to the Oxford dictionary or to any other respected dictionaries because of no definition that would make sense could be found for it.
Atheist Dawkins is getting old and securing himself through confirming his faith in the finality of death. He also got himself filthy rich by preaching a Darwinian evolutionary creation myth.
So nice to see Dawkins doing well. He helped make me who I am today. The God delusion helped me break free of my religious indoctrination. I was an atheist before the God delusions however I wasn't really interested in the debate and studying religious beliefs until the God delusion.
Considering that he views his atheist brain as a designoid object too badly deficient to be the creation of an intelligent entity, we can say that the darwinist priest is doing OK. 🤡
@@davidbanner6230 I had never thought that I would have to make an argument against the idea that elements of our anatomy like the human eye would only be presenting an illusion of being intelligently designed. Must admit that Atheist Dawkins presenting his views in impeccable literary English makes the nonsense easier to swallow. “Climbing Mount Improbable” that explored the organ’s complexities and explaining the “gradual ramp of improvement” of eyes of species evolving independently of one another." Darwin himself admitted that the creation of the eye through an unintelligently supported natural process appeared to be absurd to the highest degree, and then he still concluded that it was not insuperable, but did not elaborate as to how it was superable .
@@davidbanner6230 According to darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins, natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view, which would create an insurmountable obstacle when it comes her creating the wings, which have definite and intricate purposes depending on the creature equipped with them. It is even more challenging than it would have been for a blind watchmaker to put together a precision watch. Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins answering intelligent design by making the case for a blind watchmaker is simply reinventing the absurd.
He's a loser with loser followers. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block Without wishing to misrepresent Richard Dawkins, I think he has consistently stated he is not a cosmologist and that the origin of the universe isn't within his area of expertise. The theory of evolution is concerned with the evolution of life - once life has already started. In any case, there is as yet no scientific concensus on how the universe began. Indeed it is as yet unknown whether it even had a start. No honest scientist will claim these matters have been settled with great confidence. But let's suppose the universe did have a beginning. We actually still wouldn't know that it has a cause. We don't have any other universes from which to draw inferences about whether universes have causes. But granting even a cause, what that cause is must still be demonstrated. Saying it would have to be a "creator" is an assertion that has a burden of proof.
@@joefriday2275 Our observable universe (and, one assumes, the universe beyond that, which is of unknown size) began expanding from an incredibly dense state at the big bang. But we don't know what preceded that, if anything. For all anyone knows, the cosmos in the broadest sense could have already existed. The fact that it isn't currently known what preceded the big bang leads me to conclude "I don't know", rather than "there must be a god".
@@joefriday2275 I'm not saying (past) time may be infinite (since I don't know for sure whether it is possible). Rather, I'm saying that I'm not convinced it's finite.
Well enjoy your loser life with loser Dawkins. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@joefriday2275 Hawking disagreed with that too. He pointed out that there was never the theological "nothing". He was referring to spacetime, not nothing.
He was never sharp. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Considering that he views his atheist brain as a designoid object too badly deficient to be the creation of an intelligent entity, we can say that he is doing OK. 🤡
@@markofsaltburn Although Darwinist evangelist Atheist Dawkins coined the word designoid over 2 decades ago, it has not yet made its way to any recognized dictionary since no definition that is making sense could be found for it. It goes with his preaching the nonsense of the eye presenting only an illusion of design. It was typo but designoidism could fit well in the quack scientist BS
I live right next door to one of the most religious countries in the world . Richard's brilliance is a breath of fresh air from constantly hearing all this hell , fire and tarnation stuff from next door . Richard Dawkins is truly a godsend.
The god, Satan, that is. That is who Richard is from. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@davidcooke6036 I didn't mean it literally. I was just playing the Devil's advocate and that doesn't mean I necessarily believe in the Devil either . It is just a figure of speech and it doesn't mean I worship Satan or anything because I am Atheist and Atheists don't believe in the devil.
I discovered this legendry man during lockdown nd I am blessed enlightened nd desperate to just meet him once in my lifetime nd longing to read all his epic books ❣❣
Did the scientists disclose to you about unknown side effects that are yet to manifest and why the companies have been allowed " legal idemnity" protection as they know there will be side effects and potential deaths?. Also did the scientists inform you about the immune promoting natural foods that have been " scientifically" tested and verified to provide the body with what it needs for a healthy immune system to better prepare against antigens?.
You both don't think much. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block How do you get an all-powerful God from literally nothing? Was God just hanging around the whole time? All you are doing is passing the buck to magic.
@@therealzilch how did you get around the science I gave? Oh, you didn't. All you can do is bring up your loser question that proves what losers you are. So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
@@2fast2block If you invoke magic, aka a "supernatural creator", then of course you can make up anything you want. But you can't explain the existence of this magical being, nor can you provide evidence for his/her/its existence. I can't explain the existence of the natural world, but that's a simple lack of knowledge, probably infinitely simpler (depending on how intelligent you suppose your creator to be) than yours. I'll stick with my simpler lack of knowledge, until I see evidence to the contrary. But I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely. Cheers from cool Vienna, Scott
@@therealzilch oh wow, this was science to loser you that somehow proved the science gave and we KNOW is not correct... "I can't explain the existence of the natural world, but that's a simple lack of knowledge, probably infinitely simpler (depending on how intelligent you suppose your creator to be) than yours. I'll stick with my simpler lack of knowledge, until I see evidence to the contrary." You can't make your absurdity up. It's hilarious.
Why do you follow that loser? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I know, reading his books are so refreshing. His prose is beautiful and his ideas are sharp. I am grateful that he has taken the time to share his ideas with us in such beautiful writing. A great man.
@@2fast2block Shows you know nothing.. He is an Evolutionary Biology Scientist, not Cosmologist or Physicist and Science does not say the universe came from nothing - actually the bible says that and uses magic spells to do so. Better you be quite till you learn the facts, better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. PS: To clarify please always state which god, to avoid confusion.
@@stultusvenator3233 "He is an Evolutionary Biology Scientist, not Cosmologist or Physicist and Science does not say the universe came from nothing - " You and Nick ought to from your loser's club. Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.” Yep. again..."The title means exactly what it says." Dawkins' "literally nothing": ruclips.net/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/видео.html Lawrence Krauss wrote a book A Universe From Nothing that is something he prefers to call nothing. A nothing with space, matter, and time that somehow created space, matter, and time. Krauss, “Some of this bothers people. But who cares? Quantum mechanics is illogical-just get over it.” “But scientists have known for centuries that nothing is the key to understanding absolutely everything, from why particles have mass to the expansion of the universe - so without nothing we’d be precisely nowhere.” (New Scientist Promotions, 21 October 2013) “We started from literally nothing; from empty spacetime containing solely the energy of the quantum vacuum, and have arrived at our Universe today, with its billions of galaxies, stars, and all that ever was or will be here on Earth. (The Physics of Nothing; The Philosophy of Everything, August 16, 2011) Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
@@claires9100 he helped you be a loser too. How nice. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Hi Gwen. Isn't it nice we can appreciate Richard Dawkins because we have actually read his books and understand his vocabulary. I'm glad you and I are not the sort to be threatened by intelligence. Have a wonderful life.
What a wonderful surprise to find on my feed this Christmas Eve morning. Thank you for this interview! Tomorow, i will be watching the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope. Hope it goes well!
I am happy to say, nerved out as I was, so far so good - because knowledge (as a scientist that spend all My time navel gazing my own planet, not watching into deep space.
What a loser. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
A very wise an intelligent discussion. People need to realize the reality of our world and stop believing in bullshit, like conspiracy theories, religion and non sense
Let's remember that belief can be separated from organized religion. Having a belief in something greater than yourself can be beneficial for many kinds of people, and for many different reasons. To be ignorant of that helps no one. Organized religion is something different. It becomes less about belief and more about propagation. When you propagate a belief based on no empirical evidence it eventually becomes a conspiracy.
Yep, he's still a loser. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block And the little child in me is asking - Mommy, who created god? See the problem is this kind of thinking leads to nowhere in understanding the universe. You say oh it must be god who created this but that total answer leads to no change, no ability to question anything. A stagnation.
@@stanislavdiamandiev1861 "Mommy, who created god?" You are a graduate of Loser University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you losers, that one STU--P1D question is your cure-all. So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Hes God. Pure unadulterated perfection. When he disappears into the restroom its to hide how much of a Jesus Clone he actually is inside. In complete denial of how brilliant the light is. Heating the room around him in an intensity only described as highly efficient cognitive processing. Above mortals see. Enhanced.
I'm sure you did. Dawkins followers are full of delusion. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@annegreengables6367 you are all sure goofs then. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
For me it were a creationist video I accidentally saw! Had never been a believer in religious delusions or had a need to imagine a need for a greater purpose but were OK with it comforting a few old ladies that thought the entirety of existence confusing, I were confronted with a guy that explained the entire universe is only 6000 years old which i just dismissed as him being a crazy person since that were my first encounter with a YEC, then he without even blinking explained the bible said that Adam lived 930 years! My jaw dropped and I felt like a soldier that in a combat situation develops PTSD when I investigated that claim, the bible really says Adam lived for 930 years, thinking about the billions of people blindly accepting that, my disappointment in mankind's ability to do logical thinking were enormous and it took days for me to recover, then I set out trying to explain to alleged grownups that 900 year old's were an impossibility, which apparently is impossible since they already have made up their "minds" that 900 year old's and fire breathing dragons, is a possibility and even a fact!
You don't think people can live a long time under the right conditions? If we can keep a machine running forever, just by taking care of it and replacing parts, you don't think that God could do it? He's already promised that if we trust in Him, we will live forever - and that's a lot longer than 930 years! :p
@@stevecobb12550 Why would you keep a machine running forever, machine technology evolves, and why we don't use steam engines to propulsion anymore or try to make gold from lead since human knowledge and understanding also evolves! 150 years ago the average lifespan were like our cousins the other great apes, 38 years, and only due to the theory of evolution, the cornerstone of modern biology that informs us that we are apes and in family with every living thing dating back some 4 billion years, have medicines been able to be produced. before that, all that so called doctors had to work with were herbal enemas, bloodletting and mercury shots. (the worthless act of prayers not included) Homo Sapiens is only a some 300.000 year old species. I don't believe in a god or gods and never had, I ditched the idea of any Santa whether from the north pole or a sky Santa existing when I age 12.13, without even remembering being taught evolution, realized that dogs is a product of artificial selection while us humans and animals alike in the wild have come about via natural selection and have no intrinsic purpose other than procreating and getting along since we are a social animal, depending on others. No, Magic and 930 year old's belong to the realm of Santa like tales and not something you'd expect a grownup believing in and equally devastating to the ability to learn and absorb knowledge useful to mankind as a species. Teeth wears down while ears and nose throughout life grows (about 0.00866 inch a year) try to multiply 0.00866 with 930 and then tell me if you think that's a plausible size nose and ears a 930 year old toothless Adam would have to have thought with. I'm not a biologist or scientist but know there's something in human cells called telomers which is the limiting factor to lifespans, and nerve endings that makes us able to feel touch which doesn't go missing when we die, I'm a machinist, that also uses logical thinking, and have no use for imagining eternal life or magical sky daddies being responsible for my actions or morals.
@@gospeljoy5713 According to the bible the entire universe can maximally be 6000 years old, since it contains ages of people that added together doesn't exceed a 6000 year period, if the universe isn't 6000 years old and earth isn't flat then the bible is wrong, then the creator god describe as having made earth flat and 6000 years old either weren't the source of the bible or doesn't exist in the first place! And all of science then, is that one big conspiracy that strangely enough is able to deliver predictions, documented results and actual evidence and have made the world into what it is today, but according to creationism only performed in order to "annoy" a tiny handful of uneducated ignorant creationists? The universe's 13.8 billion years and Earth's 4.5 billion years age isn't arrived at by merely guessing and fantasizing like it is with Christianity, but actual science and facts, that in science is called theories!
With every fiber of my being... I feel that science/evidenced-based, "YA" (Young Adult)-category and/or children's (grammar/elementary-age) books--better yet, educational texts--could and would be constructively utilized by readers and educators alike. The publishing myth is about marketing and sales. Conveying a life-altering message is about writing. Could Dr. Dawkins, perhaps, consider an alternative publisher or the resource of self-publising on behalf of yet-to-be readers and his future endeavors? It seems that hindsight and retrospection would provide such a rich repository for contrasting and complementing forward-thinking content. Here's a belief: Dr. Richard Dawkins' capability to write the truth... and "they will read." The gap between gullibility and reason has gained so much momentum, it just seems natural to progress in such a way. #starvethestupidity #feedthefacts --from the Midwest, US.
Richard does not follow science. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Being on LSD or chewing on magic mushroom would help visualize the evolutionary voyage of some microorganism through billions of years of a random, purposeless and unintelligently supported evolutionary process under a blind and dumb watchmaker resulting in the creation of all the creatures on earth.
Richard is critical of people relying on theories without hard evidence, yet in the possibilities of delusion, how would we be sure that the evidence we have come to rely on, has not been tampered with on its way to our consciousness?
This was a thoroughly enjoyable discussion. Thank you so much! It kept me on the treadmill for the entire talk. I especially love what Dawkins had to say about how the internet can bring people of like mine together and that actually can be a bad thing at times.
So you enjoy that loser. Wiow. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Richard needs magic for his reality. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@budd2nd Isn't it wonderful that you and i can appreciate Richard Dawkins' intelligence and read his books because we are not threatened by the raw beauty of reality? Science is hard for some people. What a great man. Enjoy the interview!
I will say this very respectfully sir/ma'am. This is an inaccurate statement. Please, consider all those brilliant Christian minds that have impacted the world. Please, look into it before stating such a big phrase.
@@j.r.d.a1930 screw the respect, they're losers by their choice who just go on ignoring science and those believers that brought so much of it to light.
@@2fast2block it seems you have some strong feelings against them? Do you think you can unbiasely analyze their contributions to the world? I hope you can find the truth my friend, whatever and wherever it is found. Blessings...
Darwinist evangelist, atheist Dawkins starting from the premise, that all the creatures in the creation were created from some bacteria being taken through billions of years of a materialistic, natural evolutionary process.. Dawkins is also preaching the BS of an illusion of design and the idea that billions of years could make up for the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders to self assembled and be created following a natural evolutionary process. Darwinist atheist Dawkins calls the hogwash the poetry of science. Preaching nonsense in Shakespearean English does not make the speculative bullshit anymore credible.
His brain though, not so good. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."-Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden Richard Dawkins asserts that there's no such thing as "evil." But I'll bet you money he locks the doors of his home, office, and car when he leaves them. The man is a moral fool and as irrational as they come. God help him because no one else can.
@@davidbanner6230 It's a word that describes things (like nouns.) _"Richard Dawkins asserts that there's no such _*_thing_*_ as 'eviI.'"_ That's right 'EviI' is NOT a THING in its own right - it has no existence of it's own. It denotes a *property* of the thing with which it's associated. So, you can say: _'Putin's war on Ukraine is eviI'_ or even _'Putin is eviI'_ but you *cannot* say _'EviI made Putin wage war on Ukraine.'_ And, when Deutero-Isaiah, during his exile in Babylon, reports what he claims are god's words _"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and _*_create eviI_*_ I the LORD do all these things."_ Isaiah 45.7 KJV, we know he's talking poetically, not literally. I'm surprised you need this explaining to you.
No, he's a loser. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@robertpv6639 guess you're too busy to find dirt on Dawkins even when it's given to you. Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.” Yep. again..."The title means exactly what it says." Dawkins' "literally nothing": ruclips.net/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/видео.html
Given that the atheist Darwinist priest is regarding his brain as having been created through a random, purposeless and unintelligently supported evolutionary process makes it astonishing that he would be able to serve his delusional BS in such an impeccable English.
Dr. Dawkins, please stay away from psychedelics. As someone in your age group who experimented with them several times when young, I hope you will stay away from them. I had a friend who DID jump out of a second-story window on LSD. I also spent time in the presence of Tim Leary and he had fried his brain from “too many trips”, he was barely functional. Please, please stay away from them. They can be , in my opinion, very risky for the brain....thank you both for this great video.!
Why? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
He's a loser. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I understand the impulse to project consciousness into matter itself, but it's not science. I feel like consciousness is a loaded word though. It envolves perceiving the world as well as interpreting it, so that requires higher brain functions. I do suspect that any complex enough system might create some sort of subjective experience that in principle is entirely shielded from everyone else. I mean, without the capacity to store information, understand it and communicate it, this is just not testable, so not a scientific claim. But as a thought experiment, we could simplify the human brain and imagine if consciousness is maintained. Does a monkey brain have it? A dog? A worm? How about a computer simulation of a worm brain? How simple can you get without losing the subjective experience? Can a conputer ever reach any level of consciousness?
How do we get anything without God? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
All very interesting questions. Yes. With the advancement of AI, these matters will become mire and more to the forefront. Interestingly, and sort of shifting from your topic, there appears to be a discomfort in the West regarding the advancement of robots as we have this queezie feeling about a consciousness not coming from a god. Yet in Japan robots are embraced very comfortably because their culture never dichotomized the world into God's domain and human domain. Just appreciated the practical reality of matter conscious or not.
I’m a creationist but something about the abiogenesis theory has puzzled me for a long time. DNA is this super complex blueprint that dictates nearly everything about its host organism. DNA cannot survive without it’s host and the host can’t exist without DNA. So help me please? Was the cell supposedly formed accidentally at the same time DNA was accidentally formed inside of it?
It is unlikely that the first cells capable of Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection used DNA as their 'memory' - any self-replicating molecule capable of altering the phenotype of the cell will do. So, you claim _"the host can’t exist without DNA"_ is not strictly true - it's _become_ true after 4 billion years of evolution. It's like saying that there's no such thing as a Dodo. Here's an extract from the Abstract of *"Montmorillonite-catalysed formation of RNA oligomers: the possible role of catalysis in the origins of life"* by James P Ferris _"Large deposits of montmorillonite are present on the Earth today and it is believed to have been present at the time of the origin of life and has recently been detected on Mars. It is formed by aqueous weathering of volcanic ash. It catalyses the formation of oligomers of RNA that contain monomer units from 2 to 30-50. Oligomers of this length are formed because this catalyst controls the structure of the oligomers formed and does not generate all possible isomers. Evidence of sequence-, regio- and homochiral selectivity in these oligomers has been obtained. Postulates on the role of selective versus specific catalysts on the origins of life are discussed."_ Happy reading. The 'raw materials' for assembly of genetic strands on the catalytic templates are naturally produced in places where volcanic activity and sea-water (or mineral-rich water from beneath Earth's crust, for example at sites like the Lost City Hydrothermal Vents) will also form the lipids to build vesicles that act as cell-membranes. You can even go to places like Hawai'i where proteinoid polymers have been formed by the hot/cold, dry/wet cycles of sea-water splasing onto hot volcanic rocks.
Really great stuff! Dawkins is such a beautiful human. One thing I'd like to say though is please never underestimate mushrooms. Yes the active dose of LSD is very little but mushrooms can absolutely replace you reality for a duration. As with most drugs, dosage is the factor.
He's a liar who hates what science proves. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
The thing that about Atheism is that it allows no quarter in tolerance to accommodate the many ways we have to adjust to for the sorrows that can befall the lives of people
@@davidbanner6230 Yes ignorence! Ignorence on your part, the part of theist! Everyone uses it in equal measure, we all feel pain loss sorrow fear love hate, we are all human and have emotions and they are human emotions with understandable natural explanations. It's just unfortunate some theist are so ignorant of anything outside their delusion that they think their delusion is the reason for everything, that's pure ignorence!
@@jameswright... :Ignorance is all you stupid people have to live by...... Not Logic? You have nothing that compensates, or understnds how people can lose their way? You live in evil ignorace, but you are lost like anyone can be so, it's not really your fault. You are deserving of forgiveness also?
@@davidbanner6230 One of the benefits of being an Atheist who has had to adjust to many of the sorrows that befall the lives of people is that *I don't have reason to think I was singled-out for such sorrows - or that they are punishment for some accidental transgression.* I never need to ask _"What did I do to deserve this?"_ I know that 'Stuff' happens!
I can remember "The Naked Ape" coming out in the late 1960s. Author, Desmond Morris, said he didn't know he'd be fighting a rearguard action for Darwin. A bit of a trailblazer for contemporary exponents of evolution, I think.
How do adaptations happen like with the Darwin Finches? The biological capability is inside of us along with all life including bacteria. It's called the epigenome. It does the adaptations while leaving the DNA unmutated. Hence, no evolution is involved. Antibiotic resistance? Same way. By the already-there capability of the epigenome. No on-the-fly mutations getting natural selected as the evolution story goes. These adaptations were called 'microevolution'. It was the first block in which the other blocks of the evolution story was built on up to all of the macroevolution schemes like birds coming from dinosaurs. All these blocks and framed 'evidences' are built upon a false precept. Here is what the epigenome is about with a link into more info... Definition of epigenome : the complement of chemical compounds that modify the expression and function of the genome Access to the genes is controlled by the epigenome, a layer of millions of proteins and other marks that attach themselves to the genome. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epigenome Epigenome Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
From Evolution to Creation- Professor Gary Parker’s Testimony Professor Gary Parker is a biology teacher who received his PhD in biology with geology at Ball State University, USA, in 1973. He has been admitted to Phi Beta Kappa, an American scholastic honorary, and was elected to the American society of Zoologists and also holds a fellowship from the National Science Foundation. He has written five textbooks on biology over the years. Professor Gary Parker’s amazing story from an evolutionary biologist perspective to a creationist has been condensed from four radio talks where he reveals his astonishing journey of discovery. Interviewer: Dr. Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist. Is that so? Dr. Parker: Yes, indeed. The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe while continually progressing towards grander things. Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organised everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged. As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin, and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at the very least had no more involvement than to originally create the particles and processes from which all else mechanically followed. ‘Sin’ was merely the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest, and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering. With no God to answer to and no purpose for mankind, I saw humanity’s destiny as being in our own hands. Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best. Interviewer: Did your faith/trust in evolution affect your classroom teaching? Dr. Parker: It certainly did. In my early years of teaching at the high school and college levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true. I even had some creationist students crying in class. I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution. In fact, I had a discussion with high school teachers in a graduate class in which I was assisting to encourage them to aim at persuading students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution! Interviewer: I thought you weren’t supposed to teach religion in the American public school system. Dr. Parker: Well, maybe you can’t teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all teaching the ‘evolutionary religion’! I have done it myself, and I have watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person’s thoughts and consequent life. Of course, I once thought that this effect was good-liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion and making a person’s own opinions supreme.
I'd rather look out the window. Richard hates science and truth. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I get so much from hearing and reading RD ,,, realising and understanding the rubbish and lies that were “put upon” me through religion (ie Roman Catholic) asa child ,,, it’s such a relief to understand that it’s okay to Not Believe in that stuff I was brought up in ,, such wonderful freedom,,,
Now you're happy being a loser like Dawkins. How nice. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
And Richard does not like to think much. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
What I don't understand about these cold hearted athiests, is not that they don't believe in God. That's fair enough. The evidence for them is simply not convincing. But it seems that they not only don't believe in God, they Don't want there to be a God. It seems like they would be dissapointed if something convinced them of God. I don't get that. It's like they don't want there to be a God. They want life to be all there is. Seems like death being totally final makes them happy.
Well, I'm sure you've got some fantasies on the reason (not that I think it's actually True) - most believers do have - it usually involves imagining unbelievers actively *wanting* to live an immoral, debauched way of life without being accountable for their 'sins'. Having said that the Abrahamic god of the Christian Bible is a cosmic-thug threatening eternal punishment for the crime of a few decades of doubt - that's on top of it having a track-record of drowning all but 8 of the world's population (not even 'painlessly popping them out of existence',) ordering the deaths of sabbath-breakers, unruly children, men who love men, girls who get raped in the city, witches, apostates, ordering or assisting-in the wiping-out whole peoples who live where it wants its chosen people to call home, not forbidding owning people as property, the list of its atrocities goes on. Now, why would anyone in their right mind want to spend a eternity with that egotistical monster? You may be right that there is some cosmic overlord, bribing you to join its club with promises of eternal bliss (like an angler who puts a nice juicy maggot on the hook) - but there is *absolutely no convincing evidence* that there is - it's all wishful (???) thinking and old fairy stories appealing to your greed & desires.
At least you're mature enough to admit you don't understand. In 6,000 years of recorded history there is not a skerrick of evidence to show the existence of any god. So you are correct - it is not convincing. I wish god would prove us wrong. Instead he turns a blind eye while billions of unmarried people fornicate (or have sinful thoughts about it) and then condemns them to hell for all eternity.
I read The Selfish Gene about 1980 at age 21 and it was the most influential book for me ever. Now when I follow Dawkins on youtube I get more and more disillusioned. Atheism in my mind is not about politics, not the flip side of the socialist coin. I feel void of -isms, any religion or political system. But I notice that Dawkins keep talking into the socialist topics and agenda. That puzzles me. Socialism is in effect a religion on par with the rest of them. Have Dawkins succumbed to socialism? Whenever he uses a satire he hits on Bush, Thatcher, Trump ... all conservatives. The most religions president on the parameter of number of times mentioning God in his speeches, Clinton comes out on top. Why doesn't Dawkins trash Clinton? Just to do away with any political bias. In this interview there is a raving about Qanon. What about them? They are just a funny fringe group. Getting tunnel vision on them is not sane, not honest in proportions. There is a lot of honest skepticism about the whole corona mass hysteria from renowned doctors, scientists etc. Why are all right-wing people summarily dealt with under the Qanon scare? I always associated with right-wing people f.ex. Free Press Society, I have never met a Qanon/conspiracy-nut and not a single violent person. On the other hand I was on the board of Danish Atheist Society a few years ... and found myself among the most radical socialists and communists where criticism of islam was totally no-go. What a disappointment for the noble cause. I just watched some history documentaries and the resemblance strikes me of the Stalin time when they setup bogus accusations and put 3 millions in camps on the pretext of dealing with real contrarevolutionaries. Most were normal, sane, honest, sceptics about the system. Don't you see how easily history repeats (on a smaller scale, admitted) but the human mind mechanism is the same. About corona: I think forcing an untested new methodology injection drug on the world population is insane when the virus is not the least threatening humanity. The surplus deaths are marginal compared to the natural fluctuation of cold/flu's we have lived with always. Suvival rate is 99+%, 99,99 for omicron (no deaths in Denmark). Last week one - 1 - person was in intensive care at the National Hospital. A threat to hospital capacity? But the MSM is silent about such available statistics, they don't fit the scare mongering narrative. A mass-psychosis, a fear-mongering is driving a reaction that is out of touch with reality and statistics. In Austria, Australia, Canada they fine, imprison and build camps for unvaccinated. Can't you see this is evil on par with the vilification of jews? And everybody were adamant that jews were a threat to humanity and had to be dealt with, driven by the state and "science" - just a few years ago in my neighboring countries. The human mental mechanism is playing out the script again. Corona has become a religion - complete with injection communion. I think atheism is beyond politics and replacing christianity/islam/judaism with socialism is nuts. One step forward and two backwards. I see (at least) 3 main groups: religious, socialist atheists, freedom atheists. I belong firmly to the last group. I am for complete freedom of speech, nothing censored, free market, economic freedom (low taxes) etc. etc. This gives me nothing in common with socialism. So my entire life I have been associating with conservatives, right wing if you will, defined as above. Far from all right-wing are religions so why is Dawkins et. al. alienating this important group of atheists who combines atheism with freedom on all parameters?
Dawkins is not God - you are allowed to pick 'n mix which of his opinions you find valuable. Like your comment, I will be filing some of his in the appropriate container. I disagree with many of Dawkins's positions - but that's ok, he's entitled to have them, just like you can have your crazy libertarian ideas: _"I am for complete freedom of speech, nothing censored, free market, economic freedom (low taxes) etc. etc."_ That is not the way to build a healthy society - it's more likely to build a collective of insular egotists with poor communal values - as long as I'm alright Jack, that's ok and if you don't like it, put your fists up. Tell me, would you allow underage, untested car-drivers and people being allowed to drive cars with no brakes, bald tires, no lights and worn steering? _"Last week one - 1 - person was in intensive care at the National Hospital. A threat to hospital capacity?"_ Maybe that's a testament to the fact that Denmark has double-jabbed over 80% of its population. The technology behind the 'new' vaccines is not all that new - it has been in the pipeline since the SARS, MERS and Ebola outbreaks and almost *10 billion* c19 doses have now been given administered world-wide - how much more testing do you need? It's probably more dangerous to eat a peanut. Ultimately, I agree with you in that *absolutely no-one* should be vaccinated against their will - with the chances of death (which is not the only undesirable result of becoming infected) being about 30 times greater for the unvaccinated - we should see this as a brilliant experiment in Natural Selection.
18:46 It's a shame that Richard still can't consider the idea that the universe may be fundamentally mental. There's a reason that all ancient wisdom teachings affirm this view. There are deep and well thought out philosophical reasons behind these conclusions.
There are deep and well thought out philosophical reasons that conclude Achilles will never catch the turtle. Why do you think he hasn't looked at the arguments for a mental universe and just decided that they're mental?
He does not have my insight. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block Ah, the unknowing misunderstanding absolutely everything, but totally confident to spout with utter unawareness, without embarrassment and with a complete lack of insight to their crippling vacuousness. You really are a wonderful example the Dunning-Kruger syndrome for our amusement. Keep it up.
@@Anicius_ this was meant to do what about what I wrote?... "science believes in "moment of begining of time' this applies to all entities" Did you just get the urge to let some of your gas out?
@@Tinker1950 The Dunning-Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. So tell me with what I wrote I overestimated my ability. Tell me how the laws of science I gave were overestimated and are somehow not correct. Tell me how the conclusions are not correct. You conveniently and purposely left those parts out because you don't like to reason. YOU overestimated YOUR ability.
Three reasons why one (not relying on faith) should be agnostic about the claim "Jesus certainly existed". 1) The Gospels/Acts are overflowing with signs of literary fabrication. "Those who want to find a historical record in Mark face an even greater obstacle than the ambiguous evidence for Mark's literary borrowing of non-Jesus material to create Jesus stories. This obstacle is the fact that if Jesus' earthly ministry actually happened as Mark portrays it, the history of Paul's Gentile mission and the opposition it encountered would be incomprehensible. How could it be that neither Paul nor anyone who worked with him, nor his opponents, knew about Jesus' determined endorsement of a mixed community sharing table fellowship together? How is it that everyone somehow forgot that Jesus explicitly "declared all foods clean (7:19)"? In the pitched battles Paul waged against his Judaizing opponents in his epistles, any one of the many stories about Jesus' conflicts over Law observance would have been devastating evidence of the rightness of Paul's side, yet none are ever mentioned." Tom Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul, pp. 229-230 "A raft of scholars, including Randel Helms, Thomas L. Brodie, John Dominic Crossan and others, have shown again and again how this and that Gospel passage likely originated as a Christian rewrite of this or that Old Testament passage." Thomas L Thompson, Is This Not the Carpenter, pp. 113-114 "Yet, regardless of the difficulty, comparing Luke-Acts and Mark with this verifiable literary antecedent is worthwhile. A key reason is simple: in looking for a literary precedent to the Gospels there is no verifiable pre-Christian text which comes as close to any gospel as the Elijah-Elisha narrative does to Luke-Acts and Mark." Thomas Brodie, The Crucial Bridge, pp. 97 "While issues with the gospels are certainly not enough to rule out the possibility that there was a historical Jesus behind the gospel story, it also cannot be said with certainty that there must have been one. The lack of primary sources and the problems with the Gospel stories alone, would seemingly justify having some doubt." Raphael Lataster, Jesus Did Not Exist, Sources: We All Know They're Rubbish - pp. 35/73 "The use of cycles, parallels, repetitions, melodramatic characterization, stereotyped scene construction, inventing or presenting stories that replicate biblical narrative, unbalanced narrative with evident symbolic import, and a balanced structure-all these raise insurmountable objections. History cannot be quite so symmetrical. In addition there are any number of historical problems." Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts, pp. 151 Note: Nowhere in Acts do the authorities show concern that Jesus escaped justice. "Despite scholarly efforts to detect an underlying Aramaic original for Mark or Matthew, it is probable that all the evangelists wrote in the common (koinē) Greek of their day. Further, the vast majority of Hebrew Bible citations in the New Testament are taken from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint)." "Large sections of Matthew, Mark, and Luke repeat stories about and sayings of Jesus in nearly identical words. Hence these three Gospels are referred to as the “Synoptic” Gospels. On a linguistic level, both Luke and Matthew improve on Mark’s style, smoothing out inelegant expressions and repetitions. Luke eliminates Mark’s characteristic use of parataxis (one short phrase following another without indicating how they are related) by employing balancing particles and subordinate clauses. Matthew follows Mark’s outline, though the insertion of considerable sections of discourse material may obscure that relationship for the casual reader. Luke knows most of Mark but has no parallels to Mk 6:45-8:26; whether Luke chose to omit this section or had a different version of Mark remains unclear. Detailed analysis of the traditions shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke provides strong support for the view that Mark provided the template that Matthew and Luke revised, both correcting and smoothing out its language and expanding the Jesus material it contained." "While the Synoptic Gospels have a close literary relationship, the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, presents a much greater puzzle. Its chronology of Jesus’s ministry differs from that of the Synoptics. In John, Jesus spends three years preaching, during which he journeys between Galilee and Jerusalem; in the Synoptic Gospels, he visits Jerusalem only once, at the end of a ministry that apparently lasted less than a year." The New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV, pp. 1380-1381 2) The earliest Xtian writings (Pauline Epistles) are odd when looked at closely. Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-18, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-8). Paul's preexisting being was killed for looking like a human (Phili. 2:7), and his killers would not have killed him if they knew it was God's secret plan for mankind's salvation (1 Cor. 2:6-8). This makes more sense when looking at the Joshua/Jesus in the OT who tricks Satan and is exalted by God. Note that these verses have what can be perceived as symbolisms for flesh (dirty clothes= sinful flesh & Five Kings= Five Senses that enslaves one to sin & rules over us). So Zech. 3:1-9, 6:11-13, & Jos. 10:22-27 together symbolically has a Jesus in a flesh disguise getting hung in a tree, shoved into a tomb, and exalted by God to remove guilt of the land. Zechariah 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by. 6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day." Zechariah 6:11-13 11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them." Joshua 10:22-27 "22 Then Joshua (Savior) said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (see Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (see also Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)" 3) Verses held up as undeniable evidences for an historical Jesus have plausible alternative explanations. The verse Gal. 4:4b "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law," looks to have Jesus born of a woman, and is Jewish. But what Paul could mean is that "woman/law" is Divine Wisdom (Greek Sophia personified feminine wisdom/see Prov. 3:13-20, 8:1-36, Baruch 3:37, 4:1) in that Jesus was made all knowing unlike Adam. The verse Gal. 1:19 "but I did not see any other apostle except James the LORD's brother." is seen as a slam dunk for historicity. But Paul's theology is of spiritual kinship (Gal. 4:5-7) and everyone in Christ are brothers/sisters. Paul makes no distinction that this James is blood related to Jesus, and maybe "Lord's brother" is a cultic title? The verse Rom. 1:3b "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (2 Sam. 7:12) is good evidence for historicity. But 2 Sam. 7:12c "who shall come forth from your body," can mean God made a flesh body from David's semen for Jesus (it was a belief that the male seed contained the whole body). This is a convenient way to fulfill messianic prophecy for a celestial event instead of on Earth.
The anonymous author of Mark hints to the reader that it's entirely a parable in which the meaning is an inside secret (Mar 4:10-12) while referencing Isa. 6:9-10. This echoes Romans 11:7-12 (Deut. 29:4 & Psa. 69:22-23), :25-27 (Isa. 59:20, 27:9a). Some examples of the Gospels/Acts literary fabrication: Mark 1:16-17= Jer. 16:16a, Eze. 47:10a, :10c, 1 Kings 19:19-21 Mark 1:40-42= Exodus 4:6-7 Mark 2:3-5, :11= 2 Kings 1:2-4 Mark 4:37-41= Jon. 1:6, :11-17, Psa. 107:23-29 Mark 5:1-20= Isa. 65:1, :4a, Psa. 107:4-7 :10-14, 1 Kings 17:18, Psa. 78:49, Exo 14:28a Philo: In Flaccum "VI There was a certain madman named Carabbas,... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat,..." "Mark's imitation also retains some of the distinctive traits of Odyssey, insofar as both stories place monsters in caves, grazing animals on the mountains, and neighbors at the scene. ...Finally, just as Odysseus told Polyphemus to tell others who it was who blinded him, Jesus tells the Gerasene to tell others who it was who healed him." Dennis R MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pp. 73 Mark 6:48= Gen. 1:2c, Exo. 33:22, Job 9:8 Mark 7:28-29= 2 Kings 8:13-14 Mark 10:13-14= 2 Kings 4:26-27 Mark 11:12c-21= Hos. 9:1-17, 10:1-2, :8-10, Psa. 37:35-36a, Job 5:3, Zec. 11:2, Prov. 12:12, Eze. 19:11-14, Sira. 6:2-3, Zec. 14:21c, Isa. 56:6-8, Jere. 7:11, 8:13, 26:4-6, :8-9 "In other words, the beginning and end of the fig tree story is wrapped around (and contains within its center) the clearing of the temple. We saw Mark do this before, when he took the tale of the raising of Jairus's twelve-year-old daughter and wrapped that around a symbolically related story of the woman who had bled for twelve years. The purpose of this structure (called intercalation) is to communicate that the one story illuminates the meaning of the other. Mark uses this device repeatedly. In this case, 'the tree is a symbol of the sacrificial system whose time is now passed, hence 'it was not the season for figs' any more; therefore 'may no one eat fruit of you again'. Which finally, and perfectly, explains this strange story." Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 434 Mark 15:14-15 (Yom Kippur Scapegoat)= Lev. 16:7-10 (16:8=1 Cor. 5:5/Gal. 4:3, :9) Some examples of Mark being influenced by the Pauline epistles: Mark 14:51-52, 16:5= 1 Corinthians 15:47 Note: Historicists point to Mark 14:51 as an historical detail, but it's symbolism of mortal/immortal flesh. 2 Cor. 8:9= Mark 10:17-22; 1 Cor. 13:2= Mark 11:23; 1 Cor. 3:10-11= Mark 12:10-11; Rom. 13:7= Mark 12:17; Rom. 6:12-14= Mark 9:42-47; 2 Cor. 9:6-15= Mark 12:41-44; 2 Cor. 11:13-15= Mark 13:21-23; Gal. 5:13-15= Mark 12:28-34; 1 Thes. 5:4-11= Mark 13:32-37; Phil. 3:21= Mark 12:25; 1 Thes. 4:16= Mark 14:62; Gal. 2:11= Mark 8:33; Gal. 4:6= Mark 14:36; 1 Cor. 5:6-8= Mark 8:15. "They are the literary invention of the evangelists drawing on scripture and popular myth and literature." Earl Doherty, Neither God Nor Man, pp. 428 Mark has Jesus riding on a single colt/foal (young donkey). Matthew using the Septuagint (LXX) takes the prophecy in Zechariah as translated literally in that Jesus rides both a donkey and it's foal at the same time. Mark 11:7 "7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it." Matthew 21:7 "7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them." Zechariah 9:9 "9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Zechariah LXX "Rejoice exceedingly, O daughter of Sion! Make proclamation, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy king is coming for thee. He is righteous and a saviour. He is meek and mounted on an ass, even a young colt." Jesus reads from the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew/Aramaic in Luke. Luke 4:18-19 "18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”" Isaiah 61:1-2 "The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;" Isaiah 61:1-2 (LXX) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; 2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;" John takes a parable in Luke and reverses the Lazarus theme from "neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" in Luke to "Many... had seen what Jesus did, believed in him" in John. Also in Luke there's no mention of the sisters having a brother named Lazarus, nor does Mark, or Matthew mention him. Compare Luke 10:38-39, 16:19-23, :27-3 to John 11:1-4. :17, :38-45. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is very fishy. 🐟 Acts 9:3-8, :17-19= 2 Mac. 3:23-28, Tob. 11:7-8, :11-15a, 2 Mac. 3:34-36 Search: "Robert M Price New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash" Plato: Theaetetus "SOCRATES: In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, "his Truth" (a book by Protagoras) in secret to his own disciples." Philo: On the Confusion of Tongues "XXXVIII ...but to proceed onward to look at the passage in a figurative way, considering that the mere words of the scriptures are, as it were, but shadows of bodies, and that the meanings which are apparent to investigation beneath them, are the real things to be pondered upon." Plutarch: Isis & Osiris "11 Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related." "...Socrates says that the myth “would save us, if we were persuaded by it”. Myth represents a sort of back-up: if one fails to be persuaded by arguments to change one’s life, one may still be persuaded by a good myth. Myth, as it is claimed in the Laws, may be needed to “charm” one “into agreement” when philosophy fails to do so." plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-myths/ "In Paul's letters essential Christian doctrines are routinely called mysteries. The NT evinces other common vocabulary of mystery cults used with the same peculiar connotations, not just mysterion (divine secret), but teleios (mature [as higher ranking initiates]), nepios (immature [as lower ranking initiates]), skene (body [as discardable and unneeded for salvation]), epoptes (witness [to the mysteries]), etc." Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 97
Why is the sky blue? The Old Testament infers the answer 1,000s of years before modern science. Praise the Lord! Genesis (NRSV) 1:6a "And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters," 1:6b "let it separate the waters from the waters." 1:7 "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so." 1:14a "And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky" 7:11d "...and the windows of the heavens were opened." 8:2bc "the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained," Psalm 148:4-6 "Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created. He established them forever and ever; he fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed." Proverbs 8:28-29 "when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth," Job 22:12, :14c “Is not God high in the heavens? See the highest stars, how lofty they are!" "...and he walks on the dome of heaven.’" Job 37:18 "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?" Isa. 24:18b "For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble." "Finally, it is worth pointing out that the world picture of the Jewish people, as reconstructed from various passages in the Bible, was essentially the same as that of the Egyptians and the Babylonians. ...The flat, disc-shaped Earth is surrounded by a sea; beneath the Earth, there are wells and fountains connected with the upper part of the Earth as well as with the great deep, called Tehom. The Earth rests on pillars, and above it is the sky or firmament. Waters are to be found not only on the Earth or beneath it, but also above the firmament." Helge S. Kragh, Conception of Cosmos, pp. 10 So the sky is blue because a massive molten glass dome holds up an ocean. Also the reason why when looking over the ocean the dark blue does not mix with the light blue all due to an unpassable barrier. Who knew but the Lord. Even though the Quran mentions terrestrial salt and fresh water seas, there's references though vague are reminiscent of the OT's cosmology (perhaps a vestige of the OT?). Quran (Pickthal/The Clear Quran) (PICKT) 21.032 "And we have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they turn away from its portents." (TCQ) 21.32 "And We have made the sky a well-protected canopy, still they turn away from its signs." (PICKT) 25.053 "And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them." (TCQ) 25.53 "And He is the One Who merges the two bodies of water: one fresh and palatable and the other salty and bitter, placing between them a barrier they cannot cross." (PICKT) 27.061 "Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any God beside Allah ? Nay, but most of them know not!" (TCQ) 27.61 "Or [ask them,] “Who made the earth a place of settlement, caused rivers to flow through it, placed firm mountains upon it, and set a barrier between [fresh and salt] bodies of water? Was it another god besides God?” Absolutely not! But most of them do not know." (PICKT) 55.019-020 "He hath loosed the two seas. They meet. There is a barrier between them. They encroach not (one upon the other)." (TCQ) 55.19-.20 "He merges the two bodies of [fresh and salt] water, yet between them is a barrier they never cross."
We are all prone to the Holy Dopamine Gost via Placebo Faith. The evolution that increased our cognition still has remnants of the things that preexisted it. The ancient Theists/Philosophers thought that the *FEELS* was contact with a divine presence/knowledge. Just study the neurology of addiction, as well as how both drug and thought addictions are related (on a neurochemical level). The Armor of God is the Dopamine Reward System that fights off Demonic Reason. 😇🧠👻= 🧠👉🙏👉🧠👉🤪
@Justin Gary I have two questions, but first a word from The Word. 1 Peter 3:15-17 "15 but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God's will, than to suffer for doing evil." Two simple multiple choice questions in context of Paul the Apostle: 1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human (Phili. 2:7 "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,")? A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan 2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if they knew that killing him would fulfill God's secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will (1 Cor. 2:6-8 "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.")? A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan
@Justin Gary Your answer being all three does not follow logically for both questions. The Romans and Jews did not kill people just for looking like a human. Satan is the most logical answer. The Romans/Jews would not go against their highest God Yahweh/Jupiter (the Romans seen the Jews God as the same as Jupiter, but have differing beliefs) so once again Satan is the most logical answer. Stop looking in the context of the later Gospels, and read what Paul is saying. If you cannot be honest with yourself with these two simple questions then you'll never get it.
There are some appalling omissions from our state honours system. Richard Dawkins is one of them. Why has this man not got a knighthood for his work on evolutionary biology? Could it be because of his stance on atheism and religion? I am very proud that my children introduced me to his books The Blind Watchmaker and the God Delusion. I am not an atheist, rather agnostic with a hunch, not a dogmatic belief, that there is a deity, which I cannot define and an afterlife. However, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris have finished off any belief in the supernatural belief system of institutional religions for me. The possible origins of religions, including the Flavian Conspiracy and the Dead Sea Scrolls etc are highly interesting though. Keep looking for evidence Dr Dawkins!
Your children sound like bright you g people. You probably raised them well to have open minds. Curious as to what fuels your "hunch" . I used to feel similarly and in my case it was a habit of speaking to a companion in my head (myself?) and the feeling that i must reunite with my departed loved ones again. How is it for you?
Go with your hunch, it's probably correct. I have no religion either and i believe this Universe was created. I base my worldview on evidence and there is zero evidence for multiverses, many-worlds etc. None. As far as we know, there is one Universe, this one, guided by incredible fine-tuning, and that indicates to me that something created it. A creator that obviously does not intervene in any material or physical process of the Universe; it set-up the Forces of Nature and Cosmological Constants from the Beginning and let them run without interference.
@@claires9100 Well, I definitely have philosophical debates in my head, but I like to think I do not reach conclusions based on my own wishful thinking. Ultimately, my reasoning is based on the reality of existence. The concept of nothing only has meaning relative to the concept of something and we definitely have something. The nature of existence and the nature of the deity, or God, cannot be separated, for me. What is that 'nature'? That is the question. Universal consciousness?
Religion will survive Richard. I know how you would explain how the natural world and human race came into existence, through science and evolution. Evolution explains the human existence very well, but that's all it explains. How do you explain your own very special existence. Your own existence is a singularity, extremely important to yourself. How did that happen? Ask yourself three very simple questions 1) What happens to your existence when your body dies? (atheist answer, it will cease to exist) 2) What is the chance of you ever existing again? (atheist answer, no chance how could it) 3) What was the chance of you existing before you were born? (same situation as question 2, no chance of coming into existence, but you exist) Religion will survive Richard. Science will never explain your own very special (essential) existence to yourself. That singularity, your self.
We are all prone to the Holy Dopamine Gost via Placebo Faith. The evolution that increased our cognition still has remnants of the things that preexisted it. The ancient Theists/Philosophers thought that the *FEELS* was contact with a divine presence/knowledge. Just study the neurology of addiction, as well as how both drug and thought addictions are related (on a neurochemical level). The Armor of God is the Dopamine Reward System that fights off Demonic Reason. 😇🧠👻= 🧠👉🙏👉🧠👉🤪
As somebody who has done both, I would recommend psilocybin(mushrooms) over LSD if you're after the 'spiritual' kind of experience. LSD is more cerebral. Haven't messed with psychedelics for about 20 years though.
If you had a brain, that is. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
He is superhuman to not get more angry with American religious mania sufferers especially. No wonder they popped his blood vessels. I have lived in the US for 14 years and I try to deploy the Dawkins approach when I meet the pale faced god crazies listening to jesus-radio all day. Oops there I go...... failing again... "Absolute bollocks" is such a concise and accurate phrase and I have employed it since the 1950s.....
Bret Winestein asked Richard in their discussion a few years ago if he'd revised any conclusions he came to in his 1976 book 'the selfish gene' and then as in this interview he hasn't revised any of his conclusions. Is he trying to say he's never been wrong?
No, he's just saying he hasn't changed his mind about anything he wrote about. I think he might have changed his opinion about the title though - I think he wanted 'The Immortal Gene' but maybe it was the publisher who didn't want that. The problem with the title as it stands is that people who haven't read the book think he is saying that there is a gene that makes you selfish - and that's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that genes themselves 'behave' in a way to propel themselves into future generations even that is detrimental to the health of person carrying them.
@@L.Ron_Dow he's just an evo nut case. In the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LT): The universe is an isolated system that does not exchange energy or mass. A closed system exchanges energy but not mass. An open system exchanges energy and mass. The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation. If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT. You can't even get chemicals for life without breaking the 1LT. The earth is basically a closed system depending upon what exactly is being talked about. Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems, there will always be an end result of more entropy, but in an open system you can get order nonetheless yet the total will always be in favor of more entropy overall. Consider too that there is NO truly isolated system in the universe. That says that the 2LT is which is so well-tested, works in all systems. As mentioned, you have to get around the 1LT by explaining creation in light of it. Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it. I know, you can't do that either by known science. The 2LT does not prevent the first replicating cell from happening and evolving. Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder. We obviously have order on the earth such as snowflakes, salt crystals (which are very simple), also plants, animals, (which are complex), etc. Even still, those eventually break down over time. I'll give you a simple example of the 2LT. If there was a glass of room temp water and I put several drops of green dye in the water, would the 2LT prevent it from forming the word "cell" all in connecting cursive letters? Absolutely not. Nothing stops the dye from doing that. Now, will it do it? No because the dye will go where there is no order. What if though I had inside the glass a clear plastic mold also filled with water that forced the dye to form the word "cell". Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it. Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal. With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell. Does the 2LT prevent that from happening? No, not at all, but will it happen? No, not at all because the odds of such a machine to give such order is impossible. You never even reached natural selection because that takes life. Natural selection picks from what is there already. You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. Again, odds that make it impossible. Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order, it would do the opposite, like the proverbial bull in a china shop. In other words, it is atheists' science because they have to remain blind to reality. The science against them crushes them. It's a wonder how such ignorance is deliberately chosen. This guy is of a few that explain it well: ruclips.net/video/9dAA06Zfi4M/видео.html
@@chinookwind8535 I think you mean 'conceited'. I''m not going to disagree with you - as a human being he has some very poor people skills - but at least he doesn't go around pretending to follow a higher moral authority and then go around calling people 'losers', 'conceited', over-rated' and worse - he's not a hypocrite. When he uses ridicule, he ridicules people's ridiculous ideas - not the people themselves - even when they show signs of having being hit on the head too many times. Where's he's not over-rated is in his scientific understanding and the promotion of same - not only of *his* field of evolutionary biology - but that of science generally. He doesn't spout arguments 50 years out-of-date but uses up-to-the minute research.
He avoided the topic of consciousness. He touched on it but didn't address it. There is lots of evidence that says our consciousness has the ability to function independently from the brain. But athiests will say thousands of personal testimonies that basically say the same thing are meaningless. It's a great dodge.
@@CobraQuotes1 It definitely means there is more to life than meets the eye. While you can't prove these things are real, there are thousands of personal testimonies from people who have had out of body experiences during an nde. One person making the claim is anecdotal and can be dismissed. When thousands say the same thing it's phenomenon that deserves research.
@@Hury209 I've listened to him before and while I found him interesting he didn't address nonlocal consciousness. From what I've read no one can prove where our consciousness comes from or how it's generated. It's a debate that has raged throughout history. I believe Socrates talked about it. What intrigues me is the idea that people's consciousness can operate independently from their brain. Based on conventional wisdom it's impossible but it happens. All modern day Scientists can say is they're working on an explanation. Good luck with that.
Is absolute dogmatism is unjustified. No one can know whether there is a God or not. The people most likely to be in a position to know are those who have had a near death experience in which they believe they met such a being, but even they cannot be absolutely certain.
I know there is. I go by evidence. Losers ignore evidence. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
He still doesn't get that Theism is not in conflict with Science. Ironically, that's due to his religious-like commitment to Scientism. "Consciousness is something that arises out of extreme complexity....." Really Richard? Is that an established Scientific Theory or a presumption on your part based on your self-refuting materialist view of the world?
@@danielpaulson8838 A correlation is observed. There is no theory until a causal explanation is provided. Science won't be able to solve the mind/body dilemma until a major paradigm shift occurs. Consciousness simply can not be explained in terms of our current understanding of the material world. Dawkins is a hardcore Materialist. Materialism is dying. But you know what they say.....paradigm shifts in science don't occur until the guardians of existing paradigms die.
@@oldschoolsaint My Consciousnesses came about like everyone else’s. Yours too. Through the networking of synapses by the trillions. True beginnings of self aware consciousness begins at about 4 to 5 years for most people. That’s when your brain has made enough of the minimal networking for you to begin functioning in your own head. That, is totally observable. The most logical reason is that consciousness is an emergent property of our life experiences and the way we judge those experiences and store them as we develop our subconscious. Raise a kid in a different country, he believes in a different God. Till he develops enough awareness to see that too. Don’t listen to Dawkins. Just look with intellectual honesty for yourself.
@@oldschoolsaint I forgot to add, science and theism are not compatible. Only a modern theist wants it that way. They need to adjust their ever evolving interpretations of various global scriptures to try to remain viable in the wake if true knowledge over supernatural faith. Much of theism requires one to deny scientific findings. Theism is from pre-science. Once science began, so did the need for separation. Just ask Galileo what happens when science doesn’t hold up Abrahamic descended, Roman Catholic doctrine.
@@danielpaulson8838 The various scriptures make no scientific claims. I'm Christian. We make no scientific claims. Unless you're a biblical fundamentalist. Fundamentalist interpretation if the Bible is a recent occurrence. The Church rejected such reading of the Bible as far back as Augustine.
Important Ideas in this mans book. Not many people realize, it's really needed to understand evolutionary strategies that form in markets as well. As well as A.I advancement & machine learning.
At 25:00 approximately: psylocybin didn't do anything for me but perhaps it was not pure psylocybin in the mushroom powder that came in an unmarked envelope from overseas. Normally I would not do such a risky think but I was desperate to treat my depression and regular antidepressants stopped working (they had worked in the past). In fact I think I had had some diarrhea induced by this horrible-tasting powder. I will reserve my judgement however I have heard promising anecdotes about psylocybin.
_"perhaps it was not pure psylocybin in the mushroom powder that came in an unmarked envelope from overseas"_ now, that's what I call *"Having Faith."*
@@BeachsideHank “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane” - Marcus Aurelius
@@L.Ron_Dow Happy loser life to all you Dawkins followers. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Happy birthday, on Dec 25 to Sir Isaac Newton. A great man whose mind unlocked the mysteries of gravity , prisms, and other useful tools of mathematics!
Is interesting to compare Dawkins book with the Bible. As of September 2020 the full Bible has been translated into 704 languages, the New Testament has been translated into an additional 1,551 languages and Bible portions or stories into 1,160 other languages. Dawkins has a long road ahead...
Why do you love that loser? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Dear Dicky, do you think it possible that with all the information that passes between planets, between stars, between galaxes, between black holes, between Universes. Such as light of different wavelengths, radio of different frequencies, and other electromagnetic phenomena, meteors, as well as the curiosity of creatures such as our sending probes and imaginations? Could such a system be capable of being sentient?\ NOTE: I’m asking you to not judge if my question is a valid one, but if the above could be possible on its own standing? If not, why not, when we have no problem attributing the passing of information between brain cells as being responsible for a consciousness that can capture whole of life images? Please note, that what I get freely, I give freely, with no expectations of the lurks and perks that are prerequisites of what you have to say…?
@@Kotikjeff Sorry, you are going to have to be a lot more precise than that. I know he respects Jesus as a 'great moral teacher' (his words, and I can point to the places where he says so, not that Jesus proved anything) - so it's not him. You can't hate things that you don't believe exist - that would be irrational - so it can't be God (which is not a 'person' anyway - and all it proved was how worthless our corporeal existence is to it.) So, who are you talking about? Ken Ham? Kent Hovind? Candy Floss? Anne Chovey? They've never proved anything other than how you can get money out of a fooI. Sp, you tell me - and more to the point, *show* me where he says so.
@@Kotikjeff I am talking about Richard Dawkins - who are you talking about? Dawkins respects almost all reasonable people - what he doesn't respect is some people's ridiculous ideas (which he justifiably ridicules) or poor reasoning. He doesn't respect any claim that people have a right not to be offended by his comments - but as far a people go, he has respect - apart from these mentioned in the John Harris interview for The Guardian: Harris: "Do you really despise religious belief?" Dawkins: _"I despise people who believe something _*_without evidence_*_ and then go out and take action which _*_damages other people,_*_ yes. So, I despise people who whose belief in religion is so firm and so unshakable that they actually think it _*_justifies killing_*_ people."_ Harris: "Right, but your average devout worshiper who's sitting in a Pew of a Sunday morning you clearly don't despise them?" Dawkins: _"Oh, no, of course I don't, no."_ Harris: "What your feelings towards them?" Dawkins: _"Well I mean they're harmless, especially Church of England I mean, they're harmless, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other no, no of course I don't despise them."_ Wouldn't you agree with him? However, you still haven't told me who is the person Dawkins _"hates most"_ - and how you can show this to be true.
Don't you wish everyone was this intelligent, articulate and kind? We would have peace on earth. Blessing to you, Mr. Dawkins and thank you for bringing some light to the world.
Couldn't have said it better. Exactly.
To you it would be nice if everyone was a loser like Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block
more copy and paste of religious junk. You can’t prove any of your claims, so quit trying to infect other people.
@@budd2nd I gave science and you put on blinders to it.
@2slow2learn
Firstly we need to distinguish which nothing you are referring to. Do you mean the scientific nothing? Which can have a number of definitions. Or the philosophical nothing. (The absence of existence)?
In the ‘70’s and ‘80’s he put out two groundbreaking books, The Selfish Gene. and The Extended Phenotype. He invented the word/idea meme. His later books were tremendously influential especially The God Delusion.
He’s so articulate, funny and brilliant.
A true legend.
I think I remember that the word meme was taught us in college course in introduction to linguistics. That was back in 1970.
He's a true nut case.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
It is easy to disprove a Darwinian evolutionary creation, since the science fiction tale is still being called speculative science and it is being speculated in all kind of directions. One of its main evangelist, Atheist Dawkins is regarded as a story teller and a quack by many of his eminent congeners. Atheist Dawkins claims that the different creatures in the creation, like hummingbirds, peacocks, lions etc., could only be designoid objects, presenting only an illusion of being intelligently designed. The Darwinist evangelist coined the neologism, which he is also using towards the human eye, the human brain and all the other organs of the human body. The word designoid never made it to the Oxford dictionary or to any other respected dictionaries because of no definition that would make sense could be found for it.
Meaning of Designoid: That came up by accident but appears to be designed. This definition of the word Designoid is from the Wiktionary dictionary
Atheist Dawkins also coined the word designoid about 2 decades ago when he realized that his atheist brain was so confused and that his eyeballs were deficient to the point that brought him to conclude that they could not be the creation of an intelligent entity. He came with the conclusion that natural selection would be a blind and dumb watchmaker who created everything randomly and purposelessly. That did not affect the level of arrogance and haughtiness of the Darwinist preacher
@@piertinence so good to see people like you speaking up boldly against the absurdity of Dawkins. Bravo!
I credit Mr Dawkins for my enlightenment! Thank you Richard!
Yes, losers enlightening other losers.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Yes, He has a great intellect though it threatens many people who are attached to a god. I felt so liberated when I read his books.
He doesnt get religon the bible itsnt a science book yet he trys to compare them both it's a guild book for life it's why the free world is Christian and we have so much advancements other's have copied but civilisation as you see it was build on Christian beliefs many advanced civilisations didn't make it it's not a debate there is no evidence the free world could exist without the bible
@@claires9100 Just try applying his theories outside of the book. When was the last time you saw something create itself from nothing? Never? Right.
HOW did non life become life? where did the laws of science come from? where did the material for the big bang come from???????????? why are all the planets the same shape????why are they differing materials if we started from the same ??????
Have a friend who's a traveling salesman and Christian. In each hotel he finds a Gideon Bible, and inside the cover is a sticker asking if you're truly in despair and need help: call this number. And when you call it, you get the local liquor store. All the best of Amurka right there.
@@keithboynton Just equally suicidal
I guess the salesman isn’t Christian.
@@Everyday_Fitness_Solutions_LLC 😂😂
Love this guy! Love the idea of translating into all four languages! Dawkins keeps me sane and I so miss Christopher Hitchens. One of the Hitch's books with his photograph sits across from my toilet and I scold him for the cigarettes and booze...same thing my young beauty of a mom died from. So wish he'd been more moderate. No room in my home is without the Hitch or the Dawkins.
Imagine Christopher Hitchens' commentary on COVID-19. Whatever one's perspective, you know it would be a revelation..
@@j.a.erickson3121 He would take a jab at anti-vaxxers (no pun intended)
Hitchens was no great boozehound, according to himself! Did he even smoke cigarettes?
@@robertthomas4234 Hitchen's own wife told a reporter who asked about the boozing that he "might be an alcoholic" and the Hitch found that funny. As for cigarettes, did you ever see him without one? I adored the man and cannot conceive of how great a tour de force he might have been without the dulling of his senses.
@@lotusstar347 Perhaps the good lady spoke in jest
If I was in a hotel, opened the drawer, and saw The God delusion, I would freak out. What a brilliant move.
Only to nuts it's a brilliant move.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins must be thrilled that his science fiction tale of a Darwinian evolutionary creation has become the fastest growing pagan religion, and that it got him filthy rich.
Great to see Richard Dawkins still being savage with dogmatic religion and being thoroughly rational. He is 80+ and has lived a happy and healthy life. I wish him a few more decades of healthy and happy life :)
The world needs Richard Dawkins more than ever. Stay healthy, Professor!
@@davidbanner6230 World and humanity will outlive your silly religion, and it is happening right now Christianity is slowly dying, and eventually it will be put on shelf with other mythologies.
@ Evolutionism is a creation myth masquerading as a science. For evolution to have some credibility, life would have had to have been invested with an evolutionary mechanism from its origin as a microorganism, which could only be a sorcerous concept not supported by science. Natural selection is the main deity of the modern pagan creation myth
@@richardpeterson1383 "Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia.”
You habve referred to evolution as a fact. Yet in the 'Ancestor's Tale' you use probably, presumably, possibly, plausibly, and presumably repeatedly. This contradicts the very definition of fact. In 'The Greatest Show on Earth ' you acknowledge that evolution cannot be proved like a geometry theorem. You invent a new word 'theorum' to refer to proof for evolution because there is no absolute proof for evolution. Will you not acknowledge this at a popular level?
I read The God Delusion during lockdown and it was inspiring. It truly changed my perception of atheism and atheists. Open-mindedness, belief and faith.
In code Genesis 38 starting with the Hebrew for B and 49 letters on and on: The names Boaz, Ruth, Obed, Jessy and David appear; all in the genealogy of Christ.
I am so glad you read it. I was fortunate to have read it about 6 years ago and recollect the same mind-opening experience. I hope more people will get to. Have a wonderful life.
st, you opened your mind so much, your brains fell out.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@claires9100 try reading the Devils Delusion next :)
@@2fast2block ...you make snide comments about people's brains falling out and then you talk absolute drivel!
...you really ought to put the bible away and go and read some scientific papers regarding the origins of the universe. You will find that most do not claim that something came from nothing.
You will also discover that none of them claim to know the process by which this reality came about. Unlike your average theists making unfounded claims that their particular god did it all.
I look at Richard Dawkins with such admiration. His knowledge empowered speech that can create change in the world truly inspires young entrepreneurs like me. He is not afraid to speak his mind, not afraid nor bothered by backlash, and every one of his works are Intricately written with perfect precision. His level of scientific pursuit is awe inspiring and continues to wow the public with incredible works. Keep up the astonishing work, we support you!
Hes God.
Great point, well said
😬... maybe, look for other options...?
He's an inspiration to his fellow losers, not to those that actually think.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block yea like bro, you dont need a lot of braincells to understand that, idk line scientist really believe in magic like, "yea we know that in reality nothing can come from absolut nothingness, but we hope some type of magic happened and somehow the univers was created" at least this is what i hear when they are talkin
Fantastic video!
Thank you so much for a lot of brilliant questions.
“I Respect you too much to respect your beliefs”. What a Meghan Marlleish, arrogant thing to say?
The thing about Atheism is that it allows no quarter in tolerance to accommodate the many ways we have to adjust to for the sorrows that can befall the lives of people. Atheism does not come with means of forgiveness, which is an essential component for coping with the many pitfalls that can trap the lives of people. We can have all smart-ass pontifications in the world about how the physical world came about, but that offers no answers to remedy the demons that can haunt people’s lives, and lead them down paths they where they have no control?
In fact, by making people believe that’s all there is, they inhibit their motivation to search for meaning.
DB: Such a narrow interpretation of what reality is all about?
25-09-2022:DBDavid Banner
David Banner
James Wright :Ignorance is all you stupid people you have to live by...... Not Logic? You have nothing that compensates, or understands how people can lose their way? You live in evil ignorance, but you are lost like anyone can be so, it's not really your fault. You are deserving of forgiveness also?
26-09-2022:DB
“I Respect you too much to respect your beliefs”. What a Meghan Marklish, arrogant thing to say?
04-10-2022: D
DB : As a member of Richard’s fan club, you may remember a month or two back, I wrote an attention seeking post about how our lives can be interpreted in different ways, according to what we attach meaning to? I proposed that we subconsciously can disregard forces that may influence the reality that we exist in.
Now, such an idea will probably not be present in the consciousness of Atheists, even the carpetbaggers amongst them, because by the very nature of their perception, or perhaps the survival the self-image they like to project, they cannot allow what will destroy them?
Such is the case recognising the influence ‘need’ has in our lives.
I will not elaborate, because more can be revealed to those who explore themselves…. search and ye shall find?
05-10-2022:DB
DB: Such heartless wisdom, as if everyone has the opportunities as you have been fortunate enough to find in your life? As if there are none whose upbringing has not been subjected to bad parenting, bad teaching, bad associations and just bad luck, that for a myriad of reasons they didn’t know how to cope with, because they were not tough like you?
I don’t want to be critical, even though you may have stuffed all your understanding into a shopping bag, because it suits what you want to believe, which is your right? So it serves no purpose to point out how some religious guidelines trump your (probably well intentioned) Atheisms, but you are missing so much?
PS: please note I always use the same name..... Beacuse it's my real name... which you wish you could do.....?
06-10-2022:DB
L.Ron Dow
"by making people believe that’s all there is, they inhibit their motivation to search for meaning" this is like people claiming they have a right to have job. What's wrong with working for yourself? Give your own meaning to your own life? Or do they lack that ability? My meaning in life is to leave it a better place to be for our children than the one I was born into - and I didn't need to be told that. Perhaps you are saying that some people need to be told how to be a good member of society - and religion is for them (but you don't need it)?
DB: Does “working for yourself” entail taking some profound question, which everyone askes, at some time in their life, and making it sound like It’s your personal quest and immutable crusade..
07-10-2022:DB
DB: @L.Ron Dow : I already know who you are..... And some people sometimes really need a crutch to help them, while some people abuse people as a crutch to help themselves..... Regarding your no-one has the right to a job, when people are born into a community, they do have a right to some kind of life and some kind of happiness. This is where Atheism loses its way, what you are saying is "I'm alright Jack stuff you", because there's nothing else in your logic to live by?
DB: @L.Ron Dow : Truth without understanding and compassion is a monster.... "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive merc mercy?
And don 't use that to write me off as a creationist, we know your get-outs?
@L.Ron Dow : What the hell has that got to do with people asking "what have I done to deserve this"... Stop making it easy for me to shoot you down...? You always are talking about "truth" as if only you know what "truth" is......Then you go on about child abusers, because you - craftily - know it is an emotive problem? What about the "TRUTH" of what caused people to become child abusers, was it they were failed by their parents....they had lousy teachers.....they had horrible experiences themselves..... Are such things not "truths" also, yet in your shallow thinking they are somehow a separate species of humanity.... Stop trying to be a champion of "truth", when you don’t understand what you are talking about?
Put that in your next paperback...if you understood it?
DB: @L.Ron Dow : By pretending to be what you are not, and understanding what you do not....by omitting truths to suit your self-serving agenda?
DB: @L.Ron Dow : You will keep sticking your neck out, and I keep chopping it off... "but not at a cost or burden to anyone else “ Modern social systems are all (or should be) about sharing the burdens of caring for the disadvantages upon the whole of society. Not everyone likes the sharing, as demonstrated by your responses, yet the quality of life in enriched for the whole community, by such modern attributes.
For instance, the Nazis had a policy of doing away with defective children - even if they had normal intelligence - which resulted in a culture people accepting that it was ok to murder people who were deemed to be unfit? In fact, your philosophy is pretty close, but I don’t think you are aware of it?
DB: More off-the-cuff conclusions, with not the slightest evidence “we are the only living things that know that”, they have the nerve to talk about evidence for there being a god?
DB: @L.Ron Dow Wow! you mean you don't inflict your views on other people, oh come on dicky.
I have red the God Delusion. It is very important book. It gives a new view to religion but also to view our universe in a new way. One reason for this is your skill to lighten things through history. Thank you for your splendid work and courage.
Why would an absurd person be of help to you?
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@davidbanner6230 now there's not but in the past there was. I showed that and you ignore it because you can't get around it. You just felt something though to respond as if you accomplished something in your doofus mind.
@@davidbanner6230 let me help you. Go find a mirror and look at yourself. There is the answer.
Richard Dawkins looks great. I sincerely hopes he lives long and prospers as Spock would say.
It's his ending that won't be so nice.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
ruclips.net/video/PS5buGnHVZw/видео.html
@Erin K we are told to judge.
John 12:44-48
Hebrews 4:12
John 7:21-24
And much more bot loser you can't think and get the context right...
----Jesus cannot be saying that we are never to be discerning about ourselves or others. How would we know there is a plank in our eye or a speck in our brother’s? Think about other things he said in the Sermon on the Mount. He spoke about “hypocrites” (you can see the root work “critic” in hypocrite). A hypocrite is one who judges by a false standard. Jesus also said that we can’t “serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24). By what standard do we decide? He also warned about “false prophets” (Matt. 7:15). By what standard do we know they are false?
----Once again, the point Jesus is making is that we are not to judge by our own standard. Rather, we are to judge by God’s standard. First, I must judge myself by this standard. The more I am aware of the beams in my eyes, the more I am aware of God’s grace and mercy and Jesus Christ’s strength to help me. Jesus does not say we should not be concerned about a speck in our brother’s eye. He simply tells us that we will not be able to effectually help someone else with his issues if we have a telephone pole sticking out of our own eye. The more I am aware of my own “planks” and God’s solution, the more I can see this for you and help you.
-----It is interesting that I must see both my old nature and my new nature in their respective depth and height. In my relationships, I must be especially aware of “the sin that dwells in me” (Rom. 7:17) and of the spirit of God that dwells in you. That will help me keep myself from judging you according to my perverted standards. It is significant that the Greek word for “hypocrite” refers to a theater actor who wore a number of masks. Thus, a hypocrite is one who appears to be something he is not. The opposite would be someone who allows “into-me-see,” which is a way of understanding what “intimacy” is all about. In other words, I say to someone, “Here’s how Jesus Christ helped me, and he can help you also” (see Gal. 6:1).
Live long and prosper Dr. Dawkins. Indeed. He has opened so many eyes.
@@claires9100 too bad your eyes can't open enough to see what a loser you are.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@It is easy to disprove a Darwinian evolutionary creation, since the science fiction tale is still being called speculative science and it is being speculated in all kind of directions. One of its main evangelist, Atheist Dawkins is regarded as a story teller and a quack by many of his eminent congeners. Atheist Dawkins claims that the different creatures in the creation, like hummingbirds, peacocks, lions etc., could only be designoid objects, presenting only an illusion of being intelligently designed. The Darwinist evangelist coined the neologism, which he is also using towards the human eye, the human brain and all the other organs of the human body. The word designoid never made it to the Oxford dictionary or to any other respected dictionaries because of no definition that would make sense could be found for it.
Excellent conversation that will help free minds. Thanks for having Dawkins on.
Atheist Dawkins is getting old and securing himself through confirming his faith in the finality of death. He also got himself filthy rich by preaching a Darwinian evolutionary creation myth.
So nice to see Dawkins doing well. He helped make me who I am today. The God delusion helped me break free of my religious indoctrination. I was an atheist before the God delusions however I wasn't really interested in the debate and studying religious beliefs until the God delusion.
The church of Darwin is the fastest growing religion.
Considering that he views his atheist brain as a designoid object too badly deficient to be the creation of an intelligent entity, we can say that the darwinist priest is doing OK. 🤡
@@davidbanner6230 I had never thought that I would have to make an argument against the idea that elements of our anatomy like the human eye would only be presenting an illusion of being intelligently designed. Must admit that Atheist Dawkins presenting his views in impeccable literary English makes the nonsense easier to swallow. “Climbing Mount Improbable” that explored the organ’s complexities and explaining the “gradual ramp of improvement” of eyes of species evolving independently of one another." Darwin himself admitted that the creation of the eye through an unintelligently supported natural process appeared to be absurd to the highest degree, and then he still concluded that it was not insuperable, but did not elaborate as to how it was superable .
@@davidbanner6230 Of course atheist Dawkins atheist brain presenting only an illusion of design makes perfect sense. Nothing intelligent in it
@@davidbanner6230 According to darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins, natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view, which would create an insurmountable obstacle when it comes her creating the wings, which have definite and intricate purposes depending on the creature equipped with them. It is even more challenging than it would have been for a blind watchmaker to put together a precision watch. Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins answering intelligent design by making the case for a blind watchmaker is simply reinventing the absurd.
It's wonderful to see Richard Dawkins as articulate, engaging and sharp as ever - and, if this doesn't sound condescending - spritely as well.
He's a loser with loser followers.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block Without wishing to misrepresent Richard Dawkins, I think he has consistently stated he is not a cosmologist and that the origin of the universe isn't within his area of expertise. The theory of evolution is concerned with the evolution of life - once life has already started.
In any case, there is as yet no scientific concensus on how the universe began. Indeed it is as yet unknown whether it even had a start. No honest scientist will claim these matters have been settled with great confidence.
But let's suppose the universe did have a beginning. We actually still wouldn't know that it has a cause. We don't have any other universes from which to draw inferences about whether universes have causes.
But granting even a cause, what that cause is must still be demonstrated. Saying it would have to be a "creator" is an assertion that has a burden of proof.
@@joefriday2275 Our observable universe (and, one assumes, the universe beyond that, which is of unknown size) began expanding from an incredibly dense state at the big bang.
But we don't know what preceded that, if anything. For all anyone knows, the cosmos in the broadest sense could have already existed.
The fact that it isn't currently known what preceded the big bang leads me to conclude "I don't know", rather than "there must be a god".
@@joefriday2275 I'm not saying (past) time may be infinite (since I don't know for sure whether it is possible). Rather, I'm saying that I'm not convinced it's finite.
@@Lee_River "Rather, I'm saying that I'm not convinced it's finite."
Says the loser who clearly proved you ignore clear evidence.
Reading The Selfish Gene and then The God Delusion got me out of the cult of Christianity. Dawkins is doing great work.
Well enjoy your loser life with loser Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block no, you've got that backwards. Religion claims that the universe came from nothing. Science observes that there was never "nothing".
@@joefriday2275 Hawking disagreed with that too. He pointed out that there was never the theological "nothing". He was referring to spacetime, not nothing.
@@joefriday2275 a singularity is not nothing, so you just contradicted yourself.
@@joefriday2275 as I already pointed out: theologians and philosophers use the term "nothing" in a different way from scientists.
I'm really impressed how Dawkins mind is still this sharp despite being 80 years old!
He was never sharp.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Considering that he views his atheist brain as a designoid object too badly deficient to be the creation of an intelligent entity, we can say that he is doing OK. 🤡
@@piertinence Isn’t is awful when you ism your designoids?
@@markofsaltburn Although Darwinist evangelist Atheist Dawkins coined the word designoid over 2 decades ago, it has not yet made its way to any recognized dictionary since no definition that is making sense could be found for it. It goes with his preaching the nonsense of the eye presenting only an illusion of design. It was typo but designoidism could fit well in the quack scientist BS
The way he speaks is the way it should be at any Sunday service across the world
I live right next door to one of the most religious countries in the world . Richard's brilliance is a breath of fresh air from constantly hearing all this hell , fire and tarnation stuff from next door . Richard Dawkins is truly a godsend.
The god, Satan, that is. That is who Richard is from.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
I doubt if God sent him.
@@davidcooke6036 I didn't mean it literally. I was just playing the Devil's advocate and that doesn't mean I necessarily believe in the Devil either . It is just a figure of speech and it doesn't mean I worship Satan or anything because I am Atheist and Atheists don't believe in the devil.
Great conversation!
I discovered this legendry man during lockdown nd I am blessed enlightened nd desperate to just meet him once in my lifetime nd longing to read all his epic books ❣❣
Now you will learn not to trust to government and should not have locked down and please dont take the covid jabs.
QUESTION AND THINK CRITICALLY.
What??? I trust science nd I've taken my jabs
Did the scientists disclose to you about unknown side effects that are yet to manifest and why the companies have been allowed " legal idemnity" protection as they know there will be side effects and potential deaths?.
Also did the scientists inform you about the immune promoting natural foods that have been " scientifically" tested and verified to provide the body with what it needs for a healthy immune system to better prepare against antigens?.
Are the scientists that you trust, independent, non-partisan not influenced by big pharma and government?.
@@sumansaha2151 Have you done a background check on the drug companies, astra zeneca, pfizer, etc to see if they have a criminal history?.
excellent conversation. happy new year to all
Happy New Year to you too.
Richard Dawkins is one of our greatest thinkers.
You both don't think much.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block How do you get an all-powerful God from literally nothing? Was God just hanging around the whole time? All you are doing is passing the buck to magic.
@@therealzilch how did you get around the science I gave? Oh, you didn't. All you can do is bring up your loser question that proves what losers you are.
So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
@@2fast2block If you invoke magic, aka a "supernatural creator", then of course you can make up anything you want. But you can't explain the existence of this magical being, nor can you provide evidence for his/her/its existence. I can't explain the existence of the natural world, but that's a simple lack of knowledge, probably infinitely simpler (depending on how intelligent you suppose your creator to be) than yours. I'll stick with my simpler lack of knowledge, until I see evidence to the contrary.
But I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely. Cheers from cool Vienna, Scott
@@therealzilch oh wow, this was science to loser you that somehow proved the science gave and we KNOW is not correct...
"I can't explain the existence of the natural world, but that's a simple lack of knowledge, probably infinitely simpler (depending on how intelligent you suppose your creator to be) than yours. I'll stick with my simpler lack of knowledge, until I see evidence to the contrary."
You can't make your absurdity up. It's hilarious.
I'll always remember the cargo cult story from that book and did enjoy reading it. May God bless you and merry Christmas.
May Prince Phillip bless you and bring many containers of goods. 😁😂
@@stultusvenator3233 lol fucked up
I loved his book "The Selfish Gene". Been ages since i read it, but it was interesting to read
Why do you follow that loser?
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I know, reading his books are so refreshing. His prose is beautiful and his ideas are sharp. I am grateful that he has taken the time to share his ideas with us in such beautiful writing. A great man.
@@2fast2block Hmm...who said there was literally 'nothing'? How can literally 'nothing' exist? No scientist thinks that.
@@2fast2block Shows you know nothing.. He is an Evolutionary Biology Scientist, not Cosmologist or Physicist and Science does not say the universe came from nothing - actually the bible says that and uses magic spells to do so. Better you be quite till you learn the facts, better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
PS: To clarify please always state which god, to avoid confusion.
@@stultusvenator3233 "He is an Evolutionary Biology Scientist, not Cosmologist or Physicist and Science does not say the universe came from nothing - "
You and Nick ought to from your loser's club.
Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.”
Yep. again..."The title means exactly what it says."
Dawkins' "literally nothing": ruclips.net/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/видео.html
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book A Universe From Nothing that is something he prefers to call nothing. A nothing with space, matter, and time that somehow created space, matter, and time.
Krauss, “Some of this bothers people. But who cares? Quantum mechanics is illogical-just get over it.”
“But scientists have known for centuries that nothing is the key to understanding absolutely everything, from why particles have mass to the expansion of the universe - so without nothing we’d be precisely nowhere.” (New Scientist Promotions, 21 October 2013)
“We started from literally nothing; from empty spacetime containing solely the energy of the quantum vacuum, and have arrived at our Universe today, with its billions of galaxies, stars, and all that ever was or will be here on Earth. (The Physics of Nothing; The Philosophy of Everything, August 16, 2011)
Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
I love Dawkins
He has helped so many of us.
@@claires9100 he helped you be a loser too. How nice.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Hi Gwen. Isn't it nice we can appreciate Richard Dawkins because we have actually read his books and understand his vocabulary. I'm glad you and I are not the sort to be threatened by intelligence.
Have a wonderful life.
@@davidbanner6230 since you can't get around the evidence I gave, your dreams are a reality. You must be so proud.
What a wonderful surprise to find on my feed this Christmas Eve morning. Thank you for this interview! Tomorow, i will be watching the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope. Hope it goes well!
I am happy to say, nerved out as I was, so far so good - because knowledge (as a scientist that spend all My time navel gazing my own planet, not watching into deep space.
What a great Richard.
What a loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I agree. He is a kind person on top of being a great intellect. Could listen to him for hours.
Dawkins floating in space is a real treat
I can see an upside to it.....
A very wise an intelligent discussion. People need to realize the reality of our world and stop believing in bullshit, like conspiracy theories, religion and non sense
People need to realize the delusion of evolution. Stop believing in the unscientific story telling of evolution theory and abiogenesis.
@@mk71b really. Too funny. Believe in Santa Clause too.
@@mk71b Explain to me this. Why did God give human a tail bone if Evolution is made up?
Let's remember that belief can be separated from organized religion. Having a belief in something greater than yourself can be beneficial for many kinds of people, and for many different reasons. To be ignorant of that helps no one.
Organized religion is something different. It becomes less about belief and more about propagation. When you propagate a belief based on no empirical evidence it eventually becomes a conspiracy.
@@chiponyourshoulder6855 very interesting and intelligent comment. Appreciate your response
i was just looking for a new dawkins video
He still sounds so good for 80 years old
Yes. So happy to see him well.
Yep, he's still a loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block And the little child in me is asking - Mommy, who created god? See the problem is this kind of thinking leads to nowhere in understanding the universe. You say oh it must be god who created this but that total answer leads to no change, no ability to question anything. A stagnation.
Yes, soon he will experience dead and than he meets his Maker!! He has something to explain.🤣
@@stanislavdiamandiev1861 "Mommy, who created god?"
You are a graduate of Loser University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you losers, that one STU--P1D question is your cure-all.
So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.
Dawkins is so on point with all his statements. His mind is incredible.
Hes God.
Pure unadulterated perfection.
When he disappears into the restroom its to hide how much of a Jesus Clone he actually is inside. In complete denial of how brilliant the light is. Heating the room around him in an intensity only described as highly efficient cognitive processing. Above mortals see. Enhanced.
I agree. His mind is incredible. His books are so well-written. Enjoy.
The Greatest Exponent of Scientific Rationalism, Brilliant discourses on Evolutionary process , Grand ideas on human development, consciousness, etc..
7:17 I turned water into wine yesterday
I walked on water last winter
I'm sure you did. Dawkins followers are full of delusion.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Truly enjoyable! 🎉
Until the age of 30, I had no idol in my life, but after discovering Richard Dawkins' books, he becomes my idol.
@Margie Yes, that's what I meant. I like him but still not believe what he said without verifying by myself. :)
I am past 39 and I am still idle, :)
@@pivpo He's a role model to me also.
@@annegreengables6367 you are all sure goofs then.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
For me it were a creationist video I accidentally saw! Had never been a believer in religious delusions or had a need to imagine a need for a greater purpose but were OK with it comforting a few old ladies that thought the entirety of existence confusing, I were confronted with a guy that explained the entire universe is only 6000 years old which i just dismissed as him being a crazy person since that were my first encounter with a YEC, then he without even blinking explained the bible said that Adam lived 930 years! My jaw dropped and I felt like a soldier that in a combat situation develops PTSD when I investigated that claim, the bible really says Adam lived for 930 years, thinking about the billions of people blindly accepting that, my disappointment in mankind's ability to do logical thinking were enormous and it took days for me to recover, then I set out trying to explain to alleged grownups that 900 year old's were an impossibility, which apparently is impossible since they already have made up their "minds" that 900 year old's and fire breathing dragons, is a possibility and even a fact!
You don't think people can live a long time under the right conditions? If we can keep a machine running forever, just by taking care of it and replacing parts, you don't think that God could do it? He's already promised that if we trust in Him, we will live forever - and that's a lot longer than 930 years! :p
@@stevecobb12550 Why would you keep a machine running forever, machine technology evolves, and why we don't use steam engines to propulsion anymore or try to make gold from lead since human knowledge and understanding also evolves!
150 years ago the average lifespan were like our cousins the other great apes, 38 years, and only due to the theory of evolution, the cornerstone of modern biology that informs us that we are apes and in family with every living thing dating back some 4 billion years, have medicines been able to be produced. before that, all that so called doctors had to work with were herbal enemas, bloodletting and mercury shots. (the worthless act of prayers not included)
Homo Sapiens is only a some 300.000 year old species. I don't believe in a god or gods and never had, I ditched the idea of any Santa whether from the north pole or a sky Santa existing when I age 12.13, without even remembering being taught evolution, realized that dogs is a product of artificial selection while us humans and animals alike in the wild have come about via natural selection and have no intrinsic purpose other than procreating and getting along since we are a social animal, depending on others.
No, Magic and 930 year old's belong to the realm of Santa like tales and not something you'd expect a grownup believing in and equally devastating to the ability to learn and absorb knowledge useful to mankind as a species.
Teeth wears down while ears and nose throughout life grows (about 0.00866 inch a year) try to multiply 0.00866 with 930 and then tell me if you think that's a plausible size nose and ears a 930 year old toothless Adam would have to have thought with. I'm not a biologist or scientist but know there's something in human cells called telomers which is the limiting factor to lifespans, and nerve endings that makes us able to feel touch which doesn't go missing when we die, I'm a machinist, that also uses logical thinking, and have no use for imagining eternal life or magical sky daddies being responsible for my actions or morals.
lol belter
Yes still a lot of us will hold to creationism maybe not 6000 years old but certainly not millions.
@@gospeljoy5713 According to the bible the entire universe can maximally be 6000 years old, since it contains ages of people that added together doesn't exceed a 6000 year period, if the universe isn't 6000 years old and earth isn't flat then the bible is wrong, then the creator god describe as having made earth flat and 6000 years old either weren't the source of the bible or doesn't exist in the first place!
And all of science then, is that one big conspiracy that strangely enough is able to deliver predictions, documented results and actual evidence and have made the world into what it is today, but according to creationism only performed in order to "annoy" a tiny handful of uneducated ignorant creationists?
The universe's 13.8 billion years and Earth's 4.5 billion years age isn't arrived at by merely guessing and fantasizing like it is with Christianity, but actual science and facts, that in science is called theories!
With every fiber of my being... I feel that science/evidenced-based, "YA" (Young Adult)-category and/or children's (grammar/elementary-age) books--better yet, educational texts--could and would be constructively utilized by readers and educators alike. The publishing myth is about marketing and sales. Conveying a life-altering message is about writing. Could Dr. Dawkins, perhaps, consider an alternative publisher or the resource of self-publising on behalf of yet-to-be readers and his future endeavors? It seems that hindsight and retrospection would provide such a rich repository for contrasting and complementing forward-thinking content. Here's a belief: Dr. Richard Dawkins' capability to write the truth... and "they will read." The gap between gullibility and reason has gained so much momentum, it just seems natural to progress in such a way. #starvethestupidity #feedthefacts --from the Midwest, US.
Richard does not follow science.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Hello to the Mid West! Yes i wish the book had come out earlier. It would have saved me many years of 'searching".
@@claires9100 yeah, don't forget the 'rubbing' you do listening to Dawkins to get your 'excitement' as you ignore the science I gave.
Being on LSD or chewing on magic mushroom would help visualize the evolutionary voyage of some microorganism through billions of years of a random, purposeless and unintelligently supported evolutionary process under a blind and dumb watchmaker resulting in the creation of all the creatures on earth.
Bless you Richard Dawkins Sir wish you a long healthy life ❤
We all get to meet our maker some day.
ROFL
Yup and his turn is coming soon he'll still deny it
Richard is critical of people relying on theories without hard evidence, yet in the possibilities of delusion, how would we be sure that the evidence we have come to rely on, has not been tampered with on its way to our consciousness?
This was a thoroughly enjoyable discussion. Thank you so much! It kept me on the treadmill for the entire talk. I especially love what Dawkins had to say about how the internet can bring people of like mine together and that actually can be a bad thing at times.
So you enjoy that loser. Wiow.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Yes. I could listen to him all day! Enjoy your treadmill!
@@claires9100 then listen to your loser all day so you can be a better loser too.
Are you watching the launch of the JWST?
@@claires9100 are you rubbing yourself silly again to excite your loser life?
I love the book: magic of reality.❤️
Richard needs magic for his reality.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block
Stop trolling, you have no idea about science. Real or not, so stop talking about things you don’t understand.
@@budd2nd Isn't it wonderful that you and i can appreciate Richard Dawkins' intelligence and read his books because we are not threatened by the raw beauty of reality? Science is hard for some people. What a great man. Enjoy the interview!
@@claires9100
Yes I absolutely agree. And I really did enjoy the interview.👍
@@budd2nd of course you want me to go away since I'm crashing your loser party. Oh, you gave nothing to get around the science I gave.
It’s not surprising to me the ones who don’t think god exists are the brilliant minds and the ones who do well.. lol
Oh how off you are.
@@curiousgeorge555 I'm "off" but you just have no evidence why.
I will say this very respectfully sir/ma'am. This is an inaccurate statement. Please, consider all those brilliant Christian minds that have impacted the world. Please, look into it before stating such a big phrase.
@@j.r.d.a1930 screw the respect, they're losers by their choice who just go on ignoring science and those believers that brought so much of it to light.
@@2fast2block it seems you have some strong feelings against them? Do you think you can unbiasely analyze their contributions to the world?
I hope you can find the truth my friend, whatever and wherever it is found. Blessings...
A very interesting interview. I enjoy listenig to Richard Dawkins. Thanks for sharing this video .
Darwinist evangelist, atheist Dawkins starting from the premise, that all the creatures in the creation were created from some bacteria being taken through billions of years of a materialistic, natural evolutionary process.. Dawkins is also preaching the BS of an illusion of design and the idea that billions of years could make up for the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders to self assembled and be created following a natural evolutionary process. Darwinist atheist Dawkins calls the hogwash the poetry of science. Preaching nonsense in Shakespearean English does not make the speculative bullshit anymore credible.
he's looking pretty good for his age
His brain though, not so good.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
The God Dekusion finns ju nog redan på svenska. Men kanske den är utsåld.
I am also an atheist. It's God's will.
Awesome !
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."-Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden
Richard Dawkins asserts that there's no such thing as "evil." But I'll bet you money he locks the doors of his home, office, and car when he leaves them. The man is a moral fool and as irrational as they come. God help him because no one else can.
'Evil' exists only as an adjective.
@@davidbanner6230 It's a word that describes things (like nouns.)
_"Richard Dawkins asserts that there's no such _*_thing_*_ as 'eviI.'"_ That's right 'EviI' is NOT a THING in its own right - it has no existence of it's own. It denotes a *property* of the thing with which it's associated.
So, you can say: _'Putin's war on Ukraine is eviI'_ or even _'Putin is eviI'_ but you *cannot* say _'EviI made Putin wage war on Ukraine.'_
And, when Deutero-Isaiah, during his exile in Babylon, reports what he claims are god's words _"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and _*_create eviI_*_ I the LORD do all these things."_ Isaiah 45.7 KJV, we know he's talking poetically, not literally.
I'm surprised you need this explaining to you.
No explanation how material complexity could produce consciousness, just asserted that it does, like magic
That wasn't the subject of this video.
@@L.Ron_Dow Dawkins said consciousness arises out of the complexity of the brain
@@donrayjay I'm not disputing that - but this video was not the arena for discussing the details of that. This video was about his book.
Dawkins is a straight up boss
No, he's a loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I would love to see any video or text of him claiming the universe came from noting.
@@robertpv6639 guess you're too busy to find dirt on Dawkins even when it's given to you.
Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.”
Yep. again..."The title means exactly what it says."
Dawkins' "literally nothing": ruclips.net/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/видео.html
I agree. The number of people who have been freed by him is very encouraging. Have a wonderful day.
Given that the atheist Darwinist priest is regarding his brain as having been created through a random, purposeless and unintelligently supported evolutionary process makes it astonishing that he would be able to serve his delusional BS in such an impeccable English.
Albert Einstein said, “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance,”
Please apply this across the board. Who in their right mind would trust a politician to be honest? CMON WAKE UP.
@@thegroove2000 Except that it was not Einstein who said that but Paley. Kid, your mind is useless until you actually activate the on-switch. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Thats interesting. Share your sources please so I can check them out.
@@thegroove2000 Only children ask adults to do their work for them. Do your own research, kid. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337
You made the claim.
Now be a good chap and share your sources.
Of course I can search, but you brought it up so back up your claim.
Dr. Dawkins, please stay away from psychedelics. As someone in your age group who experimented with them several times when young, I hope you will stay away from them. I had a friend who DID jump out of a second-story window on LSD. I also spent time in the presence of Tim Leary and he had fried his brain from “too many trips”, he was barely functional. Please, please stay away from them. They can be , in my opinion, very risky for the brain....thank you both for this great video.!
Wonderful podcast and interview. I will never look at whales the same again.
I love Richard Dawkins.
Why?
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block And who created the creator? You did not solve the problem at all with your „supernatural creator“.
I love Dawkins too. His book gave me that last push i needed to drop religion.
Thank you Professor Dawkins.
@@claires9100 Richard pushed you so hard, your brain fell out.
@@2fast2block and your beliefs turned your thoughts to concrete?
RD is amazing.
He's a loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I understand the impulse to project consciousness into matter itself, but it's not science. I feel like consciousness is a loaded word though. It envolves perceiving the world as well as interpreting it, so that requires higher brain functions. I do suspect that any complex enough system might create some sort of subjective experience that in principle is entirely shielded from everyone else. I mean, without the capacity to store information, understand it and communicate it, this is just not testable, so not a scientific claim. But as a thought experiment, we could simplify the human brain and imagine if consciousness is maintained. Does a monkey brain have it? A dog? A worm? How about a computer simulation of a worm brain? How simple can you get without losing the subjective experience? Can a conputer ever reach any level of consciousness?
How do we get anything without God?
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
All very interesting questions. Yes. With the advancement of AI, these matters will become mire and more to the forefront.
Interestingly, and sort of shifting from your topic, there appears to be a discomfort in the West regarding the advancement of robots as we have this queezie feeling about a consciousness not coming from a god. Yet in Japan robots are embraced very comfortably because their culture never dichotomized the world into God's domain and human domain. Just appreciated the practical reality of matter conscious or not.
I’m a creationist but something about the abiogenesis theory has puzzled me for a long time.
DNA is this super complex blueprint that dictates nearly everything about its host organism.
DNA cannot survive without it’s host and the host can’t exist without DNA.
So help me please? Was the cell supposedly formed accidentally at the same time DNA was accidentally formed inside of it?
Keep reading.
It is unlikely that the first cells capable of Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection used DNA as their 'memory' - any self-replicating molecule capable of altering the phenotype of the cell will do. So, you claim _"the host can’t exist without DNA"_ is not strictly true - it's _become_ true after 4 billion years of evolution. It's like saying that there's no such thing as a Dodo.
Here's an extract from the Abstract of *"Montmorillonite-catalysed formation of RNA oligomers: the possible role of catalysis in the origins of life"* by James P Ferris
_"Large deposits of montmorillonite are present on the Earth today and it is believed to have been present at the time of the origin of life and has recently been detected on Mars. It is formed by aqueous weathering of volcanic ash. It catalyses the formation of oligomers of RNA that contain monomer units from 2 to 30-50. Oligomers of this length are formed because this catalyst controls the structure of the oligomers formed and does not generate all possible isomers. Evidence of sequence-, regio- and homochiral selectivity in these oligomers has been obtained. Postulates on the role of selective versus specific catalysts on the origins of life are discussed."_ Happy reading.
The 'raw materials' for assembly of genetic strands on the catalytic templates are naturally produced in places where volcanic activity and sea-water (or mineral-rich water from beneath Earth's crust, for example at sites like the Lost City Hydrothermal Vents) will also form the lipids to build vesicles that act as cell-membranes. You can even go to places like Hawai'i where proteinoid polymers have been formed by the hot/cold, dry/wet cycles of sea-water splasing onto hot volcanic rocks.
Really great stuff! Dawkins is such a beautiful human. One thing I'd like to say though is please never underestimate mushrooms. Yes the active dose of LSD is very little but mushrooms can absolutely replace you reality for a duration. As with most drugs, dosage is the factor.
He's a liar who hates what science proves.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
The thing that about Atheism is that it allows no quarter in tolerance to accommodate the many ways we have to adjust to for the sorrows that can befall the lives of people
Word salad!
As an atheist I feel sorrow, when my grandparents died I felt loss and sorrow for my mum.
Add believing I'm never going to see them again.
@@jameswright... : We know who uses that phase on a regular basis...Sheer ignorance....
@@davidbanner6230
Yes ignorence!
Ignorence on your part, the part of theist!
Everyone uses it in equal measure, we all feel pain loss sorrow fear love hate, we are all human and have emotions and they are human emotions with understandable natural explanations.
It's just unfortunate some theist are so ignorant of anything outside their delusion that they think their delusion is the reason for everything, that's pure ignorence!
@@jameswright... :Ignorance is all you stupid people have to live by...... Not Logic?
You have nothing that compensates, or understnds how people can lose their way? You live in evil ignorace, but you are lost like anyone can be so, it's not really your fault. You are deserving of forgiveness also?
@@davidbanner6230 One of the benefits of being an Atheist who has had to adjust to many of the sorrows that befall the lives of people is that *I don't have reason to think I was singled-out for such sorrows - or that they are punishment for some accidental transgression.* I never need to ask _"What did I do to deserve this?"_ I know that 'Stuff' happens!
I can remember "The Naked Ape" coming out in the late 1960s. Author, Desmond Morris, said he didn't know he'd be fighting a rearguard action for Darwin. A bit of a trailblazer for contemporary exponents of evolution, I think.
How do adaptations happen like with the Darwin Finches? The biological capability is inside of us along with all life including bacteria. It's called the epigenome. It does the adaptations while leaving the DNA unmutated. Hence, no evolution is involved. Antibiotic resistance? Same way. By the already-there capability of the epigenome. No on-the-fly mutations getting natural selected as the evolution story goes. These adaptations were called 'microevolution'. It was the first block in which the other blocks of the evolution story was built on up to all of the macroevolution schemes like birds coming from dinosaurs. All these blocks and framed 'evidences' are built upon a false precept.
Here is what the epigenome is about with a link into more info...
Definition of epigenome : the complement of chemical compounds that modify the expression and function of the genome Access to the genes is controlled by the epigenome, a layer of millions of proteins and other marks that attach themselves to the genome.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epigenome
Epigenome Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
From Evolution to Creation- Professor Gary Parker’s Testimony
Professor Gary Parker is a biology teacher who received his PhD in biology with geology at Ball State University, USA, in 1973. He has been admitted to Phi Beta Kappa, an American scholastic honorary, and was elected to the American society of Zoologists and also holds a fellowship from the National Science Foundation. He has written five textbooks on biology over the years.
Professor Gary Parker’s amazing story from an evolutionary biologist perspective to a creationist has been condensed from four radio talks where he reveals his astonishing journey of discovery.
Interviewer: Dr. Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist. Is that so?
Dr. Parker: Yes, indeed. The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe while continually progressing towards grander things. Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organised everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged. As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin, and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at the very least had no more involvement than to originally create the particles and processes from which all else mechanically followed. ‘Sin’ was merely the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest, and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering. With no God to answer to and no purpose for mankind, I saw humanity’s destiny as being in our own hands. Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.
Interviewer: Did your faith/trust in evolution affect your classroom teaching?
Dr. Parker: It certainly did. In my early years of teaching at the high school and college levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true. I even had some creationist students crying in class. I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution. In fact, I had a discussion with high school teachers in a graduate class in which I was assisting to encourage them to aim at persuading students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution!
Interviewer: I thought you weren’t supposed to teach religion in the American public school system.
Dr. Parker: Well, maybe you can’t teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all teaching the ‘evolutionary religion’! I have done it myself, and I have watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person’s thoughts and consequent life. Of course, I once thought that this effect was good-liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion and making a person’s own opinions supreme.
I read 3 of his books in prison.
I'd rather look out the window. Richard hates science and truth.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block blah blah blah
That's great they had it available. Happy holidays and best wishes.
Are you out now? I wish you a happy life.
@@claires9100 likewise
Long live Sir Richard Dawkins ❤
Dr Dawkins can always have a second career voicing C-3PO for Lucasfilm.
LOL, why does Dawkins' audio sound better. You need a "Jamie" my friend.
I get so much from hearing and reading RD ,,, realising and understanding the rubbish and lies that were “put upon” me through religion (ie Roman Catholic) asa child ,,, it’s such a relief to understand that it’s okay to Not Believe in that stuff I was brought up in ,, such wonderful freedom,,,
Now you're happy being a loser like Dawkins. How nice.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Discernment is most important
And Richard does not like to think much.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
What I don't understand about these cold hearted athiests, is not that they don't believe in God. That's fair enough. The evidence for them is simply not convincing. But it seems that they not only don't believe in God, they Don't want there to be a God. It seems like they would be dissapointed if something convinced them of God. I don't get that. It's like they don't want there to be a God. They want life to be all there is. Seems like death being totally final makes them happy.
Well, I'm sure you've got some fantasies on the reason (not that I think it's actually True) - most believers do have - it usually involves imagining unbelievers actively *wanting* to live an immoral, debauched way of life without being accountable for their 'sins'.
Having said that the Abrahamic god of the Christian Bible is a cosmic-thug threatening eternal punishment for the crime of a few decades of doubt - that's on top of it having a track-record of drowning all but 8 of the world's population (not even 'painlessly popping them out of existence',) ordering the deaths of sabbath-breakers, unruly children, men who love men, girls who get raped in the city, witches, apostates, ordering or assisting-in the wiping-out whole peoples who live where it wants its chosen people to call home, not forbidding owning people as property, the list of its atrocities goes on. Now, why would anyone in their right mind want to spend a eternity with that egotistical monster?
You may be right that there is some cosmic overlord, bribing you to join its club with promises of eternal bliss (like an angler who puts a nice juicy maggot on the hook) - but there is *absolutely no convincing evidence* that there is - it's all wishful (???) thinking and old fairy stories appealing to your greed & desires.
At least you're mature enough to admit you don't understand. In 6,000 years of recorded history there is not a skerrick of evidence to show the existence of any god. So you are correct - it is not convincing. I wish god would prove us wrong. Instead he turns a blind eye while billions of unmarried people fornicate (or have sinful thoughts about it) and then condemns them to hell for all eternity.
Excellentee 🙂 🤠
I read The Selfish Gene about 1980 at age 21 and it was the most influential book for me ever.
Now when I follow Dawkins on youtube I get more and more disillusioned.
Atheism in my mind is not about politics, not the flip side of the socialist coin.
I feel void of -isms, any religion or political system.
But I notice that Dawkins keep talking into the socialist topics and agenda. That puzzles me.
Socialism is in effect a religion on par with the rest of them.
Have Dawkins succumbed to socialism?
Whenever he uses a satire he hits on Bush, Thatcher, Trump ... all conservatives.
The most religions president on the parameter of number of times mentioning God in his speeches, Clinton comes out on top.
Why doesn't Dawkins trash Clinton? Just to do away with any political bias.
In this interview there is a raving about Qanon. What about them? They are just a funny fringe group. Getting tunnel vision on them is not sane, not honest in proportions.
There is a lot of honest skepticism about the whole corona mass hysteria from renowned doctors, scientists etc.
Why are all right-wing people summarily dealt with under the Qanon scare? I always associated with right-wing people f.ex. Free Press Society, I have never met a Qanon/conspiracy-nut and not a single violent person.
On the other hand I was on the board of Danish Atheist Society a few years ... and found myself among the most radical socialists and communists where criticism of islam was totally no-go. What a disappointment for the noble cause.
I just watched some history documentaries and the resemblance strikes me of the Stalin time when they setup bogus accusations and put 3 millions in camps on the pretext of dealing with real contrarevolutionaries. Most were normal, sane, honest, sceptics about the system. Don't you see how easily history repeats (on a smaller scale, admitted) but the human mind mechanism is the same.
About corona: I think forcing an untested new methodology injection drug on the world population is insane when the virus is not the least threatening humanity.
The surplus deaths are marginal compared to the natural fluctuation of cold/flu's we have lived with always. Suvival rate is 99+%, 99,99 for omicron (no deaths in Denmark).
Last week one - 1 - person was in intensive care at the National Hospital. A threat to hospital capacity? But the MSM is silent about such available statistics, they don't fit the scare mongering narrative.
A mass-psychosis, a fear-mongering is driving a reaction that is out of touch with reality and statistics.
In Austria, Australia, Canada they fine, imprison and build camps for unvaccinated. Can't you see this is evil on par with the vilification of jews?
And everybody were adamant that jews were a threat to humanity and had to be dealt with, driven by the state and "science" - just a few years ago in my neighboring countries. The human mental mechanism is playing out the script again.
Corona has become a religion - complete with injection communion.
I think atheism is beyond politics and replacing christianity/islam/judaism with socialism is nuts. One step forward and two backwards.
I see (at least) 3 main groups: religious, socialist atheists, freedom atheists.
I belong firmly to the last group. I am for complete freedom of speech, nothing censored, free market, economic freedom (low taxes) etc. etc.
This gives me nothing in common with socialism. So my entire life I have been associating with conservatives, right wing if you will, defined as above.
Far from all right-wing are religions so why is Dawkins et. al. alienating this important group of atheists who combines atheism with freedom on all parameters?
Dawkins is not God - you are allowed to pick 'n mix which of his opinions you find valuable. Like your comment, I will be filing some of his in the appropriate container. I disagree with many of Dawkins's positions - but that's ok, he's entitled to have them, just like you can have your crazy libertarian ideas: _"I am for complete freedom of speech, nothing censored, free market, economic freedom (low taxes) etc. etc."_ That is not the way to build a healthy society - it's more likely to build a collective of insular egotists with poor communal values - as long as I'm alright Jack, that's ok and if you don't like it, put your fists up. Tell me, would you allow underage, untested car-drivers and people being allowed to drive cars with no brakes, bald tires, no lights and worn steering?
_"Last week one - 1 - person was in intensive care at the National Hospital. A threat to hospital capacity?"_ Maybe that's a testament to the fact that Denmark has double-jabbed over 80% of its population.
The technology behind the 'new' vaccines is not all that new - it has been in the pipeline since the SARS, MERS and Ebola outbreaks and almost *10 billion* c19 doses have now been given administered world-wide - how much more testing do you need? It's probably more dangerous to eat a peanut.
Ultimately, I agree with you in that *absolutely no-one* should be vaccinated against their will - with the chances of death (which is not the only undesirable result of becoming infected) being about 30 times greater for the unvaccinated - we should see this as a brilliant experiment in Natural Selection.
You're not going to get liberty from Marxists.
18:46 It's a shame that Richard still can't consider the idea that the universe may be fundamentally mental. There's a reason that all ancient wisdom teachings affirm this view. There are deep and well thought out philosophical reasons behind these conclusions.
There are deep and well thought out philosophical reasons that conclude Achilles will never catch the turtle. Why do you think he hasn't looked at the arguments for a mental universe and just decided that they're mental?
@@L.Ron_Dow I guess because I respect him too much.
"Ancient" is just another word for "primitive," and all mysticism is superstition.
@@woodygilson3465 Ok.
As a proud CATHOLIC my soul many times disagrees with Richard but my brain continues to love his insight.
He does not have my insight.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block science believes in "moment of begining of time' this applies to all entities
@@2fast2block
Ah, the unknowing misunderstanding absolutely everything, but totally confident to spout with utter unawareness, without embarrassment and with a complete lack of insight to their crippling vacuousness.
You really are a wonderful example the Dunning-Kruger syndrome for our amusement. Keep it up.
@@Anicius_ this was meant to do what about what I wrote?...
"science believes in "moment of begining of time' this applies to all entities"
Did you just get the urge to let some of your gas out?
@@Tinker1950 The Dunning-Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.
So tell me with what I wrote I overestimated my ability. Tell me how the laws of science I gave were overestimated and are somehow not correct. Tell me how the conclusions are not correct. You conveniently and purposely left those parts out because you don't like to reason. YOU overestimated YOUR ability.
Three reasons why one (not relying on faith) should be agnostic about the claim "Jesus certainly existed".
1) The Gospels/Acts are overflowing with signs of literary fabrication.
"Those who want to find a historical record in Mark face an even greater obstacle than the ambiguous evidence for Mark's literary borrowing of non-Jesus material to create Jesus stories. This obstacle is the fact that if Jesus' earthly ministry actually happened as Mark portrays it, the history of Paul's Gentile mission and the opposition it encountered would be incomprehensible. How could it be that neither Paul nor anyone who worked with him, nor his opponents, knew about Jesus' determined endorsement of a mixed community sharing table fellowship together? How is it that everyone somehow forgot that Jesus explicitly "declared all foods clean (7:19)"? In the pitched battles Paul waged against his Judaizing opponents in his epistles, any one of the many stories about Jesus' conflicts over Law observance would have been devastating evidence of the rightness of Paul's side, yet none are ever mentioned."
Tom Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul, pp. 229-230
"A raft of scholars, including Randel Helms, Thomas L. Brodie, John Dominic Crossan and others, have shown again and again how this and that Gospel passage likely originated as a Christian rewrite of this or that Old Testament passage."
Thomas L Thompson, Is This Not the Carpenter, pp. 113-114
"Yet, regardless of the difficulty, comparing Luke-Acts and Mark with this verifiable literary antecedent is worthwhile. A key reason is simple: in looking for a literary precedent to the Gospels there is no verifiable pre-Christian text which comes as close to any gospel as the Elijah-Elisha narrative does to Luke-Acts and Mark."
Thomas Brodie, The Crucial Bridge, pp. 97
"While issues with the gospels are certainly not enough to rule out the possibility that there was a historical Jesus behind the gospel story, it also cannot be said with certainty that there must have been one. The lack of primary sources and the problems with the Gospel stories alone, would seemingly justify having some doubt."
Raphael Lataster, Jesus Did Not Exist, Sources: We All Know They're Rubbish - pp. 35/73
"The use of cycles, parallels, repetitions, melodramatic characterization, stereotyped scene construction, inventing or presenting stories that replicate biblical narrative, unbalanced narrative with evident symbolic import, and a balanced structure-all these raise insurmountable objections. History cannot be quite so symmetrical. In addition there are any number of historical problems."
Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts, pp. 151
Note: Nowhere in Acts do the authorities show concern that Jesus escaped justice.
"Despite scholarly efforts to detect an underlying Aramaic original for Mark or Matthew, it is probable that all the evangelists wrote in the common (koinē) Greek of their day. Further, the vast majority of Hebrew Bible citations in the New Testament are taken from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint)."
"Large sections of Matthew, Mark, and Luke repeat stories about and sayings of Jesus in nearly identical words. Hence these three Gospels are referred to as the “Synoptic” Gospels. On a linguistic level, both Luke and Matthew improve on Mark’s style, smoothing out inelegant expressions and repetitions. Luke eliminates Mark’s characteristic use of parataxis (one short phrase following another without indicating how they are related) by employing balancing particles and subordinate clauses. Matthew follows Mark’s outline, though the insertion of considerable sections of discourse material may obscure that relationship for the casual reader. Luke knows most of Mark but has no parallels to Mk 6:45-8:26; whether Luke chose to omit this section or had a different version of Mark remains unclear. Detailed analysis of the traditions shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke provides strong support for the view that Mark provided the template that Matthew and Luke revised, both correcting and smoothing out its language and expanding the Jesus material it contained."
"While the Synoptic Gospels have a close literary relationship, the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, presents a much greater puzzle. Its chronology of Jesus’s ministry differs from that of the Synoptics. In John, Jesus spends three years preaching, during which he journeys between Galilee and Jerusalem; in the Synoptic Gospels, he visits Jerusalem only once, at the end of a ministry that apparently lasted less than a year."
The New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV, pp. 1380-1381
2) The earliest Xtian writings (Pauline Epistles) are odd when looked at closely. Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-18, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-8). Paul's preexisting being was killed for looking like a human (Phili. 2:7), and his killers would not have killed him if they knew it was God's secret plan for mankind's salvation (1 Cor. 2:6-8). This makes more sense when looking at the Joshua/Jesus in the OT who tricks Satan and is exalted by God. Note that these verses have what can be perceived as symbolisms for flesh (dirty clothes= sinful flesh & Five Kings= Five Senses that enslaves one to sin & rules over us). So Zech. 3:1-9, 6:11-13, & Jos. 10:22-27 together symbolically has a Jesus in a flesh disguise getting hung in a tree, shoved into a tomb, and exalted by God to remove guilt of the land.
Zechariah 3:1-9
"1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by.
6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day."
Zechariah 6:11-13
11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them."
Joshua 10:22-27
"22 Then Joshua (Savior) said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (see Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (see also Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)"
3) Verses held up as undeniable evidences for an historical Jesus have plausible alternative explanations. The verse Gal. 4:4b "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law," looks to have Jesus born of a woman, and is Jewish. But what Paul could mean is that "woman/law" is Divine Wisdom (Greek Sophia personified feminine wisdom/see Prov. 3:13-20, 8:1-36, Baruch 3:37, 4:1) in that Jesus was made all knowing unlike Adam. The verse Gal. 1:19 "but I did not see any other apostle except James the LORD's brother." is seen as a slam dunk for historicity. But Paul's theology is of spiritual kinship (Gal. 4:5-7) and everyone in Christ are brothers/sisters. Paul makes no distinction that this James is blood related to Jesus, and maybe "Lord's brother" is a cultic title? The verse Rom. 1:3b "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (2 Sam. 7:12) is good evidence for historicity. But 2 Sam. 7:12c "who shall come forth from your body," can mean God made a flesh body from David's semen for Jesus (it was a belief that the male seed contained the whole body). This is a convenient way to fulfill messianic prophecy for a celestial event instead of on Earth.
The anonymous author of Mark hints to the reader that it's entirely a parable in which the meaning is an inside secret (Mar 4:10-12) while referencing Isa. 6:9-10. This echoes Romans 11:7-12 (Deut. 29:4 & Psa. 69:22-23), :25-27 (Isa. 59:20, 27:9a).
Some examples of the Gospels/Acts literary fabrication:
Mark 1:16-17= Jer. 16:16a, Eze. 47:10a, :10c, 1 Kings 19:19-21
Mark 1:40-42= Exodus 4:6-7
Mark 2:3-5, :11= 2 Kings 1:2-4
Mark 4:37-41= Jon. 1:6, :11-17, Psa. 107:23-29
Mark 5:1-20= Isa. 65:1, :4a, Psa. 107:4-7 :10-14, 1 Kings 17:18, Psa. 78:49, Exo 14:28a
Philo: In Flaccum
"VI There was a certain madman named Carabbas,... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat,..."
"Mark's imitation also retains some of the distinctive traits of Odyssey, insofar as both stories place monsters in caves, grazing animals on the mountains, and neighbors at the scene. ...Finally, just as Odysseus told Polyphemus to tell others who it was who blinded him, Jesus tells the Gerasene to tell others who it was who healed him."
Dennis R MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pp. 73
Mark 6:48= Gen. 1:2c, Exo. 33:22, Job 9:8
Mark 7:28-29= 2 Kings 8:13-14
Mark 10:13-14= 2 Kings 4:26-27
Mark 11:12c-21= Hos. 9:1-17, 10:1-2, :8-10, Psa. 37:35-36a, Job 5:3, Zec. 11:2, Prov. 12:12, Eze. 19:11-14, Sira. 6:2-3, Zec. 14:21c, Isa. 56:6-8, Jere. 7:11, 8:13, 26:4-6, :8-9
"In other words, the beginning and end of the fig tree story is wrapped around (and contains within its center) the clearing of the temple. We saw Mark do this before, when he took the tale of the raising of Jairus's twelve-year-old daughter and wrapped that around a symbolically related story of the woman who had bled for twelve years. The purpose of this structure (called intercalation) is to communicate that the one story illuminates the meaning of the other. Mark uses this device repeatedly. In this case, 'the tree is a symbol of the sacrificial system whose time is now passed, hence 'it was not the season for figs' any more; therefore 'may no one eat fruit of you again'. Which finally, and perfectly, explains this strange story."
Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 434
Mark 15:14-15 (Yom Kippur Scapegoat)= Lev. 16:7-10 (16:8=1 Cor. 5:5/Gal. 4:3, :9)
Some examples of Mark being influenced by the Pauline epistles:
Mark 14:51-52, 16:5= 1 Corinthians 15:47 Note: Historicists point to Mark 14:51 as an historical detail, but it's symbolism of mortal/immortal flesh.
2 Cor. 8:9= Mark 10:17-22; 1 Cor. 13:2= Mark 11:23; 1 Cor. 3:10-11= Mark 12:10-11; Rom. 13:7= Mark 12:17; Rom. 6:12-14= Mark 9:42-47; 2 Cor. 9:6-15= Mark 12:41-44; 2 Cor. 11:13-15= Mark 13:21-23; Gal. 5:13-15= Mark 12:28-34; 1 Thes. 5:4-11= Mark 13:32-37; Phil. 3:21= Mark 12:25; 1 Thes. 4:16= Mark 14:62; Gal. 2:11= Mark 8:33; Gal. 4:6= Mark 14:36; 1 Cor. 5:6-8= Mark 8:15.
"They are the literary invention of the evangelists drawing on scripture and popular myth and literature."
Earl Doherty, Neither God Nor Man, pp. 428
Mark has Jesus riding on a single colt/foal (young donkey). Matthew using the Septuagint (LXX) takes the prophecy in Zechariah as translated literally in that Jesus rides both a donkey and it's foal at the same time.
Mark 11:7 "7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it."
Matthew 21:7 "7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them."
Zechariah 9:9
"9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
Zechariah LXX
"Rejoice exceedingly, O daughter of Sion! Make proclamation, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy king is coming for thee. He is righteous and a saviour. He is meek and mounted on an ass, even a young colt."
Jesus reads from the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew/Aramaic in Luke.
Luke 4:18-19
"18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”"
Isaiah 61:1-2
"The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;"
Isaiah 61:1-2 (LXX)
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; 2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;"
John takes a parable in Luke and reverses the Lazarus theme from "neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" in Luke to "Many... had seen what Jesus did, believed in him" in John. Also in Luke there's no mention of the sisters having a brother named Lazarus, nor does Mark, or Matthew mention him. Compare Luke 10:38-39, 16:19-23, :27-3 to John 11:1-4. :17, :38-45.
The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is very fishy. 🐟
Acts 9:3-8, :17-19= 2 Mac. 3:23-28, Tob. 11:7-8, :11-15a, 2 Mac. 3:34-36
Search: "Robert M Price New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash"
Plato: Theaetetus
"SOCRATES: In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, "his Truth" (a book by Protagoras) in secret to his own disciples."
Philo: On the Confusion of Tongues
"XXXVIII ...but to proceed onward to look at the passage in a figurative way, considering that the mere words of the scriptures are, as it were, but shadows of bodies, and that the meanings which are apparent to investigation beneath them, are the real things to be pondered upon."
Plutarch: Isis & Osiris
"11 Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related."
"...Socrates says that the myth “would save us, if we were persuaded by it”. Myth represents a sort of back-up: if one fails to be persuaded by arguments to change one’s life, one may still be persuaded by a good myth. Myth, as it is claimed in the Laws, may be needed to “charm” one “into agreement” when philosophy fails to do so."
plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-myths/
"In Paul's letters essential Christian doctrines are routinely called mysteries. The NT evinces other common vocabulary of mystery cults used with the same peculiar connotations, not just mysterion (divine secret), but teleios (mature [as higher ranking initiates]), nepios (immature [as lower ranking initiates]), skene (body [as discardable and unneeded for salvation]), epoptes (witness [to the mysteries]), etc."
Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 97
Why is the sky blue? The Old Testament infers the answer 1,000s of years before modern science. Praise the Lord!
Genesis (NRSV)
1:6a "And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters,"
1:6b "let it separate the waters from the waters."
1:7 "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so."
1:14a "And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky"
7:11d "...and the windows of the heavens were opened."
8:2bc "the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,"
Psalm 148:4-6 "Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created. He established them forever and ever; he fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed."
Proverbs 8:28-29 "when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,"
Job 22:12, :14c “Is not God high in the heavens? See the highest stars, how lofty they are!" "...and he walks on the dome of heaven.’"
Job 37:18 "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?"
Isa. 24:18b "For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble."
"Finally, it is worth pointing out that the world picture of the Jewish people, as reconstructed from various passages in the Bible, was essentially the same as that of the Egyptians and the Babylonians. ...The flat, disc-shaped Earth is surrounded by a sea; beneath the Earth, there are wells and fountains connected with the upper part of the Earth as well as with the great deep, called Tehom. The Earth rests on pillars, and above it is the sky or firmament. Waters are to be found not only on the Earth or beneath it, but also above the firmament."
Helge S. Kragh, Conception of Cosmos, pp. 10
So the sky is blue because a massive molten glass dome holds up an ocean. Also the reason why when looking over the ocean the dark blue does not mix with the light blue all due to an unpassable barrier. Who knew but the Lord.
Even though the Quran mentions terrestrial salt and fresh water seas, there's references though vague are reminiscent of the OT's cosmology (perhaps a vestige of the OT?).
Quran (Pickthal/The Clear Quran)
(PICKT) 21.032 "And we have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they turn away from its portents."
(TCQ) 21.32 "And We have made the sky a well-protected canopy, still they turn away from its signs."
(PICKT) 25.053 "And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them."
(TCQ) 25.53 "And He is the One Who merges the two bodies of water: one fresh and palatable and the other salty and bitter, placing between them a barrier they cannot cross."
(PICKT) 27.061 "Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any God beside Allah ? Nay, but most of them know not!"
(TCQ) 27.61 "Or [ask them,] “Who made the earth a place of settlement, caused rivers to flow through it, placed firm mountains upon it, and set a barrier between [fresh and salt] bodies of water? Was it another god besides God?” Absolutely not! But most of them do not know."
(PICKT) 55.019-020 "He hath loosed the two seas. They meet. There is a barrier between them. They encroach not (one upon the other)."
(TCQ) 55.19-.20 "He merges the two bodies of [fresh and salt] water, yet between them is a barrier they never cross."
We are all prone to the Holy Dopamine Gost via Placebo Faith. The evolution that increased our cognition still has remnants of the things that preexisted it. The ancient Theists/Philosophers thought that the *FEELS* was contact with a divine presence/knowledge. Just study the neurology of addiction, as well as how both drug and thought addictions are related (on a neurochemical level). The Armor of God is the Dopamine Reward System that fights off Demonic Reason.
😇🧠👻= 🧠👉🙏👉🧠👉🤪
@Justin Gary I have two questions, but first a word from The Word.
1 Peter 3:15-17
"15 but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God's will, than to suffer for doing evil."
Two simple multiple choice questions in context of Paul the Apostle:
1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human (Phili. 2:7 "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,")?
A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan
2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if they knew that killing him would fulfill God's secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will (1 Cor. 2:6-8 "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.")?
A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan
@Justin Gary Your answer being all three does not follow logically for both questions. The Romans and Jews did not kill people just for looking like a human. Satan is the most logical answer. The Romans/Jews would not go against their highest God Yahweh/Jupiter (the Romans seen the Jews God as the same as Jupiter, but have differing beliefs) so once again Satan is the most logical answer.
Stop looking in the context of the later Gospels, and read what Paul is saying. If you cannot be honest with yourself with these two simple questions then you'll never get it.
There are some appalling omissions from our state honours system. Richard Dawkins is one of them. Why has this man not got a knighthood for his work on evolutionary biology? Could it be because of his stance on atheism and religion?
I am very proud that my children introduced me to his books The Blind Watchmaker and the God Delusion. I am not an atheist, rather agnostic with a hunch, not a dogmatic belief, that there is a deity, which I cannot define and an afterlife. However, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris have finished off any belief in the supernatural belief system of institutional religions for me. The possible origins of religions, including the Flavian Conspiracy and the Dead Sea Scrolls etc are highly interesting though. Keep looking for evidence Dr Dawkins!
Your children sound like bright you g people. You probably raised them well to have open minds. Curious as to what fuels your "hunch" . I used to feel similarly and in my case it was a habit of speaking to a companion in my head (myself?) and the feeling that i must reunite with my departed loved ones again. How is it for you?
Go with your hunch, it's probably correct. I have no religion either and i believe this Universe was created. I base my worldview on evidence and there is zero evidence for multiverses, many-worlds etc. None.
As far as we know, there is one Universe, this one, guided by incredible fine-tuning, and that indicates to me that something created it.
A creator that obviously does not intervene in any material or physical process of the Universe; it set-up the Forces of Nature and Cosmological Constants from the Beginning and let them run without interference.
@@claires9100 Well, I definitely have philosophical debates in my head, but I like to think I do not reach conclusions based on my own wishful thinking. Ultimately, my reasoning is based on the reality of existence. The concept of nothing only has meaning relative to the concept of something and we definitely have something. The nature of existence and the nature of the deity, or God, cannot be separated, for me. What is that 'nature'? That is the question. Universal consciousness?
Religion will survive Richard. I know how you would explain how the natural world and human race came into existence, through science and evolution. Evolution explains the human existence very well, but that's all it explains. How do you explain your own very special existence. Your own existence is a singularity, extremely important to yourself. How did that happen?
Ask yourself three very simple questions
1) What happens to your existence when your body dies? (atheist answer, it will cease to exist)
2) What is the chance of you ever existing again? (atheist answer, no chance how could it)
3) What was the chance of you existing before you were born? (same situation as question 2, no chance of coming into existence, but you exist)
Religion will survive Richard. Science will never explain your own very special (essential) existence to yourself. That singularity, your self.
We are all prone to the Holy Dopamine Gost via Placebo Faith. The evolution that increased our cognition still has remnants of the things that preexisted it. The ancient Theists/Philosophers thought that the *FEELS* was contact with a divine presence/knowledge. Just study the neurology of addiction, as well as how both drug and thought addictions are related (on a neurochemical level). The Armor of God is the Dopamine Reward System that fights off Demonic Reason.
😇🧠👻= 🧠👉🙏👉🧠👉🤪
As somebody who has done both, I would recommend psilocybin(mushrooms) over LSD if you're after the 'spiritual' kind of experience. LSD is more cerebral. Haven't messed with psychedelics for about 20 years though.
_"Haven't messed with psychedelics for about 20 years though."_ Are you sure? How have you determined that this is not just kind of trip?
@@L.Ron_Dow n
No, it doesn't work that way. It could all be a dream though.
@@motaparatu Ok, you're the expert.
One of our God given national treasures, if there were a god that is.
Yes. Dawkins has given the world a great insight. I am so grateful to be living in a time when i could read his books.
If you had a brain, that is.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Richard Dawkins looks different......old age does not come alone.
Well, we are all on that same treadmill! Lol! It is better than the alternative!
He is superhuman to not get more angry with American religious mania sufferers especially. No wonder they popped his blood vessels. I have lived in the US for 14 years and I try to deploy the Dawkins approach when I meet the pale faced god crazies listening to jesus-radio all day. Oops there I go...... failing again... "Absolute bollocks" is such a concise and accurate phrase and I have employed it since the 1950s.....
American religious mania? Ever heard of Islam?
Bret Winestein asked Richard in their discussion a few years ago if he'd revised any conclusions he came to in his 1976 book 'the selfish gene' and then as in this interview he hasn't revised any of his conclusions.
Is he trying to say he's never been wrong?
No, he's just saying he hasn't changed his mind about anything he wrote about. I think he might have changed his opinion about the title though - I think he wanted 'The Immortal Gene' but maybe it was the publisher who didn't want that.
The problem with the title as it stands is that people who haven't read the book think he is saying that there is a gene that makes you selfish - and that's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that genes themselves 'behave' in a way to propel themselves into future generations even that is detrimental to the health of person carrying them.
@@L.Ron_Dow he's just an evo nut case.
In the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LT):
The universe is an isolated system that does not exchange energy or mass.
A closed system exchanges energy but not mass.
An open system exchanges energy and mass.
The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation. If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT.
You can't even get chemicals for life without breaking the 1LT.
The earth is basically a closed system depending upon what exactly is being talked about. Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems, there will always be an end result of more entropy, but in an open system you can get order nonetheless yet the total will always be in favor of more entropy overall. Consider too that there is NO truly isolated system in the universe. That says that the 2LT is which is so well-tested, works in all systems.
As mentioned, you have to get around the 1LT by explaining creation in light of it. Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it. I know, you can't do that either by known science.
The 2LT does not prevent the first replicating cell from happening and evolving. Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder. We obviously have order on the earth such as snowflakes, salt crystals (which are very simple), also plants, animals, (which are complex), etc. Even still, those eventually break down over time.
I'll give you a simple example of the 2LT. If there was a glass of room temp water and I put several drops of green dye in the water, would the 2LT prevent it from forming the word "cell" all in connecting cursive letters? Absolutely not. Nothing stops the dye from doing that. Now, will it do it? No because the dye will go where there is no order. What if though I had inside the glass a clear plastic mold also filled with water that forced the dye to form the word "cell". Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it.
Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal.
With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell. Does the 2LT prevent that from happening? No, not at all, but will it happen? No, not at all because the odds of such a machine to give such order is impossible. You never even reached natural selection because that takes life. Natural selection picks from what is there already. You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. Again, odds that make it impossible.
Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order, it would do the opposite, like the proverbial bull in a china shop. In other words, it is atheists' science because they have to remain blind to reality. The science against them crushes them. It's a wonder how such ignorance is deliberately chosen.
This guy is of a few that explain it well:
ruclips.net/video/9dAA06Zfi4M/видео.html
Ya that's him conceded and over rated as hell
@@chinookwind8535 I think you mean 'conceited'. I''m not going to disagree with you - as a human being he has some very poor people skills - but at least he doesn't go around pretending to follow a higher moral authority and then go around calling people 'losers', 'conceited', over-rated' and worse - he's not a hypocrite. When he uses ridicule, he ridicules people's ridiculous ideas - not the people themselves - even when they show signs of having being hit on the head too many times.
Where's he's not over-rated is in his scientific understanding and the promotion of same - not only of *his* field of evolutionary biology - but that of science generally. He doesn't spout arguments 50 years out-of-date but uses up-to-the minute research.
He avoided the topic of consciousness. He touched on it but didn't address it. There is lots of evidence that says our consciousness has the ability to function independently from the brain. But athiests will say thousands of personal testimonies that basically say the same thing are meaningless. It's a great dodge.
Consciousness without brain =/= god
@@CobraQuotes1 It definitely means there is more to life than meets the eye. While you can't prove these things are real, there are thousands of personal testimonies from people who have had out of body experiences during an nde. One person making the claim is anecdotal and can be dismissed. When thousands say the same thing it's phenomenon that deserves research.
@@sampleowner6677 watch lectures by Anil Seth. You will find answers on your questions.
@@Hury209 I've listened to him before and while I found him interesting he didn't address nonlocal consciousness. From what I've read no one can prove where our consciousness comes from or how it's generated. It's a debate that has raged throughout history. I believe Socrates talked about it. What intrigues me is the idea that people's consciousness can operate independently from their brain. Based on conventional wisdom it's impossible but it happens. All modern day Scientists can say is they're working on an explanation. Good luck with that.
Personal testimonies are not scientific evidence, obviously they are full of biases and misinterpretatios. It has to be measured for it to be a fact
Is absolute dogmatism is unjustified. No one can know whether there is a God or not. The people most likely to be in a position to know are those who have had a near death experience in which they believe they met such a being, but even they cannot be absolutely certain.
I know there is. I go by evidence. Losers ignore evidence.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
He still doesn't get that Theism is not in conflict with Science. Ironically, that's due to his religious-like commitment to Scientism.
"Consciousness is something that arises out of extreme complexity....." Really Richard? Is that an established Scientific Theory or a presumption on your part based on your self-refuting materialist view of the world?
It’s based on observation. Seeking and knocking. Its crazy ironic that science follows Jesus’ advice and theists just stand outside the narrow gate.
@@danielpaulson8838 A correlation is observed. There is no theory until a causal explanation is provided. Science won't be able to solve the mind/body dilemma until a major paradigm shift occurs. Consciousness simply can not be explained in terms of our current understanding of the material world.
Dawkins is a hardcore Materialist. Materialism is dying. But you know what they say.....paradigm shifts in science don't occur until the guardians of existing paradigms die.
@@oldschoolsaint My Consciousnesses came about like everyone else’s. Yours too.
Through the networking of synapses by the trillions. True beginnings of self aware consciousness begins at about 4 to 5 years for most people. That’s when your brain has made enough of the minimal networking for you to begin functioning in your own head.
That, is totally observable. The most logical reason is that consciousness is an emergent property of our life experiences and the way we judge those experiences and store them as we develop our subconscious.
Raise a kid in a different country, he believes in a different God. Till he develops enough awareness to see that too.
Don’t listen to Dawkins. Just look with intellectual honesty for yourself.
@@oldschoolsaint I forgot to add, science and theism are not compatible. Only a modern theist wants it that way. They need to adjust their ever evolving interpretations of various global scriptures to try to remain viable in the wake if true knowledge over supernatural faith.
Much of theism requires one to deny scientific findings.
Theism is from pre-science. Once science began, so did the need for separation. Just ask Galileo what happens when science doesn’t hold up Abrahamic descended, Roman Catholic doctrine.
@@danielpaulson8838 The various scriptures make no scientific claims. I'm Christian. We make no scientific claims. Unless you're a biblical fundamentalist. Fundamentalist interpretation if the Bible is a recent occurrence. The Church rejected such reading of the Bible as far back as Augustine.
Important Ideas in this mans book. Not many people realize, it's really needed to understand evolutionary strategies that form in markets as well. As well as A.I advancement & machine learning.
Regarding conspiracy theories, it should be mentioned that the Christian right is one of the main disseminators of Qanon type nonsense.
Interesting. Do you have evidence for that, or you just sucked on your brain?
I think some people's consciences are fast eroding concerning what is right and what it wrong!
Thanks
At 25:00 approximately: psylocybin didn't do anything for me but perhaps it was not pure psylocybin in the mushroom powder that came in an unmarked envelope from overseas. Normally I would not do such a risky think but I was desperate to treat my depression and regular antidepressants stopped working (they had worked in the past). In fact I think I had had some diarrhea induced by this horrible-tasting powder. I will reserve my judgement however I have heard promising anecdotes about psylocybin.
_"perhaps it was not pure psylocybin in the mushroom powder that came in an unmarked envelope from overseas"_ now, that's what I call *"Having Faith."*
@@L.Ron_Dow Indeed! Lol.
I am I don't know why because I don't that just means I am not taking part in the argument that's circuital I find that frustrating
We are more than our intellect and ego.
Meditation practiced regularly will help you connect with your inner wisdom.
Your inner wisdom comes from your intellect and ego.
And drinking three glasses of Moonwater daily will unleash the inner child within.
@@BeachsideHank “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane”
- Marcus Aurelius
Merry Christmas my fellow atheists 😊
Merry Yuletide to you too.
@@L.Ron_Dow Happy loser life to all you Dawkins followers.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Happy birthday, on Dec 25 to Sir Isaac Newton. A great man whose mind unlocked the mysteries of gravity , prisms, and other useful tools of mathematics!
@@claires9100 and a man who had sense enough to believe in God. You losers have no sense.
Is interesting to compare Dawkins book with the Bible. As of September 2020 the full Bible has been translated into 704 languages, the New Testament has been translated into an additional 1,551 languages and Bible portions or stories into 1,160 other languages. Dawkins has a long road ahead...
Give it a couple of thousand years.
love you provser ritchard from marocoo
Why do you love that loser?
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thanks!
Dear Dicky, do you think it possible that with all the information that passes between planets, between stars, between galaxes, between black holes, between Universes. Such as light of different wavelengths, radio of different frequencies, and other electromagnetic phenomena, meteors, as well as the curiosity of creatures such as our sending probes and imaginations?
Could such a system be capable of being sentient?\
NOTE: I’m asking you to not judge if my question is a valid one, but if the above could be possible on its own standing?
If not, why not, when we have no problem attributing the passing of information between brain cells as being responsible for a consciousness that can capture whole of life images?
Please note, that what I get freely, I give freely, with no expectations of the lurks and perks that are prerequisites of what you have to say…?
Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thanks
If only he could prove something one day. He could go down in history in the same way the person he hates most has done already.
Who's that then?
@@L.Ron_Dow Do you really need any clues? Watch his videos.
@@Kotikjeff Sorry, you are going to have to be a lot more precise than that. I know he respects Jesus as a 'great moral teacher' (his words, and I can point to the places where he says so, not that Jesus proved anything) - so it's not him. You can't hate things that you don't believe exist - that would be irrational - so it can't be God (which is not a 'person' anyway - and all it proved was how worthless our corporeal existence is to it.) So, who are you talking about? Ken Ham? Kent Hovind? Candy Floss? Anne Chovey? They've never proved anything other than how you can get money out of a fooI. Sp, you tell me - and more to the point, *show* me where he says so.
@@L.Ron_Dow I think we must be talking about a different person here. There is no respect.
@@Kotikjeff I am talking about Richard Dawkins - who are you talking about? Dawkins respects almost all reasonable people - what he doesn't respect is some people's ridiculous ideas (which he justifiably ridicules) or poor reasoning. He doesn't respect any claim that people have a right not to be offended by his comments - but as far a people go, he has respect - apart from these mentioned in the John Harris interview for The Guardian:
Harris: "Do you really despise religious belief?"
Dawkins: _"I despise people who believe something _*_without evidence_*_ and then go out and take action which _*_damages other people,_*_ yes. So, I despise people who whose belief in religion is so firm and so unshakable that they actually think it _*_justifies killing_*_ people."_
Harris: "Right, but your average devout worshiper who's sitting in a Pew of a Sunday morning you clearly don't despise them?"
Dawkins: _"Oh, no, of course I don't, no."_
Harris: "What your feelings towards them?"
Dawkins: _"Well I mean they're harmless, especially Church of England I mean, they're harmless, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other no, no of course I don't despise them."_
Wouldn't you agree with him?
However, you still haven't told me who is the person Dawkins _"hates most"_ - and how you can show this to be true.