The Scholastics have an old axiom that says "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." Meanin in English : "Out of nothing comes Nothing". If you were to ever have an absolute state of non being aka "Noting", then something could never arise from that state of non being. From something to come into existence from absolutely nothing, it would need a cause, and you would have to say that it CAUSE ITSELF in existence. But for it to cause itself to come into existence, it would then have to exist prior to itselt to cause itself to come into existence, which plainlt violate the law of non contradiction. Therfore, somethin can't come from nothing.
@@christaime9812 that's why it's an old axiom. Information changes gradually with new found evidence which gives a better understanding of the nature of the world around us. But since you made that statement, one could argue "then who created god" because obviously if you deny that then your statement becomes invalid. Religion no doubt played a huge role in building human society but we're past that now. If anyone still has to follow religion, it should be for it's moral values, nothing more.
@@stephenfletcher5391 Hitch only had his own interest in mind. Christopher Hitch broke up an 8-year marriage for another woman when his wife Meleagrou was pregnant with their daughter, Sophia, in 1989, Hitchens abruptly left her for Carol Blue. Meleagrou threw him out when he told her, he was in love with someone else, Love for Hitch meant: “love yourself above all and don’t care about your neighbor”. Meleagrou said: "I literally threw him out". He did let his children grow up without a father and left his wife disregarding his marriage vows and his declaration of love to her. He left 2 children without the presence of a father in the home. It Shows he cared about nobody but himself, and his Unhealthy habits of always drinking and smoking. Anyone would have to be insane to believe this endless universe with about 250 billion (1.25×1011) galaxies like our Galaxy in the observable universe with, sun, moon and stars with a more particular turning than the seconds wiser of a watch. So particular that the object the size of a needle can make the universe claps. Any sane person would understand that life could not have happened by chance from totally nothing. We know there is only life on earth. Why not on other similar Galaxies? Of course, the alternative is believing that God exists and created this, therefore making one accountable for their actions. But this would leave atheists uncomfortable with their lifestyle of sin. Hitch now knows the price for it. _____________________________________________ The weird destructive ideas and morals of Dawkins are not just Atheism it goes much farther. Richard Dawkins has announced his divorce from his third wife, Lalla Ward, concluding their 24 years of marriage. The couple's romance started when they met in March 1992 during a surprise party hosted by their friend and author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," Douglas Adams, for Dawkins' 40th birthday. By that time, Dawkins had already divorced twice and raised a daughter from his second marriage. Ward, known for her BBC television series "Doctor Who," had also divorced after only 16 months of marriage with co-star Tom Baker. The 75-year-old evolutionary biologist had stirred the public years ago when he denounced monogamy and fidelity in relationships. In his article piece "Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster," Dawkins referred to "jealousy" in a relationship as "immoral and selfish." He defended that men should be allowed to keep mistresses and indulge in sexual pleasures with others. Dawkins wants to condone pedophilia. Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.” Dawkins said: “Other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher”, but concluded: “I DON’T THINK he did any of us lasting harm.” Dawkins tells an interviewer: “raising your child to believe in hell is worse than sexual abuse”. I have 11 children from one marriage, who all belief in the existence of Hell. No one of them has the fear for Hell. However, sexual abuse will do a lot of harm to pretty much all children. Dawkins, gave another dumb controversial advice to a woman who did not know what she would do' if she was pregnant with a child with Downs Syndrome and his advice was: “Abort it and try again, you have the choice It’s IMMORAL to bring it into the world”. What Richard Dawkins says is IMMORAL. There are 450,000 people with Downs Syndrome in the USA. What is the message to them and their parents? It would be better if you were aborted? If Dawkins had bothered to do any research, he would have come across a peer-reviewed paper in the October 2011 issue of the American Journal of Medical Genetics, which surveyed 400 people with Down's Syndrome, from the aged 12 and over. The outcome was,: More than 99 percent of people with DS indicated; they were happy with their lives, 97 percent liked who they are and 96 percent liked how they looked.' That's a weird kind of suffering. People with DS are fully functioning and happy. It is a task but they usually give more love back. Dawkins? Not an example to follow. Anyone would have to be insane to believe this endless universe with about 150 billion (1.25×1011) galaxies like our Galaxy in the observable universe with, sun, moon and stars, and 2 planets turning the opposite way, which makes the Big Bang impossible. And more than a trillion in outerspace and no life has developed on any of them. Any sane person would understand that life could not have happened by chance from totally nothing. We know there is only life on earth. Why not on other similar Galaxies? Of course, the alternative is believing that God exists and created this, therefore making one accountable for their actions. But this would leave atheists uncomfortable with their lifestyle of sin. Hitch now knows the price for it.
He knew it was going to be tough, possibly weeks in advance of the debate taking place. The rest was just the law of averages playing out in real time to his dismay, in front of him whilst being unable to do a damn thing about it. Hitchens did a wonderful job as usual.
The Scholastics have an old axiom that says "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." Meaning in English : "Out of nothing comes Nothing". If you were to ever have an absolute state of non being aka "Nothing", then something could never arise from that state of non being. For something to come into existence from absolutely nothing, it would need a cause, and you would have to say that it CAUSE ITSELF into existence. But for it to cause itself to come into existence, it would then have to exist prior to itselt to cause itself to come into existence, which plainly violate the law of non contradiction. Therfore, something can't come from nothing. Read slowly: - Out of nothing arises nothing. - Nothing cannot create something because nothing has nothing to create and no ability to create. - There is nothing in nothing that can cause something, because it's absolutely nothing. - If nothing had the ability to create, it wouldn't be called nothing, it will be called "something that has the ability to create something". And that is not nothing.
He was getting interrupted as he made his critical statement by "waffle waffle blah blah". Hitchens just ran away from the first cause argument by saying that it doesn't prove your God. The point is that there must be cause and Hitchens has nothing to add because he is dumb. No answer is the only way to be certain of being wrong and he is too dumb to even realise this very simple fact.
Frank wants to claim there was nothing and that god sneezed the universe into existence. Well, if God always existed, then there was never "nothing". You can't have it both ways, Frank.
Frank Turek is either ignorant or a lying con artist profiting off his victims. "mockery of religion is one of the most essential things to demystify supposedly holy texts dictated by god and show that they are man made" - Christopher Hitchens
Why does everyone keep saying that the big bang was an explosion out of nothing? everyone says that, but it's everyone who doesn't study does it say drawn in the etc. it's always just random ass people saying the big bang isn't real because it came from nothing. That's not the case that has never been the case.
@@knpstrr. Oh righy my bad I didn't realise your point. Well I'm not sure what Hitchens meant by that to be honest. Though I will say I don't think Hitchens is a genius, suppose he did make a mistake (maybe he meant something that did make sense idk, but let's say he did make a mistake), I wouldn't say one mistake alone like that would mean you can't be genius. Regardless, I think Hitchens was smarter than average, though not a genius, but he's not the best atheist in my opinion, I would prefer to read Hume, Mackie or Oppy for example.
@@setokaiba914 It is obvious what he meant, he was referring to stars going supernova, but nonetheless, this is the debate style of Hitchens. While he was undoubtedly a skilled debater, ultimately his points all revolved around childish insults after quoting some history/literature. Anyone that has ever taken a debate class knows that the person who wins the debate is not necessarily the one who is on the right side.
Hitches is a master of deception. The question: How can something come from nothing? Hitchens response: The universe, if designed, was poorly designed because stuff stops existing. Could the non sequitor be any more blatant? Hitchens is charming, engaging, creative, and articulate. But as for philosophical and logical rigor, the man is an artist in deception and rabbit trails.
Might want to read the rest of his writings and his interviews and to have actually spoken with the man. You speak of someone you don’t even personally know? That’s so convenient
I don't understand why Hitchens didn't fight the integrity of the very question. The question in itself already starts on a false premise. It makes the assumption that before the big bang there was nothing. And difference in meanings when a religious priest describes "nothing" or a scientist describes "nothing" are worlds apart. Where a priest might see a space of vast emptiness, a scientist might see a complex arrangement of gravity, quantum particles, elektromagnetic forces etc. What happened before the big bang will probably always be a question mark. But to say this "question mark" is equal to "nothing", is a very grave mistake.
@@internetexplorer7880 We are all slaves even to ourselves. When our minds becomes slaves to our emotions we are in a word of hurt because our souls are spoiled brats.
If I were debating in Christopher Hitchen's place I would argue this: If it is impossible for something to come from nothing, how do you explain the existence of God in the first place? From where did this divine creator come from so that he could create our universe if it is in fact impossible to come from nothing?
Alright, This is off the point of our discussion about Hitchens and onto the topic itself, but what caused time and space "as we know them" to exist? Do you disagree that the conditions [ontologically] prior to the big bang were timeless and spaceless? If so, you are the one stepping outside of mainstream cosmology. If not, then the question of causation remains pertinent and logically entials the attributes I previously described.
Uh no, it's not "nothing." There's a sea of energy in a vacuum, that's where virtual particles demonstrably "come" from. First law of thermodynamics. Interesting how the big bang and evolution both violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
4 года назад
Only nothing can be made out of nothing. Hitchens did nothing about that man's former question, which basically isn't even about God. Fedora atheists are just as good with semantics as they are with debating theists. They basically sound like babbling 5 year olds.
4 года назад+2
Question of whether the universe emerged out of nothing is only valid to closet judeo-christians. Before the invention of judaism and christianity, the question of the beginning of the universe was non-existent. Pagans observed nature and saw that it was circular; that death was always preceding rebirth. They just assumed the universe had no beginning or end; that it just always was and it didn't come out of anything. Universe as a linear being is a christian conception. Atheists just don't get it. Atheists are the biggest christians in the world. Their very psychology and language are based entirely in christian logic which gave foundation for the Western civilization. As defenders of that civilization, they are thouroughly christian in spirit.
It’s only nothing in the sense that we cannot measure the before moment to satisfy our human minds ... a huge percetange of the space in the universe looks blank nothing empty but no space is actually really empty according to the ancient texts the philosophers to science etc there is something there we just cannot see measure or fathom it to satisfy our minds...
So if everything came from nothing (according to C Hitchens) =, does that mean that includes C. Hitchens himself ? So what value does C.Hitchens have, (or his ideas) since he is also a creation of 'nothing' ??
Right back at you. If you’re insinuating a god is the only possible answer for our existence well then congratulations because now you’ve added two gigantic unnecessary steps which have no explanation. One, this god your supposing has always existed, has no origin and presumably came from nothing. Two, This god then uses magic to create the Entire universe from…nothing. So there ya go. Now you’ve backed yourself into a corner where you’ll need to explain two separate answers for everything coming from nothing. Go ahead….
@@timg7627 So it seems that you prefer to think (believe) that everything (suns, planets, space etc) came from nothing. Good for you ! Now if you try thinking that nonsense through a little, you will realize that nothing comes from nothing---that is an impossibility. Yet here we are, a living (conscious) part of all that is which you think came from nowhere !! Kindly explain your logic--if you can !
@@electricmanist ok then right back at you. It’s somehow too much of a leap for your mind to comprehend and have a reasonable expectation to conclude the brightest minds using decades of repeatable verifiable tests to conclude the Big Bang is our current best theory given the technology who have to explain our origins. While it’s somehow more plausible for you to believe a book with wild unsubstantiated supernatural tales and claims which was written by anonymous authors and has been rewritten, edited, re edited, added to and omitted from multiple times throughout history. A book that claims there is a god who’s always existed and presumably came from nothing. A god that after an undetermined amount of time existing in nothing decides to create an entire universe simply by utterly magic words to create everything from nothing. So you tell me. The later uses at least two major additional unexplainable steps of ‘something coming from nothing’ yet somehow this is more plausible to you. Explain that
@@timg7627 You raise a number of arguments against the existence of God so maybe I should respond from "my corner" ! It really seems that you are judging/evaluating God in human terms, or even somewhat less than human, as if you use an earthly magician's tricks as an argument against the existence of the Divine It might be difficult for you to come to terms with the existence of a supreme being, especially if you measure the capabilities of God in human terms, (as if a life form on this relatively small planet is your guide), rather than recognize God as creator of all that is. Now if you can suggest that you (and you alone) have the answer to the existence of the universe (let alone this one small planet), then I'm sure a Nobel prize,would be yours for the taking ! However, I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for this award, since there are many others with equally fantastic proposals --- mostly flights of fancy at that ! In addition, you fail to recognize (or even realize) that the basis of this universe is energy. That's right ENERGY ! Intelligent energy at that ! I'm sure you don't need me to go into the scientific explanations of the very nature of matter-- although I could just mention just what (atomic) power/energy can be released via an atom (uranium or hydrogen bomb. This power is the basis of all that is--including you of course, (not to mention the squillions of all the other life forms which surround you) , is the Divine Creator of all that is. God. It really appears that you have not cast your net widely enough if you are trying to explain away the very nature of all that is . Try harder next time !
At no point was there "nothing". There isn't even a demonstration that "nothing" exist. The universe has always existed, it just only started expanding 14 billion years ago.
When a person's information is not based on facts or evidence, their entire list of arguments are flawed. He watches this Frank moron stick his foot in his mouth and uses his own words and logic to disembowel him with. Like he's stuck the knife in his own belly and hitchens drags it across with Frank's own hand on the handle. Then the guts fall out.
The Scholastics have an old axiom that says "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." Meaning in English : "Out of nothing comes Nothing". If you were to ever have an absolute state of non being aka "Nothing", then something could never arise from that state of non being. For something to come into existence from absolutely nothing, it would need a cause, and you would have to say that it CAUSE ITSELF into existence. But for it to cause itself to come into existence, it would then have to exist prior to itselt to cause itself to come into existence, which plainly violate the law of non contradiction. Therfore, something can't come from nothing. Read slowly: - Out of nothing arises nothing. - Nothing cannot create something because nothing has nothing to create and no ability to create. - There is nothing in nothing that can cause something, because it's absolutely nothing. - If nothing had the ability to create, it wouldn't be called nothing, it will be called "something that has the ability to create something". And that is not nothing.
CounterNerd the Bible speaks of all creation in the first book. God makes it clear who the creator is unlike all other forgery religions. I guess you would also assume a human created the universe?
@@dealwithit1277 You're arguement is void of ALL logic. Seriously though that was a crap & 'oh so' ignorant comment to try & throw at that logical quote.
@@dealwithit1277 Wtf are you going on about you superstitious space cadet. You will never scare me with your talk. You are but a mere man recycling the same crap as the other believers. Again, I say, your comments are void to me & anyone with common sense. I bid you a good day...now eff off trying to spread your religious bs.
@@JustieCrustie Truth is truth. And then there is religion. Even atheism is a religion because all God has to do is exist. Why not ignore my words. If false then why do you continue to give so much life to it?
Christopher Hitchens. I know of no other human being with that man's scope of world knowledge and debating brilliance. He was a truly exceptional person who is very sorely missed.
"Because the universe is going to heat-death doesn't mean that there's no God." Granted, but it does mean that God is essentially the equivalent of a kid on top of an ant hill with a magnifying glass.
It's always funny to me that creationists find it hard to believe that something could come from nothing when this is exactly what their argument is! And also, as I've said again and again to others, just because we don't completely understand how the universe could come about on its own - or has always existed - does not mean that it didn't. After all, they have no problems believing that God has always existed and was self-created so why not just concede that we don't know and leave it at that?
God is by definition eternal and thus asking "who/what created God" is nonsensical. It is fair enough to say you believe it came about on its own - from nothing, but that is just your belief, you can say "I don't know, I just believe it" --- however, atheists don't like to say that.
@@knpstrr Fairly recent advances in theoretical astrophysics is beginning to put the kabosh on the Big Bang as we previously knew it, possibly meaning that the universe has always existed and therefore no creator (natural or metaphysical) needed.
@@JustWasted3HoursHere Yeah, ultimately that is a choice scientists are going to have to agree upon so they can get their story straight. It is going to be hard to prove, however, as long as their is a "consensus of experts" it will become the scientific truth. Science cannot prove the existence of God, nor would they ever come to such a conclusion, so we already know that will never be an answer from that community, we'll have to see what new theory they agree on if they want to abandon their current theory.
They gain no power over indoctrinating kiddies by admitting the truth" THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW". TUREK is just another lying for Jesus con merchant, the only time he has got one over Hitchens is lying to the kids he preaches to after Hitchens had died, he is the epitome of evangelical fundaMENTAList protestant professional proselytising scum.
@@knpstrrscientist could not give a shit about CLAIMED supernatural world or gods, scientist do not set out to prove anything, scientist make no claims, scientist do not start out with a conclusion and try to argue their conclusion to be evident, scient look for the explanations, to the what why and wherefore of the observables of the natural world, and explaining as best as current evidence known permits the reason for their conclusion. Creationist claim they already know , no amount of evidence will move them from their declared belief, belief is to accept as true that for which there is NO EVIDENCE. As Dawkins so rightly said, one cannot reason with the unreasonable.
For people ho dont believe, doesnt exist, ofr people that believe exist. If youre an atheist, even if I give you a proof, you wont believe. What is purpose of debate?
@silverstream314 The argument is, that it is exactly that morality that it represents. Just the way you read it isn't actually what you think it, or how its applied. In the verse you mentioned, based on a basic reading of what it says (indeed translated from an ancient semitic language into modern English) you get a completely different idea of a) certain words and concepts and b) of how exactly its applied. The Written Torah is the mold, the Talmud and rabbinical exegesis are the details.
I did, after years of study, counselling and meditation, I still find it impossible to not confuse the two verbs. I feel awful and publicly humiliated after once again proving to be a hard core recidivist in this matter. But nonetheless, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
No one is comfortable with uncertainty. The 'Y' in the road is the basis of the value of prior experience preserved so that choices become informed. With enough of such history and prior knowings somewhere along the line someone is going to ask about an 'ultimate' knower and maybe even posit such an one exists. That becomes a theory and basis of a faith. One may posit that faith is misplaced on historical grounds, but not if based on intrinsic experience and use of prior record of awareness.
Why do theists think that the universe coming out of nothing is impossible, but that an eternal being who is uncaused is more believable? Both propositions are outside the realm of human experience, hence either one could occur, and since the universe coming out of nothing is the more parsimonious of the two explanations, logically it makes more sense to assume that the universe came out of nothing, inexplicably, than to add another mystery like God, and say he inexplicably exists.
There is really only one measure of a government, society, religion, family or person: Do they promote love, kindness and justice - or hate, division and injustice. What do you see and hear around you? And, will you believe your own eyes and ears, or rely of what you're told? As a wise man said 2500 years ago; “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” ― Buddha Siddhartha Guatama Shakyamuni
Comparing the universe to a typewriter is just the debunked Watchmaker analogy all over again. We know typewriters are created because we have something akin to compare them to, and the fact typewriters are not naturally occurring outside of human intervention. However, there is no evidence that a universe needs a creator because there is no other universe to compare and contrast to. Not to mention that flawed argument would mean god would have needed an intelligent creator to create him, and so on.
In order to understand how universe came from nothing, following procedure should be followed: 1. After waking from a dream, ask yourself the question: What was present in my dream which is also present in the universe? The answer to the above question is doubtlessly “I”. I was present in dream and I am also present in the universe. Since the body-mind of the dream is not present in the universe and also the body-mind of the universe was not present in my dream, hence it is clear that I who was present in my dream as well as in the universe is not body- mind. Ask from yourself another question: What am I other than body-mind? Don’t try to reply, the answer will come automatically as the experience of being conscious without body-mind.
Also, the lighting example is a valid explanation for why truth cannot be a democracy. Lighting is either caused by angry gods, or it isn't. It doesn't matter what our opinion of the matter is - lighting's cause does not depend on us. If every person on the planet believes that a god exists, that doesn't sway the truth value of the cosmos. There either is a god(s) or isn't, and our opinion of the matter is essentially meaningless.
the fact that there is "being" now proves that there was "being" before. Once it was, then always it will "have been". existential deduction my friends. oouch
It is so compelling to listen to Hitchens. I would just love to be able to debate as he does. He is so correct about our submission to ancient nonsense and our need to grow up, admit our frailties and make a collective effort to properly research and investigate our origins in a verifiable manner without all the mythical, faith based nonsense so often presented by religious literalists.
I say let's put religion on trial for A. It's veracity (important - because of original sin and the promise of eternal life) and B. Crimes against humanity. Then we will see how completely sinister it really is and expose it's hideous underbelly.
Indulge us in the language you superior "modern" mind created? Or throw us a bone and tell us about mathematics that carries your name sake? Ancient nonsense huh? Nice anecdotal attempt at an argument. 😂😂😂
Btw the quote " Science without religion is lame , religion without science is blind " Albert Einstein , was quoted in a debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens by Tony on religion being a force of good or not . Without any opposition to the quote .
@gurufabbes1 Some of the quotes I gave are quite unambiguous. It clearly says that you should kill blasphemers for example, without any ambiguity in the language or wording. I cannot under any circumstances find this to be contained within 'proper' morality.
It's difficult to erase thousands of years of brainwashing and fear. Christopher Hitchens is trying his best every day to bring us out of this religious delusion. He's a brave and intelligent man who has found the key to rational thinking without anger, prejudice or violence, things so many of us are prone to when we are disagreed with. I hope he is around for many more years.
Which arguments are you referring to? All I saw was your quotes and your painting metaphor, and I addressed both of those. The youtube comments character limit makes following this conversation a bit clunky though, and I may have missed something, or forgotten something you said. And yes, thanks to you as well. I enjoy having an actual discussion on here instead of the usual shouting matches lol
@gurufabbes1 "it's the laws of a different society which we know today", which is the whole point. Morality changes. Slavery was not considered immoral a couple of hundred years ago; today, it is unthinkable. Thus it does not come from a higher power, it is formed by our society.
@THEEVANTHETOON Do you mind explaining the part about the universe eventually turning into heat? Is this quoted from somewhere? Something to keep in mind though; when we talk about these stuff, the time involved is very large (mind booglingly long) and I still really perplexed as to why people would want to know such an answer as it seems they can't even manage with learning human history. Taking the argument into infinity, its just to open minds to possibilities. Is that alright?
(cont'd)...the fact remains that mainstream cosmology is quite supportive of the idea that time and space came into existence. There are good philosophical and logical reasons to believe that this coming into existence of time and space is most reasonably thought to have been brought about by a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensely powerful, personal, cause. The fact that one cannot infer Christian theism from this makes it no weaker evidence in favor of the existence of a god.
It was once believed that the universe existed forever. Now not even the concept of infinite universe can be theoretically sustained. Therefore the second law very much applies..
@silverstream314 The victim is by no means forced to marry their rapist. It is the rapist who is obligated to marry HER, if SHE chooses. Indeed, the case of 'rape' is not necessarily the case that is being referred to, it refers to any case where a man sleeps with an unmarried or betrothed woman, forced or not. It lays out the responsibility of the man to pay for such an act. Again, whether one likes it or not, it's the laws of a different society which we know today.
To elaborate upon one of Hitchens' mentioned references, the idea that everything in the universe was created solely for us is tantamount to the Chinese taking over the *entire* North American continent for the sole purpose of placing a dog house in the southeastern corner of Nebraska. It just doesn't make sense on that scale. Even consider that Christians persecuted Galileo/Socrates for suggesting that our solar system were heliocentric, and did not revolve around the earth. -_-
@rpaslux ... The Big Bang term was coined for a theory put forward by a Catholic Priest about how the universe was formed. My understanding is that the theologians (in the RC church anyway) knew that there was not "no thing" before the Big Bang, but something other than what we know now ( in terms of space dust etc )
What choice, and by whom, was made for the submarine volcano to erupt to create the island of Surtsey? What a ridiculous statement that something to go from non-existence to existence requires a choice!
Hitchens demonstrated very effective command of rhetoric and debate here by successfully luring Turek down numerous irrelevant rabbit trails. But the question was how can something come from nothing. Hitchens studiously avoided the actual question, pretended that galaxies exploding has some relevance to the question and, when pressed, merely reverted to his standard critique that believers believe in an unfair God. Hitchens was a man of powerful intellect and devastatingly effective expression. That he did not answer the question suggests strongly that he could not answer the question.
A lot of believers have this quarrel with his response, but it's really quite simple. Christians want a direct answer to the question. The honest answer is we don't know. Had Christopher left his response to that, Frank (and more importantly the listeners) can use that as confirmation of a creator. In short, not knowing how something comes from nothing does nothing to prove the existence of the supernatural. It's a non-sequitur question. His most direct answer to this question was from 2:08-2:16 To know more of where our universe came from, I recommend Lawrence Krauss' book: "A Universe from Nothing: Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?". There is synopsis of the book by him on RUclips. I hope this response was helpful
@@Finalh0pe_YT Thank you Cameron for a courteous response. Hitchens was well know for "Hitchens's Razor", sometimes summarized as "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." It was an artful, and I think effective, way of forcing the burden of proof onto believers, at least to the extent that only empirical evidence might be admitted as relevant. At 2:08 he re-asserts this position. Although we see in this clip Turek being drawn primarily into inferences from empirical observation, Turek had previously posed, and poses again here, philosophical evidence : Hitchens's own ability (indeed *man's* ability) to reach moral conclusions. In my opinion Hitchens never treated that argument fairly, here or elsewhere in clips I've seen (of course I haven't seen or read everything he said). There would have been nothing wrong, and much right, in Hitchens answering as you did : we don't know, and our ignorance alone provides no evidence for the existence of God. Yes, some would conclude that persistent questions on which man remains ignorant provide evidence for God, but even serious believers argue against this "God of the gaps" position, a God of empirical power only who continually retreats as science advances, and Hitchens could have done so with great effectiveness. I've seen several references and summaries of Krauss's book, including this brief one by Krauss himself : ruclips.net/video/9urEFoaI1iY/видео.html. If I've understood him correctly he is re-defining "nothing" to mean not (in fact) nothing, but a state of transients which must be inferred from theory because it cannot be observed. This is a belief for which there is no direct evidence, just as is the belief in God. That Krauss states his belief in terms of mechanism rather than terms of agency doesn't change the fundamental character of the belief; had Krauss had to debate Hitchens, "Hitchens's Razor" might have proven just as sharp. Again Cameron I thank you for your gracious response, and I hope I have approached the same standard.
Our galaxy contains at least 100 billion stars, at most 400 billion. Our galaxy is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies, more than we could possibly ever count. Some of those galaxies contain in excess of 100 TRILLION stars and planets just by themselves. We orbit one of the smaller stars in one of the smaller galaxies. I think the pinnacle of ignorance is saying this was all made for us.
Something so complex as the universe should have a designer. If this designer designed the universe in all its complexity, the designer would also have to be of a higher leval of complexit0 than that which it designedy, which would infer the designer has a designer, and it goes on and on.
Something out of nothing? Newer thinking is that our universe was always here and not created. There was "heat death"in the past for our universe(essentially nothingness), but another universe could have hit ours and that point of contact (the singularity) resulted in the "Big Bang" and an enormous energy transfer to bring our universe to where we are now. This cycle repeats forever.
Turek dismisses infinite regression as an invalid argument. It's literally the only argument needed to dismiss a creator. That's either profound ignorance or profound malice.
Imagine a house floods. No one knows the cause for a fact, but someone who heard from a neighbor, claims that the water came out of no where. They say, "Well for a house to flood there needs to be water, therefore the water came and the evidence is that the house flooded." Another person says, "Well no, the water could've been there in many ways that we're still trying to figure out." The first person responds, "NO, the water came out of no where, how do you know where the water came from?" An atheist admits they don't have an answer, while a religious person claims they have an answer (which makes absolutely no sense).
@jjmadden88 Okay, I agree about that. There is however, a verse which forces a rape victim to marry their rapist: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 I must say that I am happily surprised that you concede. It shows that you are honest. Good on you!
all right, I am a devote Roman Catholic and feel i should post something. First i don't turek's arguments due to a few assumptions that atheists will not take i.e. there was nothing before the big bang. had both parties clarified their stance on this assumption then maybe a better discussion could have been made. Now while everyone who has watched this video has made fun of the typewriter argument, I find it interesting how no one has looked at Hitchins argument that brought it about (continued)
Who says the universe was created from nothing. Space, time and the laws of physics may very well have existed before. At this point I do not think anyone has the answer and most likely nobody ever will.
He did answer it to a degree, but I don't think he put it across very well. Basically what he was saying was that it's not his job to answer that - he is content not knowing, and there's no reason to assume that a creator did it. He should have said that more clearly, and possibly elaborated on it, but that was his stance.
I noticed he does not answer the question but avoids it the question is how do you get something from nothing but he deflects it and goes on to something else rather than answer the question I mean that is a legitimate question even though you say you don't know you're still inserting that the universe itself was created out of nothing how is it possible understatement is correct the fact that the universe will be destroyed from an atheistic point of view still does not mean there was not a creator think about it as the example has been given the typewriter was created and now it's phased out to say you have a typewriter in your home today it's almost unheard of and for children non-existent and before someone says the computer still types like a typewriter remember it's a computer completely different from a typewriter
Thank you. Too many of the arguments put by religious people against evolution appear to be born of wilful ignorance. Its the refusal to look at the evidence for oneself and reflect on it. I was raised religiously and know the drill: the pastor tells you what's wrong with evolution, tells you its evil and "just a theory", and in doing so discourages you from thinking and reading for yourself. That is why so much criticism of evolution is just ignorant and grossly distorted.
@JusJuiceIt That just pushes the question one step back. What are the odds that an all-powerful, intelligent being could just exist, with no cause? I don't claim to know all the answers, but saying "gawd dun it" certainly doesn't explain everything either.
@Emrys93 Hitchens didn't dodge, he showed that the question ("How do you get something from nothing without a cause?") is meaningless, especially coming from creationists, who believe in a God who exists without being caused--that is, they believe in a God who is "something from nothing without a cause." Until the creationists admit this, why should Hitchens answer the question anymore than he did here? Once creationists answer this question, they can pose it to non-believers.
@JusJuiceIt Quote the part where I say "bible". As for the probability of a life permitting universe, imagine a puddle looking at the hole its in and saying "wow, this is perfect for me, it MUST be made to fit me" when in actuality it was the puddle that fit the hole. The universe isn't made to permit or inhibit life, life adapted to the constraints of this universe.
Jooky said, "it's not hitchens' responsibility to correct this." Well, that's sort of how debate works. Your opponent asks a question and you either respond or point out why the question itself is flawed. Hitchens avoids the issue altogether; which is enormously common for him in debate. Such evasion strongly suggests he lacks the intellectual substance to deal with the dilemma as presented. He relies instead on charm, charisma, linguistic finesse, belittling, and red herrings.
just about the exploding star thing christopher said about how something can turn into nothing. I know he said 'a whole lot of nothing' but it just makes me a little worried people will get the idea that a star dissipates into totally nothing in space. As far as our observable region of the universe goes, we have not yet found a region of space that is a perfect vacuum (as far as I've read).
The simplicity of truth is very powerful but avoiding answering questions with a maze of lies along with changing the subject also works on people it seems .
He doesn't fail to see the possibility of the existence of God but he fails to see the love of God. If Christopher thinks that God is cruel by coming to earth and being nailed to a cross by His own creation for our mistakes, then he is missing out on the big picture. We are not slaves, God gave us free will and look what we did with it. If he knew that, I would be confused as to why he doesn't want to believe with all his being that there is a God like that who loves him.
Actually he did in a way , He talked about how everything is extraordinary in order which is beyond limits of probabilities . For once more you didn't talk about my main argument which is not Einstein or his quotes . Thank you for taking the time for this discussion . Appreciate it .
@silverstream314 The argument is that, whilst times do change, morality in its kernel does not. And the judgement that because different peoples and nations at different times had a different idea of morality and what is acceptable doesn't at all rule out the idea of there being a straight, definite, proper form of morality, it simple adds to the imperative of finding it. The argument by Judaism is that it exists and has been applied to different times and places wherever Jews have lived.
Every argument that Hitchens' opponent comes up with is flawed. How? Because it's based on a presupposition and a god belief when there's no rational reason to ascribe it as factual.
i love the way he just sits back and relaxes as the other guy gets more and more agitadet:P
Like a boss.
The Scholastics have an old axiom that says "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit."
Meanin in English : "Out of nothing comes Nothing".
If you were to ever have an absolute state of non being aka "Noting", then something could never arise from that state of non being. From something to come into existence from absolutely nothing, it would need a cause, and you would have to say that it CAUSE ITSELF in existence. But for it to cause itself to come into existence, it would then have to exist prior to itselt to cause itself to come into existence, which plainlt violate the law of non contradiction. Therfore, somethin can't come from nothing.
@@christaime9812 that's why it's an old axiom. Information changes gradually with new found evidence which gives a better understanding of the nature of the world around us. But since you made that statement, one could argue "then who created god" because obviously if you deny that then your statement becomes invalid. Religion no doubt played a huge role in building human society but we're past that now. If anyone still has to follow religion, it should be for it's moral values, nothing more.
I think he is very arrogant and insulting and so is the guy he is debating.
@@stephenfletcher5391 Hitch only had his own interest in mind. Christopher Hitch broke up an 8-year marriage for another woman when his wife Meleagrou was pregnant with their daughter, Sophia, in 1989, Hitchens abruptly left her for Carol Blue. Meleagrou threw him out when he told her, he was in love with someone else, Love for Hitch meant: “love yourself above all and don’t care about your neighbor”. Meleagrou said: "I literally threw him out". He did let his children grow up without a father and left his wife disregarding his marriage vows and his declaration of love to her. He left 2 children without the presence of a father in the home. It Shows he cared about nobody but himself, and his Unhealthy habits of always drinking and smoking.
Anyone would have to be insane to believe this endless universe with about 250 billion (1.25×1011) galaxies like our Galaxy in the observable universe with, sun, moon and stars with a more particular turning than the seconds wiser of a watch. So particular that the object the size of a needle can make the universe claps. Any sane person would understand that life could not have happened by chance from totally nothing. We know there is only life on earth. Why not on other similar Galaxies? Of course, the alternative is believing that God exists and created this, therefore making one accountable for their actions. But this would leave atheists uncomfortable with their lifestyle of sin. Hitch now knows the price for it.
_____________________________________________
The weird destructive ideas and morals of Dawkins are not just Atheism it goes much farther. Richard Dawkins has announced his divorce from his third wife, Lalla Ward, concluding their 24 years of marriage. The couple's romance started when they met in March 1992 during a surprise party hosted by their friend and author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," Douglas Adams, for Dawkins' 40th birthday. By that time, Dawkins had already divorced twice and raised a daughter from his second marriage. Ward, known for her BBC television series "Doctor Who," had also divorced after only 16 months of marriage with co-star Tom Baker. The 75-year-old evolutionary biologist had stirred the public years ago when he denounced monogamy and fidelity in relationships. In his article piece "Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster," Dawkins referred to "jealousy" in a relationship as "immoral and selfish." He defended that men should be allowed to keep mistresses and indulge in sexual pleasures with others.
Dawkins wants to condone pedophilia. Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.” Dawkins said: “Other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher”, but concluded: “I DON’T THINK he did any of us lasting harm.” Dawkins tells an interviewer: “raising your child to believe in hell is worse than sexual abuse”. I have 11 children from one marriage, who all belief in the existence of Hell. No one of them has the fear for Hell. However, sexual abuse will do a lot of harm to pretty much all children. Dawkins, gave another dumb controversial advice to a woman who did not know what she would do' if she was pregnant with a child with Downs Syndrome and his advice was: “Abort it and try again, you have the choice It’s IMMORAL to bring it into the world”. What Richard Dawkins says is IMMORAL. There are 450,000 people with Downs Syndrome in the USA. What is the message to them and their parents? It would be better if you were aborted? If Dawkins had bothered to do any research, he would have come across a peer-reviewed paper in the October 2011 issue of the American Journal of Medical Genetics, which surveyed 400 people with Down's Syndrome, from the aged 12 and over. The outcome was,: More than 99 percent of people with DS indicated; they were happy with their lives, 97 percent liked who they are and 96 percent liked how they looked.' That's a weird kind of suffering. People with DS are fully functioning and happy. It is a task but they usually give more love back. Dawkins? Not an example to follow.
Anyone would have to be insane to believe this endless universe with about 150 billion (1.25×1011) galaxies like our Galaxy in the observable universe with, sun, moon and stars, and 2 planets turning the opposite way, which makes the Big Bang impossible. And more than a trillion in outerspace and no life has developed on any of them. Any sane person would understand that life could not have happened by chance from totally nothing. We know there is only life on earth. Why not on other similar Galaxies? Of course, the alternative is believing that God exists and created this, therefore making one accountable for their actions. But this would leave atheists uncomfortable with their lifestyle of sin. Hitch now knows the price for it.
"I'll say that masochism is a sinister and creepy impulse..."
To my knowledge, typewriters still exist.
I have one
@@dylancoleman1921 nice
And they’ve been wonderfully improved upon!
They are not used anymore.
Ffs
Line of logic: the typewriter was designed, therefore God created the universe. I am amazed...
Dreamer 1 In no world can something come from nothing. “Nothing” is what rocks dream about.
Well, everything came from nothing. Theistic opinion. Omg,how much sense have that. Omg you're such a genius. Without brain
Cira Ciric I don’t speak whatever language you’re trying to speak
Clearly didn’t understand the argument.
@@anepicflyingbrick_4872
What was misunderstood?
What a terrible loss! We need more people like chris.
Christopher. He always corrected someone who called him "Chris"
Jesus is King
He is humbled by God now.
Yeah, right.
Around 2:40 once he realizes to the full extent he's losing, creationist just starts raising his voice.
Great way to debate, huh.
Actually i think he realized around 2:04
He knew it was going to be tough, possibly weeks in advance of the debate taking place.
The rest was just the law of averages playing out in real time to his dismay, in front of him whilst being unable to do a damn thing about it.
Hitchens did a wonderful job as usual.
The Scholastics have an old axiom that says "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit."
Meaning in English : "Out of nothing comes Nothing".
If you were to ever have an absolute state of non being aka "Nothing", then something could never arise from that state of non being. For something to come into existence from absolutely nothing, it would need a cause, and you would have to say that it CAUSE ITSELF into existence. But for it to cause itself to come into existence, it would then have to exist prior to itselt to cause itself to come into existence, which plainly violate the law of non contradiction. Therfore, something can't come from nothing.
Read slowly:
- Out of nothing arises nothing.
- Nothing cannot create something because nothing has nothing to create and no ability to create.
- There is nothing in nothing that can cause something, because it's absolutely nothing.
- If nothing had the ability to create, it wouldn't be called nothing, it will be called "something that has the ability to create something". And that is not nothing.
He was getting interrupted as he made his critical statement by "waffle waffle blah blah". Hitchens just ran away from the first cause argument by saying that it doesn't prove your God. The point is that there must be cause and Hitchens has nothing to add because he is dumb. No answer is the only way to be certain of being wrong and he is too dumb to even realise this very simple fact.
Something out of nothing?
Asks the guy who believes in a God created out of nothing who creates the cosmos out of nothing.
The "typewriter?" Wow. This guy is in over his head. If he belongs on the same stage with Hitchens, I belong on the same court with Lebron James.
Yours Man after my own heart, any one that can claim Dr in his title after going on a 60 hour course is showing the world what a con artist he is.
Keep in mind einstein, Dyson & walter Heisenberg would find hitchens arguments ridiculous!
Frank wants to claim there was nothing and that god sneezed the universe into existence. Well, if God always existed, then there was never "nothing". You can't have it both ways, Frank.
Hitchens is 1 out of a billion type of man, we are luck to co-exist with the guy.
We were lucky, sadly
@@libertymedicalcommunicatio4908 yeah
Frank Turek is either ignorant or a lying con artist profiting off his victims.
"mockery of religion is one of the most essential things to demystify supposedly holy texts dictated by god and show that they are man made" - Christopher Hitchens
You moron😂
I like to believe that Hitchens is just sipping straight vodka from that cup while taking shots at this other guy lol
The booze fueled his audacity and greatness
Why does everyone keep saying that the big bang was an explosion out of nothing? everyone says that, but it's everyone who doesn't study does it say drawn in the etc. it's always just random ass people saying the big bang isn't real because it came from nothing. That's not the case that has never been the case.
Hitchens is just a genius, there's no other way around it.
I'd beg to differ. You cannot look up into the night sky and "see universes blowing up every night of the week".
@@knpstrr. You can't observe outside of this universe though, we observe very little of it, let alone outside it.
@@setokaiba914 And yet Hitchens claims "you can see universes blowing up every night of the week." Some genius
@@knpstrr. Oh righy my bad I didn't realise your point.
Well I'm not sure what Hitchens meant by that to be honest.
Though I will say I don't think Hitchens is a genius, suppose he did make a mistake (maybe he meant something that did make sense idk, but let's say he did make a mistake), I wouldn't say one mistake alone like that would mean you can't be genius.
Regardless, I think Hitchens was smarter than average, though not a genius, but he's not the best atheist in my opinion, I would prefer to read Hume, Mackie or Oppy for example.
@@setokaiba914 It is obvious what he meant, he was referring to stars going supernova, but nonetheless, this is the debate style of Hitchens. While he was undoubtedly a skilled debater, ultimately his points all revolved around childish insults after quoting some history/literature. Anyone that has ever taken a debate class knows that the person who wins the debate is not necessarily the one who is on the right side.
Hitches is a master of deception.
The question: How can something come from nothing?
Hitchens response: The universe, if designed, was poorly designed because stuff stops existing.
Could the non sequitor be any more blatant?
Hitchens is charming, engaging, creative, and articulate. But as for philosophical and logical rigor, the man is an artist in deception and rabbit trails.
Might want to read the rest of his writings and his interviews and to have actually spoken with the man. You speak of someone you don’t even personally know? That’s so convenient
I don't understand why Hitchens didn't fight the integrity of the very question. The question in itself already starts on a false premise. It makes the assumption that before the big bang there was nothing. And difference in meanings when a religious priest describes "nothing" or a scientist describes "nothing" are worlds apart. Where a priest might see a space of vast emptiness, a scientist might see a complex arrangement of gravity, quantum particles, elektromagnetic forces etc.
What happened before the big bang will probably always be a question mark. But to say this "question mark" is equal to "nothing", is a very grave mistake.
"It makes the assumption that before the big bang there was nothing."
If there was something - how was that something created?
"a complex arrangement of gravity, quantum particles, elektromagnetic forces" is not nothing. Hitchens botched the question like he always does.
@@TrueScandinavia I hate to imply hypocrisy, but it was the op that said that, not Hitchens
@@ReverendHogwash are you Captain Pugwash's long lost brother?
I love you Hitchens! Thank you for opening my eyes to an entirely different and better world.
What world would that be, debauchery?
@@tnance3486 still better than slavery
@@internetexplorer7880 Slavery?
@@internetexplorer7880 We are all slaves even to ourselves. When our minds becomes slaves to our emotions we are in a word of hurt because our souls are spoiled brats.
@@tnance3486 would rather be my own slave than to some conman
3:11 so that a greater good can come about...
If I were debating in Christopher Hitchen's place I would argue this:
If it is impossible for something to come from nothing, how do you explain the existence of God in the first place? From where did this divine creator come from so that he could create our universe if it is in fact impossible to come from nothing?
One of the best arguments, i often thought this should be brought up in discussions, but somehow it never is....
Alright,
This is off the point of our discussion about Hitchens and onto the topic itself, but what caused time and space "as we know them" to exist? Do you disagree that the conditions [ontologically] prior to the big bang were timeless and spaceless? If so, you are the one stepping outside of mainstream cosmology. If not, then the question of causation remains pertinent and logically entials the attributes I previously described.
There are subatomic particles that come into existence and out again from nothing. It happens all the time and can be demonstrated.
Uh no, it's not "nothing." There's a sea of energy in a vacuum, that's where virtual particles demonstrably "come" from. First law of thermodynamics. Interesting how the big bang and evolution both violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Only nothing can be made out of nothing. Hitchens did nothing about that man's former question, which basically isn't even about God. Fedora atheists are just as good with semantics as they are with debating theists. They basically sound like babbling 5 year olds.
Question of whether the universe emerged out of nothing is only valid to closet judeo-christians. Before the invention of judaism and christianity, the question of the beginning of the universe was non-existent. Pagans observed nature and saw that it was circular; that death was always preceding rebirth. They just assumed the universe had no beginning or end; that it just always was and it didn't come out of anything. Universe as a linear being is a christian conception. Atheists just don't get it. Atheists are the biggest christians in the world. Their very psychology and language are based entirely in christian logic which gave foundation for the Western civilization. As defenders of that civilization, they are thouroughly christian in spirit.
It’s only nothing in the sense that we cannot measure the before moment to satisfy our human minds ... a huge percetange of the space in the universe looks blank nothing empty but no space is actually really empty according to the ancient texts the philosophers to science etc there is something there we just cannot see measure or fathom it to satisfy our minds...
Your statement is flawed and false.
So if everything came from nothing (according to C Hitchens) =, does that mean that includes C. Hitchens himself ? So what value does C.Hitchens have, (or his ideas) since he is also a creation of 'nothing' ??
Right back at you.
If you’re insinuating a god is the only possible answer for our existence well then congratulations because now you’ve added two gigantic unnecessary steps which have no explanation.
One, this god your supposing has always existed, has no origin and presumably came from nothing.
Two, This god then uses magic to create the Entire universe from…nothing.
So there ya go. Now you’ve backed yourself into a corner where you’ll need to explain two separate answers for everything coming from nothing.
Go ahead….
@@timg7627 So it seems that you prefer to think (believe) that everything (suns, planets, space etc) came from nothing. Good for you !
Now if you try thinking that nonsense through a little, you will realize that nothing comes from nothing---that is an impossibility.
Yet here we are, a living (conscious) part of all that is which you think came from nowhere !!
Kindly explain your logic--if you can !
@@electricmanist ok then right back at you.
It’s somehow too much of a leap for your mind to comprehend and have a reasonable expectation to conclude the brightest minds using decades of repeatable verifiable tests to conclude the Big Bang is our current best theory given the technology who have to explain our origins.
While it’s somehow more plausible for you to believe a book with wild unsubstantiated supernatural tales and claims which was written by anonymous authors and has been rewritten, edited, re edited, added to and omitted from multiple times throughout history.
A book that claims there is a god who’s always existed and presumably came from nothing. A god that after an undetermined amount of time existing in nothing decides to create an entire universe simply by utterly magic words to create everything from nothing.
So you tell me. The later uses at least two major additional unexplainable steps of ‘something coming from nothing’ yet somehow this is more plausible to you.
Explain that
@@timg7627 You raise a number of arguments against the existence of God so maybe I should respond from "my corner" !
It really seems that you are judging/evaluating God in human terms, or even somewhat less than human, as if you use an earthly magician's tricks as an argument against the existence of the Divine
It might be difficult for you to come to terms with the existence of a supreme being, especially if you measure the capabilities of God in human terms, (as if a life form on this relatively small planet is your guide), rather than recognize God as creator of all that is.
Now if you can suggest that you (and you alone) have the answer to the existence of the universe (let alone this one small planet), then I'm sure a Nobel prize,would be yours for the taking !
However, I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for this award, since there are many others with equally fantastic proposals --- mostly flights of fancy at that !
In addition, you fail to recognize (or even realize) that the basis of this universe is energy. That's right ENERGY ! Intelligent energy at that ! I'm sure you don't need me to go into the scientific explanations of the very nature of matter-- although I could just mention just what (atomic) power/energy can be released via an atom (uranium or hydrogen bomb.
This power is the basis of all that is--including you of course, (not to mention the squillions of all the other life forms which surround you) , is the Divine Creator of all that is. God.
It really appears that you have not cast your net widely enough if you are trying to explain away the very nature of all that is . Try harder next time !
At no point was there "nothing". There isn't even a demonstration that "nothing" exist. The universe has always existed, it just only started expanding 14 billion years ago.
I really really really miss Hitchens.
Hitchens casually reclined and sipping a Pepsi. He’s owning Frank without even trying. 😂
When a person's information is not based on facts or evidence, their entire list of arguments are flawed.
He watches this Frank moron stick his foot in his mouth and uses his own words and logic to disembowel him with.
Like he's stuck the knife in his own belly and hitchens drags it across with Frank's own hand on the handle.
Then the guts fall out.
@@tyrionlannister3459 holy crap dude that's the best metaphor ever
Frank is christoper’s slave.
The Scholastics have an old axiom that says "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit."
Meaning in English : "Out of nothing comes Nothing".
If you were to ever have an absolute state of non being aka "Nothing", then something could never arise from that state of non being. For something to come into existence from absolutely nothing, it would need a cause, and you would have to say that it CAUSE ITSELF into existence. But for it to cause itself to come into existence, it would then have to exist prior to itselt to cause itself to come into existence, which plainly violate the law of non contradiction. Therfore, something can't come from nothing.
Read slowly:
- Out of nothing arises nothing.
- Nothing cannot create something because nothing has nothing to create and no ability to create.
- There is nothing in nothing that can cause something, because it's absolutely nothing.
- If nothing had the ability to create, it wouldn't be called nothing, it will be called "something that has the ability to create something". And that is not nothing.
@@christaime9812 Yay another cosmological argument... Not like I've heard that ten million times and it's still equally fallacious
So , it's illogical for scientists to say that the universe came from nothing, but logical that God created everything from nothing. Oh, I see. 🤔
Much like the typewriter's designer was a human, the bible's "designer" was too.
Checkmate. I'll have my water to go, please.
CounterNerd the Bible speaks of all creation in the first book. God makes it clear who the creator is unlike all other forgery religions. I guess you would also assume a human created the universe?
@@dealwithit1277 You're arguement is void of ALL logic. Seriously though that was a crap & 'oh so' ignorant comment to try & throw at that logical quote.
J J Death is something you’d better be right about. Causality points to a Causal Agent just like you would assume your reply points to meaning.
@@dealwithit1277 Wtf are you going on about you superstitious space cadet. You will never scare me with your talk. You are but a mere man recycling the same crap as the other believers. Again, I say, your comments are void to me & anyone with common sense. I bid you a good day...now eff off trying to spread your religious bs.
@@JustieCrustie Truth is truth. And then there is religion. Even atheism is a religion because all God has to do is exist. Why not ignore my words. If false then why do you continue to give so much life to it?
Not smart to get into a sparring match with Christopher.
You have no idea what was said do you?
Foolhardy, I would say.
Christopher Hitchens. I know of no other human being with that man's scope of world knowledge and debating brilliance. He was a truly exceptional person who is very sorely missed.
"Because the universe is going to heat-death doesn't mean that there's no God." Granted, but it does mean that God is essentially the equivalent of a kid on top of an ant hill with a magnifying glass.
It's always funny to me that creationists find it hard to believe that something could come from nothing when this is exactly what their argument is! And also, as I've said again and again to others, just because we don't completely understand how the universe could come about on its own - or has always existed - does not mean that it didn't. After all, they have no problems believing that God has always existed and was self-created so why not just concede that we don't know and leave it at that?
God is by definition eternal and thus asking "who/what created God" is nonsensical. It is fair enough to say you believe it came about on its own - from nothing, but that is just your belief, you can say "I don't know, I just believe it" --- however, atheists don't like to say that.
@@knpstrr Fairly recent advances in theoretical astrophysics is beginning to put the kabosh on the Big Bang as we previously knew it, possibly meaning that the universe has always existed and therefore no creator (natural or metaphysical) needed.
@@JustWasted3HoursHere Yeah, ultimately that is a choice scientists are going to have to agree upon so they can get their story straight. It is going to be hard to prove, however, as long as their is a "consensus of experts" it will become the scientific truth. Science cannot prove the existence of God, nor would they ever come to such a conclusion, so we already know that will never be an answer from that community, we'll have to see what new theory they agree on if they want to abandon their current theory.
They gain no power over indoctrinating kiddies by admitting the truth" THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW". TUREK is just another lying for Jesus con merchant, the only time he has got one over Hitchens is lying to the kids he preaches to after Hitchens had died, he is the epitome of evangelical fundaMENTAList protestant professional proselytising scum.
@@knpstrrscientist could not give a shit about CLAIMED supernatural world or gods, scientist do not set out to prove anything, scientist make no claims, scientist do not start out with a conclusion and try to argue their conclusion to be evident, scient look for the explanations, to the what why and wherefore of the observables of the natural world, and explaining as best as current evidence known permits the reason for their conclusion. Creationist claim they already know , no amount of evidence will move them from their declared belief, belief is to accept as true that for which there is NO EVIDENCE. As Dawkins so rightly said, one cannot reason with the unreasonable.
"....just to see if you can pass a test....mmmm..mmb....I might not send you to hell"
LOL brilliant!
I understand all the points that Frank is trying to make here but he is simply not intellectually equipped to argue with Hitchens.
For people ho dont believe, doesnt exist, ofr people that believe exist.
If youre an atheist, even if I give you a proof, you wont believe.
What is purpose of debate?
It’s nice to see someone put turek in his place.
@tipoomaster
*the puddle analogy is from Douglas Adams, don't think I'm trying to steal his stuff.
@silverstream314
The argument is, that it is exactly that morality that it represents. Just the way you read it isn't actually what you think it, or how its applied.
In the verse you mentioned, based on a basic reading of what it says (indeed translated from an ancient semitic language into modern English) you get a completely different idea of a) certain words and concepts and b) of how exactly its applied.
The Written Torah is the mold, the Talmud and rabbinical exegesis are the details.
Original sin: assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.
I did,
after years of study, counselling and meditation, I still find it impossible to not confuse the two verbs.
I feel awful and publicly humiliated after once again proving to be a hard core recidivist in this matter. But nonetheless, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
No one is comfortable with uncertainty. The 'Y' in the road is the basis of the value of prior experience preserved so that choices become informed. With enough of such history and prior knowings somewhere along the line someone is going to ask about an 'ultimate' knower and maybe even posit such an one exists. That becomes a theory and basis of a faith.
One may posit that faith is misplaced on historical grounds, but not if based on intrinsic experience and use of prior record of awareness.
In response to how something came from nothing....
" I'm not the one that has to answer the question"
Nailed it!
Yeah, it's a pretty stupid dodge answer.
Why do theists think that the universe coming out of nothing is impossible, but that an eternal being who is uncaused is more believable? Both propositions are outside the realm of human experience, hence either one could occur, and since the universe coming out of nothing is the more parsimonious of the two explanations, logically it makes more sense to assume that the universe came out of nothing, inexplicably, than to add another mystery like God, and say he inexplicably exists.
Please get well, Hitch. We need you.
There is really only one measure of a government, society, religion, family or person: Do they promote love, kindness and justice - or hate, division and injustice. What do you see and hear around you? And, will you believe your own eyes and ears, or rely of what you're told? As a wise man said 2500 years ago;
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” ― Buddha Siddhartha Guatama Shakyamuni
Comparing the universe to a typewriter is just the debunked Watchmaker analogy all over again.
We know typewriters are created because we have something akin to compare them to, and the fact typewriters are not naturally occurring outside of human intervention.
However, there is no evidence that a universe needs a creator because there is no other universe to compare and contrast to.
Not to mention that flawed argument would mean god would have needed an intelligent creator to create him, and so on.
In order to understand how universe came from nothing, following procedure should be followed:
1. After waking from a dream, ask yourself the question:
What was present in my dream which is also present in the universe?
The answer to the above question is doubtlessly “I”.
I was present in dream and I am also present in the universe.
Since the body-mind of the dream is not present in the universe and also the body-mind of the universe was not present in my dream, hence it is clear that I who was present in my dream as well as in the universe is not body- mind.
Ask from yourself another question:
What am I other than body-mind?
Don’t try to reply, the answer will come automatically as the experience of being conscious without body-mind.
Come back when you know how to make sense
Frank Turek is an insufferable fool.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed environment.
Also, the lighting example is a valid explanation for why truth cannot be a democracy. Lighting is either caused by angry gods, or it isn't. It doesn't matter what our opinion of the matter is - lighting's cause does not depend on us. If every person on the planet believes that a god exists, that doesn't sway the truth value of the cosmos. There either is a god(s) or isn't, and our opinion of the matter is essentially meaningless.
the fact that there is "being" now proves that there was "being" before. Once it was, then always it will "have been". existential deduction my friends. oouch
It is so compelling to listen to Hitchens. I would just love to be able to debate as he does. He is so correct about our submission to ancient nonsense and our need to grow up, admit our frailties and make a collective effort to properly research and investigate our origins in a verifiable manner without all the mythical, faith based nonsense so often presented by religious literalists.
I say let's put religion on trial for A. It's veracity (important - because of original sin and the promise of eternal life) and B. Crimes against humanity. Then we will see how completely sinister it really is and expose it's hideous underbelly.
Indulge us in the language you superior "modern" mind created? Or throw us a bone and tell us about mathematics that carries your name sake? Ancient nonsense huh? Nice anecdotal attempt at an argument. 😂😂😂
Btw the quote " Science without religion is lame , religion without science is blind " Albert Einstein , was quoted in a debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens by Tony on religion being a force of good or not . Without any opposition to the quote .
@gurufabbes1 Some of the quotes I gave are quite unambiguous. It clearly says that you should kill blasphemers for example, without any ambiguity in the language or wording. I cannot under any circumstances find this to be contained within 'proper' morality.
Damn, Hitchins is half wasted and he STILL makes a FOOL out of Turek!
It's difficult to erase thousands of years of brainwashing and fear. Christopher Hitchens is trying his best every day to bring us out of this religious delusion. He's a brave and intelligent man who has found the key to rational thinking without anger, prejudice or violence, things so many of us are prone to when we are disagreed with. I hope he is around for many more years.
='(
Regards from the future...
His passing was a sad loss to sanity in the world.
Which arguments are you referring to? All I saw was your quotes and your painting metaphor, and I addressed both of those. The youtube comments character limit makes following this conversation a bit clunky though, and I may have missed something, or forgotten something you said. And yes, thanks to you as well. I enjoy having an actual discussion on here instead of the usual shouting matches lol
Heaven And Hell are all in the MIND...They are not real places here or else where.
Sure. Besides that one little mistake I agree with what you've said.
I talk to people who argue like that now. They tend to be men in their 30s.
I love his cynisism...."I think that massacre is a sinister and creepy impulse"....the way he says it...brilliant!
@gurufabbes1 "it's the laws of a different society which we know today", which is the whole point. Morality changes. Slavery was not considered immoral a couple of hundred years ago; today, it is unthinkable. Thus it does not come from a higher power, it is formed by our society.
@THEEVANTHETOON
Do you mind explaining the part about the universe eventually turning into heat? Is this quoted from somewhere?
Something to keep in mind though; when we talk about these stuff, the time involved is very large (mind booglingly long) and I still really perplexed as to why people would want to know such an answer as it seems they can't even manage with learning human history.
Taking the argument into infinity, its just to open minds to possibilities.
Is that alright?
(cont'd)...the fact remains that mainstream cosmology is quite supportive of the idea that time and space came into existence. There are good philosophical and logical reasons to believe that this coming into existence of time and space is most reasonably thought to have been brought about by a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensely powerful, personal, cause.
The fact that one cannot infer Christian theism from this makes it no weaker evidence in favor of the existence of a god.
I love how relaxed Hitchens is and how worked up the creatard gets.
It was once believed that the universe existed forever. Now not even the concept of infinite universe can be theoretically sustained. Therefore the second law very much applies..
@silverstream314
The victim is by no means forced to marry their rapist. It is the rapist who is obligated to marry HER, if SHE chooses. Indeed, the case of 'rape' is not necessarily the case that is being referred to, it refers to any case where a man sleeps with an unmarried or betrothed woman, forced or not. It lays out the responsibility of the man to pay for such an act. Again, whether one likes it or not, it's the laws of a different society which we know today.
"The typewriter is out of existence right now"
....
Then what's a typewriter? I'm nitpicking, I know, but it's fun.
To elaborate upon one of Hitchens' mentioned references, the idea that everything in the universe was created solely for us is tantamount to the Chinese taking over the *entire* North American continent for the sole purpose of placing a dog house in the southeastern corner of Nebraska. It just doesn't make sense on that scale. Even consider that Christians persecuted Galileo/Socrates for suggesting that our solar system were heliocentric, and did not revolve around the earth. -_-
To hate something that supposedly doesn't exist is the pinnacle of stupid.
@rpaslux ... The Big Bang term was coined for a theory put forward by a Catholic Priest about how the universe was formed. My understanding is that the theologians (in the RC church anyway) knew that there was not "no thing" before the Big Bang, but something other than what we know now ( in terms of space dust etc )
What choice, and by whom, was made for the submarine volcano to erupt to create the island of Surtsey?
What a ridiculous statement that something to go from non-existence to existence requires a choice!
Isn't it just as logical to assume that existence is the normal state?
Hitchens demonstrated very effective command of rhetoric and debate here by successfully luring Turek down numerous irrelevant rabbit trails.
But the question was how can something come from nothing. Hitchens studiously avoided the actual question, pretended that galaxies exploding has some relevance to the question and, when pressed, merely reverted to his standard critique that believers believe in an unfair God.
Hitchens was a man of powerful intellect and devastatingly effective expression. That he did not answer the question suggests strongly that he could not answer the question.
A lot of believers have this quarrel with his response, but it's really quite simple. Christians want a direct answer to the question. The honest answer is we don't know. Had Christopher left his response to that, Frank (and more importantly the listeners) can use that as confirmation of a creator. In short, not knowing how something comes from nothing does nothing to prove the existence of the supernatural. It's a non-sequitur question.
His most direct answer to this question was from 2:08-2:16
To know more of where our universe came from, I recommend Lawrence Krauss' book: "A Universe from Nothing: Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?". There is synopsis of the book by him on RUclips.
I hope this response was helpful
@@Finalh0pe_YT Thank you Cameron for a courteous response.
Hitchens was well know for "Hitchens's Razor", sometimes summarized as "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." It was an artful, and I think effective, way of forcing the burden of proof onto believers, at least to the extent that only empirical evidence might be admitted as relevant. At 2:08 he re-asserts this position. Although we see in this clip Turek being drawn primarily into inferences from empirical observation, Turek had previously posed, and poses again here, philosophical evidence : Hitchens's own ability (indeed *man's* ability) to reach moral conclusions. In my opinion Hitchens never treated that argument fairly, here or elsewhere in clips I've seen (of course I haven't seen or read everything he said). There would have been nothing wrong, and much right, in Hitchens answering as you did : we don't know, and our ignorance alone provides no evidence for the existence of God. Yes, some would conclude that persistent questions on which man remains ignorant provide evidence for God, but even serious believers argue against this "God of the gaps" position, a God of empirical power only who continually retreats as science advances, and Hitchens could have done so with great effectiveness.
I've seen several references and summaries of Krauss's book, including this brief one by Krauss himself : ruclips.net/video/9urEFoaI1iY/видео.html. If I've understood him correctly he is re-defining "nothing" to mean not (in fact) nothing, but a state of transients which must be inferred from theory because it cannot be observed. This is a belief for which there is no direct evidence, just as is the belief in God. That Krauss states his belief in terms of mechanism rather than terms of agency doesn't change the fundamental character of the belief; had Krauss had to debate Hitchens, "Hitchens's Razor" might have proven just as sharp.
Again Cameron I thank you for your gracious response, and I hope I have approached the same standard.
Let's back up a bit. Where did the nothing come from? How did there happen to be state of nothing?
Our galaxy contains at least 100 billion stars, at most 400 billion. Our galaxy is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies, more than we could possibly ever count. Some of those galaxies contain in excess of 100 TRILLION stars and planets just by themselves. We orbit one of the smaller stars in one of the smaller galaxies. I think the pinnacle of ignorance is saying this was all made for us.
When I dig a hole I get something out of nothing. I get both a hill and a hole without having to bring more sand into existence.
Something so complex as the universe should have a designer. If this designer designed the universe in all its complexity, the designer would also have to be of a higher leval of complexit0 than that which it designedy, which would infer the designer has a designer, and it goes on and on.
Good point
Something out of nothing? Newer thinking is that our universe was always here and not created. There was "heat death"in the past for our universe(essentially nothingness), but another universe could have hit ours and that point of contact (the singularity) resulted in the "Big Bang" and an enormous energy transfer to bring our universe to where we are now. This cycle repeats forever.
Turek dismisses infinite regression as an invalid argument. It's literally the only argument needed to dismiss a creator. That's either profound ignorance or profound malice.
Everything compressed into a singularity IS NOT nothing.
Imagine a house floods. No one knows the cause for a fact, but someone who heard from a neighbor, claims that the water came out of no where. They say, "Well for a house to flood there needs to be water, therefore the water came and the evidence is that the house flooded." Another person says, "Well no, the water could've been there in many ways that we're still trying to figure out." The first person responds, "NO, the water came out of no where, how do you know where the water came from?"
An atheist admits they don't have an answer, while a religious person claims they have an answer (which makes absolutely no sense).
@jjmadden88 Okay, I agree about that. There is however, a verse which forces a rape victim to marry their rapist: Deuteronomy 22:28-29
I must say that I am happily surprised that you concede. It shows that you are honest. Good on you!
The Look of Turek´s eyes at 1:28 is priceless. He knew he had made an unmendable mistake.
all right, I am a devote Roman Catholic and feel i should post something.
First i don't turek's arguments due to a few assumptions that atheists will not take i.e. there was nothing before the big bang. had both parties clarified their stance on this assumption then maybe a better discussion could have been made.
Now while everyone who has watched this video has made fun of the typewriter argument, I find it interesting how no one has looked at Hitchins argument that brought it about (continued)
Not true. With the meathod of measuring the angles of triangles over long distances in space, science has determined the universe is likely infinite
Who says the universe was created from nothing. Space, time and the laws of physics may very well have existed before. At this point I do not think anyone has the answer and most likely nobody ever will.
Hitchens, brilliant as usual.
Hitchens must be saying, "O my God" :)))
He did answer it to a degree, but I don't think he put it across very well. Basically what he was saying was that it's not his job to answer that - he is content not knowing, and there's no reason to assume that a creator did it. He should have said that more clearly, and possibly elaborated on it, but that was his stance.
I noticed he does not answer the question but avoids it the question is how do you get something from nothing but he deflects it and goes on to something else rather than answer the question I mean that is a legitimate question even though you say you don't know you're still inserting that the universe itself was created out of nothing how is it possible understatement is correct the fact that the universe will be destroyed from an atheistic point of view still does not mean there was not a creator think about it as the example has been given the typewriter was created and now it's phased out to say you have a typewriter in your home today it's almost unheard of and for children non-existent and before someone says the computer still types like a typewriter remember it's a computer completely different from a typewriter
Thank you. Too many of the arguments put by religious people against evolution appear to be born of wilful ignorance. Its the refusal to look at the evidence for oneself and reflect on it.
I was raised religiously and know the drill: the pastor tells you what's wrong with evolution, tells you its evil and "just a theory", and in doing so discourages you from thinking and reading for yourself.
That is why so much criticism of evolution is just ignorant and grossly distorted.
@JusJuiceIt
That just pushes the question one step back. What are the odds that an all-powerful, intelligent being could just exist, with no cause? I don't claim to know all the answers, but saying "gawd dun it" certainly doesn't explain everything either.
@Emrys93 Hitchens didn't dodge, he showed that the question ("How do you get something from nothing without a cause?") is meaningless, especially coming from creationists, who believe in a God who exists without being caused--that is, they believe in a God who is "something from nothing without a cause." Until the creationists admit this, why should Hitchens answer the question anymore than he did here? Once creationists answer this question, they can pose it to non-believers.
@JusJuiceIt
Quote the part where I say "bible".
As for the probability of a life permitting universe, imagine a puddle looking at the hole its in and saying "wow, this is perfect for me, it MUST be made to fit me" when in actuality it was the puddle that fit the hole. The universe isn't made to permit or inhibit life, life adapted to the constraints of this universe.
Jooky said,
"it's not hitchens' responsibility to correct this."
Well, that's sort of how debate works. Your opponent asks a question and you either respond or point out why the question itself is flawed.
Hitchens avoids the issue altogether; which is enormously common for him in debate. Such evasion strongly suggests he lacks the intellectual substance to deal with the dilemma as presented.
He relies instead on charm, charisma, linguistic finesse, belittling, and red herrings.
just about the exploding star thing christopher said about how something can turn into nothing. I know he said 'a whole lot of nothing' but it just makes me a little worried people will get the idea that a star dissipates into totally nothing in space. As far as our observable region of the universe goes, we have not yet found a region of space that is a perfect vacuum (as far as I've read).
The simplicity of truth is very powerful but avoiding answering questions with a maze of lies along with changing the subject also works on people it seems .
He doesn't fail to see the possibility of the existence of God but he fails to see the love of God. If Christopher thinks that God is cruel by coming to earth and being nailed to a cross by His own creation for our mistakes, then he is missing out on the big picture. We are not slaves, God gave us free will and look what we did with it. If he knew that, I would be confused as to why he doesn't want to believe with all his being that there is a God like that who loves him.
Actually he did in a way , He talked about how everything is extraordinary in order which is beyond limits of probabilities . For once more you didn't talk about my main argument which is not Einstein or his quotes . Thank you for taking the time for this discussion . Appreciate it .
ex nihilo is impossible!
@silverstream314
The argument is that, whilst times do change, morality in its kernel does not.
And the judgement that because different peoples and nations at different times had a different idea of morality and what is acceptable doesn't at all rule out the idea of there being a straight, definite, proper form of morality, it simple adds to the imperative of finding it.
The argument by Judaism is that it exists and has been applied to different times and places wherever Jews have lived.
Every argument that Hitchens' opponent comes up with is flawed.
How?
Because it's based on a presupposition and a god belief when there's no rational reason to ascribe it as factual.