Paul Davies is one of the few that I think gets it. He is not threatened by religion the way many other scientists, who make it about themselves, are. Really respect the man.
@César Rabbit Religion Bad, Science Good? So very sophisticated of you...except it's a very simplistic cliche'. Arguably the most influential scientist in history, Isaac Newton, wrote over 3 million words on theology. Please try a bit harder.
@César Rabbit Since Newton was at the very beginning of the birth of modern science, he brought with him idiosyncratic beliefs of his day. But are you finding fault with his -- Theory of Gravity, or of the Nature of Light, or his magnum opus -- The Principia Mathematica? Your point fails. And, like many other famous scientists, he had his demons. After all, Kurt Gödel became so paranoid he refused to eat, and so starved himself to death.
@César Rabbit Well, haven't you noticed how Dawkins goes well out of his way to attack religion? In fact, all these New Atheist scientists, like Lawrence Krauss are like that.
The world is intelligible, being the expression of a set of ideas and principles; These principles form an organic system - the universe; But this system is not complete without understanding itself - through an idea that is an idea of the idea itself. The tautology is meant to express the state of supreme integration, where everything knows/reflects and becomes everything else - just like the beads in Indra's Net. Theillard Du Chardin called it the omega point, ancient greeks called it the monad, advaita vedantists call it the uniquely existing Self, etc. But some modern scientists who bothered to address the concept say that although some degree of large scale integration is possible, an "integrated Whole" cannot ever be possible. Myself, i really enjoy the poetry of the first propositions, who belong to some known philosopher from a century ago which i don't remember.. while nonetheless, i'm convinced by the scientific honesty of physicists who say that we have strong arguments against that. If you've read this while leaning strongly towards one side of things, do a brutal exercise of honesty with yourself and really ask what's making the decision? Who/what's doing the validation? How did you arrive at your conviction? Is it personal interest, are you by some chance deeply emotionally invested in that scenario? Off course you are, exactly like everyone of us - we're all humans. But any genuine spiritual being would have honesty, and implicitly intellectual honesty. I think it's almost a duty to (privately and humbly) believe and have faith in the virtues of the larger existence around you, but this mustn't at any point make you blind. We have literally countless beliefs, from various and very different religious beliefs, to superstitions like the belief in rabbit's foot, to beliefs in paranormal activity, flat earth and vampires. A vast majority of them conflict with one another. It's very clear from how things evolved throughout human history that MOST human beings live and die without ever experience a moment of clarity and honesty. Delusion and paranoia is the norm. It's not necessarily bad for them personally tho - some souls are simply made to live in these delusions, like fish are made to live in water. The mystic sufi poet Rumi said that real spiritual experience is mystery, and whoever runs the race to see himself at the finish line has absolutely no understanding. It's not just him, but many deep thinkers, from the east and west, including Einstein, said that the ultimate(!) experience is the experience of mystery. NOT absolute certainty. We, having inherited the unconscious animal psyche (which among other things, is honed on the food at the end and not so much on the journey), especially those of us who were rigorously trained in capitalism and consumerism, CANNOT BUT look for the selfie at the finish line. Many of us in our desperation, can't wait indefinitely for this finish line, and their unconscious cheats by deluding itself with the belief that it arrived in the possession of Ultimate Truth. Just search around in any comment section, and pretty much every other human knows what's really going on :) True spiritual experience is the understanding of the enigmatic quality, the incomprehensible beyond. Science is the best means to reveal the "mind of God" but it will always have something outside its explanations - medium.com/@rares_mircea_82/headlessness-identity-and-unity-9ffe7fff0bef
A real scientist is the one who recognises his ignorance but knows humain potentialities, and I think that Paul Davies is a reall scientist. Thanks Prof.
He’s touching on this idea that humanity seems to be “over-engineered” in evolutionary terms. He seems to be saying that we are a small spark of that universal consciousness or understanding. It’s this old idea that there is a small piece of “god” inside all of us. That God isn’t so much out there as much as being the “life force” that is part of us. Can’t explain this very well but I’ve done my best.
Then again, the data can be interpreted as: we aren't "over-engineered", we are "mis-engineered" - we suffer from a slew of imperfections that no self-respecting designer would leave in place.
@@januslast2003 Imperfection is due to duality and randomness and the necessity for choice. If there was no duality, no good or bad, there would be unity, only good, no opposition and nothing would be, or would need to be, manifest. Duality is likely necessary for evolution from non-comprehension to comprehension or to self-awareness, which is not necessary to an all-knowing Being, but is necessary to manifested beings in order to evolve to a level of comprehension which is exactly is what Prof. Davies is saying.
@@carlosblk perhaps truth and logic in all reality are not linear but actually circular. Perhaps the answer is linear,with the question being circular. Or vice versa
The universe evolved to create us so that we can evolve to create along with it. Our thoughts and our actions create. We are all partners participating as creative beings in one way or another. As Humans we must play our part by living out our potential creativity just as other life forms live out theirs. The trick is to use our creative force kindly and not destructively, so that we contribute to harmony.
he makes an interesting point where he says human beings are more than mere observers and can unravel the plot.. we can unravel the mechanics of what exists but are we entitled enough to understand why anything exists in the first place ? there's an assumption that when we evolve to fully understand how the engine runs it will reveal why its there but Im not sure they are the same thing ? its possible we are only observers when it comes to why...
I am surprized to hear Paul talk about the role conscious observer in QM. In QM any macroscopic system that interacts with a quantum system can be an observer. A video camera, a detector, or even air molecules will do. Of course a macroscopic, conscious entity can be an observer, but not because it is conscious but because it is macroscopic. The conscious aspect is not at all a requirement of quantum measurement. Scientists unfortunately used the word observer, which has caused endless confusion. The reason why it is very hard to build a quantum computer is precisely because it is very hard to keep quantum bits in the quantum computer isolated in a quantum state from even the air molecules in the lab.
Thought provoking stuff ! Interesting to listen to a top scientific mind that is prepared to engage with philosophical as well purely scientific questions. Who is going beyond just "crunching the numbers ".
Phenomenology is not about some sort of purpose or some sort of design as some sort of prima facie assertion. phenomenon is only what it is and it takes deductive reasoning based on observations to trace the origins of the universe. We have limits to our five senses, but that does not mean the observations are false, only they are limited. Where human projection enters the picture is assigning the whys or the purpose of existence or Cosmology.
The meaning/purpose might be as simple as to be or not to be. Whenever I ponder philosophical questions of existence I always find myself reverting back to thinking that "everything is as it seems". There are no great answers or purposes outside of what we can already conceive with our own minds.
God for me is energy pure energy that is apart of the whole universe who binds it together all good comes from God reality nature is willed by God God is pure love to connect with god you must love through love you connect to god and the universe ,
Very nice and coherent. What I think he gets wrong (and he himself points out that the assumption demands caution) is mixing purpose and meaning with fortuitous complexity. Though it transcends the "survival and multiplication only" mode, our comprehending the universe can not be seen as an achieved goal, but rather as mere chance that this would happen somewhere in the vast Universe. That may even be a factor in the Fermi Paradox thing.
These ideas remind me very much of the writings of Chris Langan who currently holds the record for highest tested IQ. Many prominent scientists seem to be gravitating toward a platonic view of God as first cause, in whose mind the laws of logic and universals have their grounding.
We don't need traditional belief any more than Aristotle needed Christianity to have a belief in the universe having a teleology - or Pythagoras, Plato, Heraclitus, Giordano Bruno, Spinoza etc but they ALL saw meaning in the universe.
6:28 "there is no reason in biological evolution why human being need to understand the universe" : I disagree completely. Abstract though and understanding of the the environment gives a huge survival advantage. Anthropologists have very sophisticated theories showing how this has lead to our modern reasoning capabilities.
Davies skirts the important question( is there a God?). He is a Deist, in my opinion( doesn’t believe in a personal God). But he’s getting there! ( I.e. to a belief in a personal God)
How condescending. Of course there are personal ‘gods’, millions and millions of them, all created in the minds of humans. That’s why everyone’s version is different and you get denominations and sects and completely separate religions. But the entity only exists between the ears of the believers.
Before I was born, I didn't exist, therefore I couldn't have a will, because there was no " I ".... But now that I'm here, I can tell you that I was brought here against my will, for if I could have seen this life before I came into it, I would not want to be born. And farther more, now that I'm here, I'm kept alive here against my will, and the only recourse I have to leave this life is the gruesome choice of suicide, of which I'm afraid to commit. I pretty fucked, I'd say.
Tony, I feel you, brother. I've felt like this fairly often. It's not helpful 100 % of the time, but sometimes I have found the following helpful: Shifting your identity away from the ever-shifting mind (including emotions) and body to instead being the witness of mind and body, that alone which never changes (at least in any conscious state) and because of which all appearances and changes (mind, body, and world) are known. Here is a metaphor from the Katha Upanishad to illustrate this: "As the sun, who is the eye of the World, cannot be tainted by the Defects in our eyes or by the Objects it looks on, so the Self, Dwelling in ALL, cannot be tainted By the Evils of the world. For this Self transcends all!"
In the name of God..a lot of innocent lives have been killed, exterminated, tortured, so while the reason for believing in a God could be purposeful, hopeful and spiritually helpful, it also could be deceitful and dangerous.
04:55 "Evolution" is physics means change over time but "evolution" is the context of biology means evolution by natural selection (aka survival of the fittest". The two shouldn't be conflated. Having meaning, purpose and the ability to predict future events increases survivability; that's why the occur in biological creatures. The same can not be said about the cosmos so why would be believe the cosmos develops such abilities? 6:00 Having always believed something is no reason to continue to believe that thing and no justification for believing it. 7:00 It is a non-sequitur that because we might be able to describe the universe that description has any significance to the rest of the universe. Such a belief is an act of faith and not of science or reason.
Do you think humans are extremely lucky organisms whose sole purposes are to replicate our selfish genes and to pay taxes.? Do you think rational and logical thinking should always prevail over emotion and intuition and therefore become like robots who supposedly don't make mistakes and are emotionless. Believing something is true is great for ever , its all subjective. To listen to a well respected physicist talk about his opinions on GOD to my mind is creating good debates . Humans have always NEEDED a spiritual/ intuitional / emotional side to compliment their left brained , focused , rational brain to exist. Why do you think the early species of humans died out ? . Why do humans look after dogs and cats or the elderly? That is not needed under a Darwinian concept of war of the species. Time for a lucky cup of tea.
@@geoffbowcher3189 I think humans are extremely unlikely but even unlikely things happen. Humans sole purpose isn't to replicate or pay taxes. There is no a priori purpose for humanity, or any particular human, but that doesn't mean we can't invent one for ourselves. There is no evidence that humans now or at any time needed spirits. We invented the idea of spirits but it hasn't proved very useful. Why do you think the early species of humans died out ? Evolution by natural selection. Why do humans look after dogs and cats or the elderly? Evolution by natural selection. Humans main evolutionary advantage is intelligence and knowledge. The elderly are repositories of knowledge thus having a tendency to nurture has evolutionary advantage. That doesn't mean we can't do it for other reasons (see inventing purpose above). Humans and dogs evolved together.
@@myothersoul1953 evolution by natural selection is why early humans died out? So you maintain the same process that brought a species into existence also exterminated them? Interesting. We nurture the elderly the due to some advantage by associating them as repositories of knowledge? That is truly laughable. Many of the elderly are quite ignorant and delusional along with many who enjoy youth. To assume that we care for elderly out of some kind of evolutionary advantage provided is again,hilarious and somewhat sad. "Humans and dogs evolved together?"Well so did all other species of plant and animal that shares the same evolutionary timeline as humans. So what is the significance? Sounds like a lot of "reaching"and incomplete statements with no real substance or truth
@@xenphoton5833 Yes, an explanation that describes both how species diverge and how some die out is preferable to switching between explanations because in order to maintain some presumption. Individuals nurture the elderly because of emotional connections. That does not counter the evolutionary explanation of how those humans developed the propensity to have those propensities. It's a misunderstanding of evolution to think that it does.
If humans on earth are part of the natural universe then the universe has already evolved toward comprehending itself at least through one of its parts. It seems that the conundrum of "self comprehension" of the universe arises from viewing humans as other than a part of nature (or universe) itself.
I think the stuff in science about the universe comprehending itself stems from the "Observer Problem" in Quantum Physics. But this is a big flaw/limitation in that theory, not a basic feature (of the Universe).
The Eternal Life cant be Seen, Only Known Rainbow picture our Eternal Consciousness, a Set of Eternal Abilities, as can Only be Known through their nature.
God says: "With Power and Skill We created the Heavens and We are Expanding it" . Quran, Chapter 51 : 47. Who created the sciences that were used to create the universe? Surely it required a super brilliant mind?
Davies says "when the atoms were rattling around ( before there was any life ), they didn't have any individual meaning or purpose...it's something that emerged as part of evolution." He cannot substantiate that statement any more than he can substantiate that there is Life apart from what exists on Earth. I don't recall where he made the following claim, but he asserts that we know where matter came from. No we don't. We have competing theories, none of which are close to having been proved. The fall-back position is that since we know there is matter, it must have come from some cosmic, naturalistic cause. That's not SCIENCE.
I don't understand why some people are born so intelligent. LOL These people are important to world progression ie, leading science to a new level. To understand the meaning of life and the existence of universe.
One meaning and purpose we might actually have is that an eternally consciously existent entity could never ever personally experience a total cessation of conscious existence, and yet that is the one very thing we apparently cannot escape. Coincidence? Maybe, or maybe our purpose of conscious existence is so that we can cease to consciously exist so "God" could experience death through things that consciously exist and then cease to consciously exist. Should be pretty easy for us to do. If "God" were involved, would it really be any other way?
The problem in these kinds of dialogues is that the silly notion of God is set aside, but in the vacuum the scientist substitutes her/his own ideas of morality. But if Darwin was correct, there is no meaning, just -- as Nietzsche wrote -- one person willing themselves to power over all the others. Not much of an answer, in the final analysis.
His book the " Demon in the machine " is a ripper. Maybe we are entering a new age. Evolving past this age of information. When love comes to town I want to be on that train.
Go round in circles? Read the book the Human Self and Allah by G A Parwez.. all logically explained based on evidence. There is a purpose of human creation ... and the universe..
God is an old man with a great white beard and thick fingers. He can do anything and if you need him, you can ask in your head. Whenever you don’t need him, you can do whatever you want but if, God forbid, you get sick….then you call on him. Great hey ?
To start with, you need to listen to the voice of our Creator and obey His commandments. If you don't listen to Him, you will not learn how you were created. This will keep you confused and make you believe that you're a real person living in a world full of good and evil things. Deuteronomy 32 39: "`See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Psalm 94 7: and they say, "The LORD does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive." 8: Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise? 9: He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see? 10: He who chastens the nations, does he not chastise? He who teaches men knowledge, 11: the LORD, knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.
I think you'll find his ideas align far more with constructor theory, which is more than just the laws of physics considered on their own. Personally I find constructor theory very convincing and I expect to see a shift to the way all physics and in fact anything else is thought about some time in the not to distant future. Paul Davies is at the vanguard of those scientists prepared to commit to testing this new idea. Anthropocentric it is not (you'll no doubt be pleased to hear) ...
+Aaron Lehman I agree the interviews are awesome but I think theologians are becoming. I mean the full title of the show is "Closer to Truth: Cosmos. Consciousness. Meaning (God)"
+Heinz von Biboo Thanks for the feedback. I respect him for being indiscriminate in his approach to the truth, but still... logic does not equal truth, ancient wisdom is not Devine, there is no evidence for god or the supernatural, etc. yet all his theological interviews begin with one or more of these assumptions every time. I think he should raise his standards, that's all.
The rational Theist Sure, but again, show me one of his theological interviews where one or more of these presumptions isn't worked with from the start: ancient wisdom is divine, consciousness is immaterial/transcendent, something cannot come from nothing, logic equals truth, there is evidence for the supranational, presently unexplainable realities in the universe must be god, etc. These are the universal foundation of theological thinking, with perhaps a few more I didn't mention (feel free to add some if you know of more). So, personally, I don't think it's not worth listening to someone work through philosophical questions from an easily falsifiable starting point. It leads you down endless rabbit holes, paradoxes, and false conclusions.
What you've listed aren't necessarily presuppositions of theology. Theology is the study of God, simplistically speaking. But, if you delve more in depth into it, it also incorporates study of religious texts, literary criticisms (which is very important when it comes to debating the existence of God, that's precisely what argumentation is based on), and last but not least, it studies historical narratives. So, theology isn't really a set of doctrine, it's more of a systematic form of study. You also seem to be conflating ''Theologian'' with ''Theist''. This simply isn't always the case. It's entirely possible to study religion/religious philosophies without necessarily believing in them. There are atheist theologians that exist. I would also say it's very practical for atheists to study theology, to a certain degree. It helps atheists get some perspective, and helps them understand some of the arguments for and against God/religion- which is very important if you're interested in deconstructing religious arguments.
If particles, as Paul claims, at the beginning had no purpose then the Universe can never have any cosmic purpose; we can only attribute meaning to it!
Godinci False, Davies addresses this exact point in another interview employing a form of backwards causation that stems directly from quantum physics.
![[Part 1] Paul Davies on What’s Eating the Universe | Closer To Truth Chats](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fctEKDnTNRU/mqdefault.jpg)
It is so remarkable how insightful Paul Davies speaks on these philosophical issues with such razor-sharp thought.
Paul Davies is one of the few that I think gets it. He is not threatened by religion the way many other scientists, who make it about themselves, are. Really respect the man.
He's just a brainwashed child, after that they are damaged and can't think straight ever again.
@César Rabbit Religion Bad, Science Good? So very sophisticated of you...except it's a very simplistic cliche'. Arguably the most influential scientist in history, Isaac Newton, wrote over 3 million words on theology. Please try a bit harder.
@César Rabbit Since Newton was at the very beginning of the birth of modern science, he brought with him idiosyncratic beliefs of his day. But are you finding fault with his -- Theory of Gravity, or of the Nature of Light, or his magnum opus -- The Principia Mathematica? Your point fails.
And, like many other famous scientists, he had his demons. After all, Kurt Gödel became so paranoid he refused to eat, and so starved himself to death.
@César Rabbit The point is your attack against religion in favor of scientists. It's nonsensical. But you obviously were just trolling.
@César Rabbit Well, haven't you noticed how Dawkins goes well out of his way to attack religion? In fact, all these New Atheist scientists, like Lawrence Krauss are like that.
Davies is the only individual who can speak about 'divine' matters without insulting the audience's intellectual honesty.
"The Universe has not just engineered its self-awareness but its self- comprehension" WOW!
The world is intelligible, being the expression of a set of ideas and principles;
These principles form an organic system - the universe;
But this system is not complete without understanding itself - through an idea that is an idea of the idea itself.
The tautology is meant to express the state of supreme integration, where everything knows/reflects and becomes everything else - just like the beads in Indra's Net. Theillard Du Chardin called it the omega point, ancient greeks called it the monad, advaita vedantists call it the uniquely existing Self, etc. But some modern scientists who bothered to address the concept say that although some degree of large scale integration is possible, an "integrated Whole" cannot ever be possible. Myself, i really enjoy the poetry of the first propositions, who belong to some known philosopher from a century ago which i don't remember.. while nonetheless, i'm convinced by the scientific honesty of physicists who say that we have strong arguments against that. If you've read this while leaning strongly towards one side of things, do a brutal exercise of honesty with yourself and really ask what's making the decision? Who/what's doing the validation? How did you arrive at your conviction? Is it personal interest, are you by some chance deeply emotionally invested in that scenario? Off course you are, exactly like everyone of us - we're all humans.
But any genuine spiritual being would have honesty, and implicitly intellectual honesty. I think it's almost a duty to (privately and humbly) believe and have faith in the virtues of the larger existence around you, but this mustn't at any point make you blind.
We have literally countless beliefs, from various and very different religious beliefs, to superstitions like the belief in rabbit's foot, to beliefs in paranormal activity, flat earth and vampires. A vast majority of them conflict with one another. It's very clear from how things evolved throughout human history that MOST human beings live and die without ever experience a moment of clarity and honesty. Delusion and paranoia is the norm. It's not necessarily bad for them personally tho - some souls are simply made to live in these delusions, like fish are made to live in water.
The mystic sufi poet Rumi said that real spiritual experience is mystery, and whoever runs the race to see himself at the finish line has absolutely no understanding. It's not just him, but many deep thinkers, from the east and west, including Einstein, said that the ultimate(!) experience is the experience of mystery. NOT absolute certainty. We, having inherited the unconscious animal psyche (which among other things, is honed on the food at the end and not so much on the journey), especially those of us who were rigorously trained in capitalism and consumerism, CANNOT BUT look for the selfie at the finish line. Many of us in our desperation, can't wait indefinitely for this finish line, and their unconscious cheats by deluding itself with the belief that it arrived in the possession of Ultimate Truth. Just search around in any comment section, and pretty much every other human knows what's really going on :)
True spiritual experience is the understanding of the enigmatic quality, the incomprehensible beyond. Science is the best means to reveal the "mind of God" but it will always have something outside its explanations - medium.com/@rares_mircea_82/headlessness-identity-and-unity-9ffe7fff0bef
... Downloaded: ... Selfawareness Machine Code ...
WOW INDEED! ✨🌌💫😊
I have always enjoyed theories when things self-organize, or self-create, but especially stupidity...
@@tomashull9805 😂
A real scientist is the one who recognises his ignorance but knows humain potentialities, and I think that Paul Davies is a reall scientist. Thanks Prof.
He’s touching on this idea that humanity seems to be “over-engineered” in evolutionary terms. He seems to be saying that we are a small spark of that universal consciousness or understanding. It’s this old idea that there is a small piece of “god” inside all of us. That God isn’t so much out there as much as being the “life force” that is part of us. Can’t explain this very well but I’ve done my best.
Then again, the data can be interpreted as: we aren't "over-engineered", we are "mis-engineered" - we suffer from a slew of imperfections that no self-respecting designer would leave in place.
@@januslast2003
Imperfection is due to duality and randomness and the necessity for choice. If there was no duality, no good or bad, there would be unity, only good, no opposition and nothing would be, or would need to be, manifest. Duality is likely necessary for evolution from non-comprehension to comprehension or to self-awareness, which is not necessary to an all-knowing Being, but is necessary to manifested beings in order to evolve to a level of comprehension which is exactly is what Prof. Davies is saying.
When you know little science you say there is no God but when you know more science your inner core of heart say that There is a God.
completly false. its not lineal
👍
@@carlosblk perhaps truth and logic in all reality are not linear but actually circular. Perhaps the answer is linear,with the question being circular. Or vice versa
What a great interview! Anybody know if there's a full version of this?
More then any other, this guy blows my mind
The universe evolved to create us so that we can evolve to create along with it. Our thoughts and our actions create. We are all partners participating as creative beings in one way or another. As Humans we must play our part by living out our potential creativity just as other life forms live out theirs. The trick is to use our creative force kindly and not destructively, so that we contribute to harmony.
i love the smile at the end, its the universe saying "this is my jam!"
One Organism. No inside no outside. Yet inside outside. Duality. Non thought, no time, and true freedom
he makes an interesting point where he says human beings are more than mere observers and can unravel the plot.. we can unravel the mechanics of what exists but are we entitled enough to understand why anything exists in the first place ? there's an assumption that when we evolve to fully understand how the engine runs it will reveal why its there but Im not sure they are the same thing ? its possible we are only observers when it comes to why...
@@raycharlestothebs haha, thanks... no seriously!
I am surprized to hear Paul talk about the role conscious observer in QM. In QM any macroscopic system that interacts with a quantum system can be an observer. A video camera, a detector, or even air molecules will do. Of course a macroscopic, conscious entity can be an observer, but not because it is conscious but because it is macroscopic. The conscious aspect is not at all a requirement of quantum measurement. Scientists unfortunately used the word observer, which has caused endless confusion. The reason why it is very hard to build a quantum computer is precisely because it is very hard to keep quantum bits in the quantum computer isolated in a quantum state from even the air molecules in the lab.
Wow. I like that
Thought provoking stuff ! Interesting to listen to a top scientific mind that is prepared to engage with philosophical as well purely scientific questions. Who is going beyond just "crunching the numbers ".
Phenomenology is not about some sort of purpose or some sort of design as some sort of prima facie assertion. phenomenon is only what it is and it takes deductive reasoning based on observations to trace the origins of the universe. We have limits to our five senses, but that does not mean the observations are false, only they are limited. Where human projection enters the picture is assigning the whys or the purpose of existence or Cosmology.
The meaning/purpose might be as simple as to be or not to be.
Whenever I ponder philosophical questions of existence I always find myself reverting back to thinking that "everything is as it seems". There are no great answers or purposes outside of what we can already conceive with our own minds.
It would be nice to have dates on these interviews.
It's not a date sorry. Why you not use tinder? Crazy person!
Well why don't you ask somebody to come over or go to dinner with you and watch these interviews together.
God for me is energy pure energy that is apart of the whole universe who binds it together all good comes from God reality nature is willed by God God is pure love to connect with god you must love through love you connect to god and the universe ,
Creating your own god I see.
Very nice and coherent. What I think he gets wrong (and he himself points out that the assumption demands caution) is mixing purpose and meaning with fortuitous complexity. Though it transcends the "survival and multiplication only" mode, our comprehending the universe can not be seen as an achieved goal, but rather as mere chance that this would happen somewhere in the vast Universe. That may even be a factor in the Fermi Paradox thing.
Can't hear much at high volume on my cell
Our meaning and purpose in life might just be a stepping stone in the evolutionary pathways.
These ideas remind me very much of the writings of Chris Langan who currently holds the record for highest tested IQ. Many prominent scientists seem to be gravitating toward a platonic view of God as first cause, in whose mind the laws of logic and universals have their grounding.
Any names?
@@januslast2003 Sir Roger Penrose and Bernardo Kastrup would be two examples of the top of my head.
We don't need traditional belief any more than Aristotle needed Christianity to have a belief in the universe having a teleology - or Pythagoras, Plato, Heraclitus, Giordano Bruno, Spinoza etc but they ALL saw meaning in the universe.
6:28 "there is no reason in biological evolution why human being need to understand the universe" : I disagree completely. Abstract though and understanding of the the environment gives a huge survival advantage. Anthropologists have very sophisticated theories showing how this has lead to our modern reasoning capabilities.
Davies skirts the important question( is there a God?). He is a Deist, in my opinion( doesn’t believe in a personal God). But he’s getting there! ( I.e. to a belief in a personal God)
How condescending.
Of course there are personal ‘gods’, millions and millions of them, all created in the minds of humans. That’s why everyone’s version is different and you get denominations and sects and completely separate religions.
But the entity only exists between the ears of the believers.
Before I was born, I didn't exist, therefore I couldn't have a will, because there was no " I ".... But now that I'm here, I can tell you that I was brought here against my will, for if I could have seen this life before I came into it, I would not want to be born.
And farther more, now that I'm here, I'm kept alive here against my will, and the only recourse I have to leave this life is the gruesome choice of suicide, of which I'm afraid to commit.
I pretty fucked, I'd say.
Tony, I feel you, brother. I've felt like this fairly often. It's not helpful 100 % of the time, but sometimes I have found the following helpful: Shifting your identity away from the ever-shifting mind (including emotions) and body to instead being the witness of mind and body, that alone which never changes (at least in any conscious state) and because of which all appearances and changes (mind, body, and world) are known. Here is a metaphor from the Katha Upanishad to illustrate this:
"As the sun, who is the eye of the World, cannot be tainted by the Defects in our eyes or by the Objects it looks on, so the Self, Dwelling in ALL, cannot be tainted By the Evils of the world. For this Self transcends all!"
In the name of God..a lot of innocent lives have been killed, exterminated, tortured, so while the reason for believing in a God could be purposeful, hopeful and spiritually helpful, it also could be deceitful and dangerous.
yup, reckon most athiests would agree with that mun!😑
So if I went out and killed a thousand people and said it was in the name of Nelson Gonzalez, would you be at fault?
I think Davies, a rather brilliant scientist, just provided a good argument for a "traditional" God.
??
04:55 "Evolution" is physics means change over time but "evolution" is the context of biology means evolution by natural selection (aka survival of the fittest". The two shouldn't be conflated.
Having meaning, purpose and the ability to predict future events increases survivability; that's why the occur in biological creatures. The same can not be said about the cosmos so why would be believe the cosmos develops such abilities?
6:00 Having always believed something is no reason to continue to believe that thing and no justification for believing it.
7:00 It is a non-sequitur that because we might be able to describe the universe that description has any significance to the rest of the universe. Such a belief is an act of faith and not of science or reason.
Do you think humans are extremely lucky organisms whose sole purposes are to replicate our selfish genes and to pay taxes.? Do you think rational and logical thinking should always prevail over emotion and intuition and therefore become like robots who supposedly don't make mistakes and are emotionless. Believing something is true is great for ever , its all subjective. To listen to a well respected physicist talk about his opinions on GOD to my mind is creating good debates . Humans have always NEEDED a spiritual/ intuitional / emotional side to compliment their left brained , focused , rational brain to exist. Why do you think the early species of humans died out ? . Why do humans look after dogs and cats or the elderly? That is not needed under a Darwinian concept of war of the species. Time for a lucky cup of tea.
@@geoffbowcher3189 I think humans are extremely unlikely but even unlikely things happen. Humans sole purpose isn't to replicate or pay taxes. There is no a priori purpose for humanity, or any particular human, but that doesn't mean we can't invent one for ourselves.
There is no evidence that humans now or at any time needed spirits. We invented the idea of spirits but it hasn't proved very useful.
Why do you think the early species of humans died out ?
Evolution by natural selection.
Why do humans look after dogs and cats or the elderly?
Evolution by natural selection. Humans main evolutionary advantage is intelligence and knowledge. The elderly are repositories of knowledge thus having a tendency to nurture has evolutionary advantage. That doesn't mean we can't do it for other reasons (see inventing purpose above).
Humans and dogs evolved together.
@@myothersoul1953 evolution by natural selection is why early humans died out? So you maintain the same process that brought a species into existence also exterminated them? Interesting.
We nurture the elderly the due to some advantage by associating them as repositories of knowledge? That is truly laughable. Many of the elderly are quite ignorant and delusional along with many who enjoy youth. To assume that we care for elderly out of some kind of evolutionary advantage provided is again,hilarious and somewhat sad.
"Humans and dogs evolved together?"Well so did all other species of plant and animal that shares the same evolutionary timeline as humans. So what is the significance?
Sounds like a lot of "reaching"and incomplete statements with no real substance or truth
@@xenphoton5833 Yes, an explanation that describes both how species diverge and how some die out is preferable to switching between explanations because in order to maintain some presumption.
Individuals nurture the elderly because of emotional connections. That does not counter the evolutionary explanation of how those humans developed the propensity to have those propensities. It's a misunderstanding of evolution to think that it does.
If humans on earth are part of the natural universe then the universe has already evolved toward comprehending itself at least through one of its parts.
It seems that the conundrum of "self comprehension" of the universe arises from viewing humans as other than a part of nature (or universe) itself.
I think the stuff in science about the universe comprehending itself stems from the "Observer Problem" in Quantum Physics. But this is a big flaw/limitation in that theory, not a basic feature (of the Universe).
The Eternal Life cant be Seen, Only Known
Rainbow picture our Eternal Consciousness,
a Set of Eternal Abilities, as can Only be Known
through their nature.
The purpose of the Universe is creativity, not the human projected maxum of love.
God says: "With Power and Skill We created the Heavens and We are Expanding it" . Quran, Chapter 51 : 47. Who created the sciences that were used to create the universe?
Surely it required a super brilliant mind?
Nah
Boo
" We don't just watch the show . We have unravelled the
plot... "
Ninguém consegue ler legendas numa velocidade dessa.
Sou sua fã
Davies says "when the atoms were rattling around ( before there was any life ), they didn't have any individual meaning or purpose...it's something that emerged as part of evolution."
He cannot substantiate that statement any more than he can substantiate that there is Life apart from what exists on Earth.
I don't recall where he made the following claim, but he asserts that we know where matter came from. No we don't. We have competing theories, none of which are close to having been proved. The fall-back position is that since we know there is matter, it must have come from some cosmic, naturalistic cause. That's not SCIENCE.
Paul Davies is my favorite scientist and writer. I've read lots of his books. And this interview is just enlightening.
I don't understand why some people are born so intelligent. LOL These people are important to world progression ie, leading science to a new level. To understand the meaning of life and the existence of universe.
One meaning and purpose we might actually have is that an eternally consciously existent entity could never ever personally experience a total cessation of conscious existence, and yet that is the one very thing we apparently cannot escape. Coincidence? Maybe, or maybe our purpose of conscious existence is so that we can cease to consciously exist so "God" could experience death through things that consciously exist and then cease to consciously exist. Should be pretty easy for us to do. If "God" were involved, would it really be any other way?
life and mind precedes all matter, in my opinion...the desire for a sip of water precedes my arm lifting the cup...
Nice statement of pantheism.
in short ,no traditional god of the Bible or Koran or Torah or any other "holy book"
"The purpose of the universe is understanding itself." Sounds weird to me.
The problem in these kinds of dialogues is that the silly notion of God is set aside, but in the vacuum the scientist substitutes her/his own ideas of morality. But if Darwin was correct, there is no meaning, just -- as Nietzsche wrote -- one person willing themselves to power over all the others. Not much of an answer, in the final analysis.
His book the " Demon in the machine " is a ripper. Maybe we are entering a new age. Evolving past this age of information. When love comes to town I want to be on that train.
Self comprehension of what looks inanimate.
See.... Faith.
"Everything🎵is beautiful"-"coz🎵we live🎵in a world🎵of our own"🤙🏼
just let the mind do its work.. It will get an automated system. I will give you the concioussness, you need. And subconsiously wants..
He's right. And he leaves it at the door of Alan Watts.
Go round in circles? Read the book the Human Self and Allah by G A Parwez.. all logically explained based on evidence. There is a purpose of human creation ... and the universe..
The answer to the meaning of existence is love
Infinite universe has no purpose. But in the finite world everything has a purpose, including your hair to nose to heart to even your smallest finger.
God is an old man with a great white beard and thick fingers. He can do anything and if you need him, you can ask in your head. Whenever you don’t need him, you can do whatever you want but if, God forbid, you get sick….then you call on him. Great hey ?
allah has created this world
C.T.T.T. are you still okay?
Universe is curious about itself isn't that meaningful ?
This isn't really saying anything more than materialism.
Is there something bigger,(than the mind) i guess not)
God have no exist out of the imagine.
Robert De Niro
To start with, you need to listen to the voice of our Creator and obey His commandments. If you don't listen to Him, you will not learn how you were created. This will keep you confused and make you believe that you're a real person living in a world full of good and evil things.
Deuteronomy 32
39: "`See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Psalm 94
7: and they say, "The LORD does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive."
8: Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?
9: He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?
10: He who chastens the nations, does he not chastise? He who teaches men knowledge,
11: the LORD, knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.
*****
You obviously weren't chosen to listen to our Creator's voice.
Brad Holkesvig So you believe the bible is the perfect word of God ?
It's a word weak people use...
his position smacks of anthropocentrism.
which is just a label. Doesn't alter the truth value of his views
I think you'll find his ideas align far more with constructor theory, which is more than just the laws of physics considered on their own. Personally I find constructor theory very convincing and I expect to see a shift to the way all physics and in fact anything else is thought about some time in the not to distant future. Paul Davies is at the vanguard of those scientists prepared to commit to testing this new idea. Anthropocentric it is not (you'll no doubt be pleased to hear) ...
so does yours. what's your point?
First!!!!!!! You need more subs, your channel is awesome. Stop interviewing theologians though, waste of time. I'm aware this guy isn't one of them.
+Aaron Lehman I agree the interviews are awesome but I think theologians are becoming. I mean the full title of the show is "Closer to Truth: Cosmos. Consciousness. Meaning (God)"
+Heinz von Biboo Thanks for the feedback. I respect him for being indiscriminate in his approach to the truth, but still... logic does not equal truth, ancient wisdom is not Devine, there is no evidence for god or the supernatural, etc. yet all his theological interviews begin with one or more of these assumptions every time. I think he should raise his standards, that's all.
+Aaron Lehman Interviewing theologians is important when it comes to these topics. Theologians deal with philosophy in some way or another.
The rational Theist Sure, but again, show me one of his theological interviews where one or more of these presumptions isn't worked with from the start: ancient wisdom is divine, consciousness is immaterial/transcendent, something cannot come from nothing, logic equals truth, there is evidence for the supranational, presently unexplainable realities in the universe must be god, etc.
These are the universal foundation of theological thinking, with perhaps a few more I didn't mention (feel free to add some if you know of more).
So, personally, I don't think it's not worth listening to someone work through philosophical questions from an easily falsifiable starting point. It leads you down endless rabbit holes, paradoxes, and false conclusions.
What you've listed aren't necessarily presuppositions of theology. Theology is the study of God, simplistically speaking. But, if you delve more in depth into it, it also incorporates study of religious texts, literary criticisms (which is very important when it comes to debating the existence of God, that's precisely what argumentation is based on), and last but not least, it studies historical narratives. So, theology isn't really a set of doctrine, it's more of a systematic form of study.
You also seem to be conflating ''Theologian'' with ''Theist''. This simply isn't always the case. It's entirely possible to study religion/religious philosophies without necessarily believing in them. There are atheist theologians that exist.
I would also say it's very practical for atheists to study theology, to a certain degree. It helps atheists get some perspective, and helps them understand some of the arguments for and against God/religion- which is very important if you're interested in deconstructing religious arguments.
Ignosticism
The Quran is appealing to reason.
If particles, as Paul claims, at the beginning had no purpose then the Universe can never have any cosmic purpose; we can only attribute meaning to it!
+Godinci Very, very simplistic thought. Reductionism.
Godinci
False, Davies addresses this exact point in another interview employing a form of backwards causation that stems directly from quantum physics.
so funny.
Davies wants to have his cake and eat it too. No can do. What he's talking about is more probable in classic theism than in a non theistic naturalism.