@BYJOB Why? Why do you default to nothing existing before something? Maybe something has always existed. We also know from quantum physics that virtual particles are constantly popping into existence out of "nothing."
I really like her videos. I do believe in personal God -- Christian. But I realize that my belief is based on Faith, not direct observation. I can observe the difference that such faith makes in a person, but that doesn't prove that God exists, only that belief does have consequences. Most people argue against God because He can't be observed scientifically. IMO, that doesn't prove non-existence. I really like Sabine's matter of factness about this.
Science says universe start from a big bang, after that big explosions everything look so beautiful...sound like a fairy tale to me...atheists don't believe in God and science they believe in Disney magic.
Atheists are deluded. The universe has physics constants that are fine tuned for stable chemistry, 118 elements. Atheist physicists sweep that fact under the rug by setting those physics constants to 1, effectively ignoring them. It was the Christian community that discovered the oversight. Your welcome. :)
Christian community ? What about other 3999 communities 🤣 ? Even the presence of a religion naturally spits on other group of humans who don't belong to that religion. First get everyone to follow at least one GOD , thn worry about his existence 😑
@@wulphstein Those stable observable attributes that you mention are axiomatic. What would one expect an observed to see? Would expect to see a state of chaos that would preclude the existence of the observer and the things she observes? What the observer never sees is a god. But feel free to add one or more gods to your religion as Sabine suggested. That's where they belong, safely tucked away where they can never be verified or falsified. Religion is tuned that way by holy men.
@@wulphstein So you disagree with the expanding universe theory? you know, the one where those constants will change over time as our universe tears itself apart at the subatomic level, you'd think any all knowing creator would correct for this, however no, in about 14 billion years this universe won't exist, there will be no evidence that it ever existed, it's called the heat death.
I appreciate the view that God and science are orthogonal. If God transcends physical laws, then by definition science cannot postulate on his existence.
If God transcends physical laws, then he could certainly “break” the laws scientists have observed and provide science the evidence to his existence. The fact that many dogmas today says that God refuses to be tested, and therefore my disbelief will result in my eternal punishment ... I can say: There is no evidence for the existence of god, but if god does exist I would certainly choose not to worship such a being who would punish me for not having faith in charlatans. And for the most part, I don’t believe god exists because there is no evidence. So the burden of proof is on those who disagree because I can’t prove a unicorn doesn’t exist either.
@@thomasreedy4751 Don't confuse belief in God with membership in a particular religious organization. That's like saying cars can't be reliable because my '78 Chevy Camaro was a piece of junk.
@@thomasreedy4751 God provided science with the evidence to His existence. It's called nature. All of nature is evidence of God's existence. He doesn't need to break the laws of nature to reveal Himself. The problem is most scientists these days spend little time reflecting on the meaning of creation. This is very much opposed to the origins of scientific inquiry where part of the reason for studying creation was to know the creator.
@@thomasreedy4751 to Play devil's advocate if there was empirical evidence of a God then that would trump many purposes of an omnipotent being (to spread maximal good) as many would worship out of fear.
@@arthurkalb1817 The professor simply said there is no need to add GOD to the scientific system because doing so does not make anything simpler or easier. Having a GOD or not, dose not change the nature or science, or the study of science. So she said, GOD is superfluous, at least for science. My take is, (1) if one believes GOD creates nature, doing research is less ideal than just praying for an answer; (2) if science can be explain based on observable facts solely collected by human scientists, there is no need to bother GOD, regardless the status of one's religious belief.
next time just copy a sentence of prayer to your homework and see what does you teacher say. Basically this is what scientists use multi-verse on sloppy equations
Clarification needed: "observable" should include the aspect of reproducibility. Reproducibility might rule out some things that are true, but it keeps us from ruling in things that turn out to be illusion. It's the thing that makes science so powerful, and it is the difference between science and simply working math and logic problems.
@@jacobbritton7359 comparing my statement to a dead Frenchman is like comparing the creator of AI, (me) to the invention thief T.E. Since I have doubled the human lifespan with my technology, I say we follow me, not the meme of God.
@@jacobbritton7359 in addition, without the map of consciousness, the psychological paradigm is as loose change in a deep pocket. It is the total understanding of consciousness that made my A.I. possible in 1991. FREEDOM from the god illusion made extinction avoidance and delay possible. All that has ruined the world comes from an acceptance as real that which can NEVER be real in any universe multi or not.
@@mavrosyvannah I think my respect for Auguste Comte just increased. Also, if you still say things like "meme of God" in 2021 after 3000 years of deep philosophical and logical inquiry has been devoted to the subject, I assume you do not read books.
Jesus don't like crosses. Vampires don't like crosses. Think about it. Drink of my blood and ye shall have eternal life . . . No wonder the Romans were worried.
Too many people have overlooked the fact that this video is a buildup to towards explaining (and possibly rejecting) the idea of the multiverse, rather than God's existence
@@ultron3693: "Yes, but physical reality is not the only type of reality." > Stick to the quote & don't fight a silly straw man. The quote just speaks of "reality". There's no specification. @ultron: "That claim needs further proofs." > Why? If "God" is playing hide (& seek), how do you want to beat him?!
Not really a comment about this video. But, this reminds me of when I talk to atheists and try to convince them that atheism is a faith based religion, and science is on the side of being agnostic. We don't have any test data on God beyond personal experience. Science has not discovered a test for these experiences Then they scream at me with religious fury about how there is no God because "science and logic". All I can do is face palm and walk away. As far as we know we exist in some kid's computer in another dimension. But Atheists "just know" science already has all the answers, despite the lack thereof. We live in a giant room, in a big house, and all we can study right now is the paint on the walls.
I am the type of Atheist you are arguing against here, so maybe I can explain that religious fury a bit. ;) The god described in this Video (often called philosophical god) is consistent with science, because it does nothing. The reason people get angry when you mention that is that (almost) nobody has ever believed in such a god. No religion would call such a being without any influence on anything a god, since it would be entirely irrelevant. In addition to that the debate about the existence of god is usually not about god at all and instead about a huge set of religious doctrines that gets infused into the term god. It is usually expected that you believe god has certain properties like omniscience whenever you use that term, because most people only know about the Christian or a similar god.
@@richardhauer7354 That is an opinion with a lot of assumptions about what a God should do and how a God should operate. As far as we know, we are a waste product from something a God is really interested in. As far as we knows God lies to people constantly and tells everyone different things in their personal experiences. I am putting no parameters on God. That is a big problem with Atheists, they think science has defined God, and ruled out God. Basically, if you are not agnostic, you are not using science. We don't have the data beyond personal experience. God may or may not exist. God may only whisper to people in the middle of the night to change their minds. He may show up every day and destroy the universe, only to reload it from his last save point. He may not exist at all.
@@OakInch " As far as we know God lies to people constantly and tells everyone different things in their personal experiences." No, why would anyone believe that? If you hear mysterious voices or something like that, there would be no reason to immediately assume you heard a god. You could just as well believe that your dead grandpa talks to you or any other common superstition. "That is an opinion with a lot of assumptions about what a God should do and how a God should operate. " I think you misunderstood me a bit here. You described a god that listens to your prayers. If he answers your prayers by doing something, you can prove his existence. If he gives everyone similar answers, that they could not know otherwise, you could also prove his existence. The only type of "god" you can not rule out is a completely useless one. There is no reason to call some background noise of the brain god. That term has historically always been used for entities in religion, so if you suddenly start to call all sorts of weird stuff a god that's just needlessly confusing. "He may show up every day and destroy the universe, only to reload it from his last save point. " In that case the term god makes sense, but the whole idea is still just a random and needless assumtion. Instead of assuming there is a god, you could assume any other nonsense as well. So, the point I am trying to make ist that "Deos God exist?" is a trick question: You could just as well ask "Do Ghosts or UFOs exist?" and end up with the same result: It just a waste of time.
I think God is a concept that people share as we contemplate our own person and awareness. If we could apply science to our own selves to understand what we are, no matter how many results are found, it would not be enough to satisfy the need to be always assured that we are more than just a random collection of star dust.
@Clips: "... it would not be enough to satisfy the need to be always assured that we are more than just random collection of star dust ..." > Speak for yourself!
Hi Sabine! People arguing in the comments on things that does not have any observable consequence tells a lot about our society. Thanks for your great videos and I have to admit, it is incredibly nice to see a -my dear opinion- great scientist with a taste in art!
@mertoteles It is not true that God concept does not have any explanatory value or any observable consequence. For argument’s sake, let us assume that the universe is infinite. Then the distance from one end of the universe to its other end will be infinite. If space is absolute, as it was in Newton’s theory, then this infinite distance would remain an infinite distance for everybody. Now, introduce an omnipresent God here. This God being omnipresent, it will be present at each and every point of the universe at the same time. God being present at both ends of the universe at the same time, the infinite distance will no longer remain infinite; it will become zero for God. So, with the presence of an omnipresent God, we get this: what is an infinite distance for us is zero distance for God. In the same way, it can be shown that what is an eternity for us is no time for God. So, the existence of an omnipresent God can explain why space and time cannot be absolute. Here, I have not claimed that there is a God. I have only shown that God concept does have observable consequence.
I have seen God's envolvement, in circomstances, and events. The reason I have seen this, is because I call to Him, in Jesus name, and I see things change, in a way that relates to my prayers.
Even if true (and I think the studies in question confuse correlation with causation), that just commits the genetic fallacy. Einstein fudged his equations to get away from an expanding, non-eternal universe. That doesn't change the fact that said equations, the cosmological constant, do a good job of describing the effects of Dark Energy.
Dawkins pretty much explained it in many of his interviews/debates/books/whatever. The human mind tends to give ‘agencies’ to observations. Like the wind moving the leaves of a tree: you can’t see the wind, so you assign an agent (a wind god) to it. These beliefs then get passed on to others, and there you have religion. Which by itself wouldn’t be a problem, but at some point it went wrong and started to indoctrinate. That’s a question for historians.
Psychologist Jordan Peterson takes a pretty good crack at explaining how the bible's stories in Genesis reflect upon human psychology. ruclips.net/p/PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat Peterson points out that the main problem that a person faces in day to day life, especially 2 to 3 thousand years ago, is not so much how to know, but how to act properly and choose worthwhile goals so that you and the people around you can live a good life. The very concept of objective truth didn't exist at the time that the ancient religious text was put together, so in order to understand what the authors were trying to get at, you have to read it from their point of view: a world where 5000 people was a large city, a world with no police, no doctors, no grocery store, no courts, no books, no schools, barely any government or civilization at all. Of course the stories read like nonsense if taken as a description of objective reality. The stories are early lessons told allegorically, on how to create a functioning society, how to avoid pitfalls, how to become a better person and live properly without people constantly being at each other's throats. When understood from this perspective, as an early guidebook for living at a time when there were only a handful of any written texts, the bible and other similar kinds of religious writings can be seen as serving a useful purpose in helping people survive.
@@Michiel_de_Jong That's an incredible statement for which there is zero evidence. medium.com/@benbob/on-dogma-the-perils-of-belief-without-proof-f8d084b5313a
Hi Sabine you said that ignoring evidence is not an option. And yet there are literally volumes that have and are being written about religious experience, paranormal activity, miracles, and many other highly frequent events and we could draw a statistical inference from all of these events to prove that natural alone does not exist. We might label these events as non other than "supernatural" events, and they should be called "super-natural," because they seem to display an interference patter with nature and emerge from something beyond our own vantage point in the physical 4th dimension of space-time. Many people claim that these supernatural occurrences are not "repeatable in a lab" and therefore are not in the domain of science, but that is because super-natural events are not the consequences of laws of nature which act consistently, but are subject to the changing agency of super-natural forces which may have changing wills like those of humans. Additionally, if you took the summation of all the supernatural events which have been recorded across the analogues of history and were to subtract all the events that there is proof of confirmation bias, lying testimony, etc., and you would inevitably be still left with millions of testimonies of the supernatural which demand and explanation, if not from science, then we must make an inference to the best framework that explains our experiences of the supernatural in some other domaine and that is exactly what religious have done (with a surprising amount of consistency about the key points of the operations and nature of God and even Spirits).
@@sudo-apt-upgrade-brain I don’t disagree. Science’s task should be relegated to the empirical domain. There is a place for the systematic study of the super natural, and that is the domain of theology :)
_"which demand and explanation, if not from science,[...]"_ We already have sciences to offer the best yet explanation. Psychology and Sociology give us explanations which are as of yet the best repeatable answers we've got. Measurements, Reference, Framework and all Something else might pop up and give clearer answers, but till then we have some pretty clear explanations already: We humans are just very fallible, every single one of us, and honest self-reflection is VERY difficult if not impossible to do.
Sabine is not a Goddess because her existence results in observable consequences and provides a simplified explanation for how her channel exists. Did you learn nothing from the video?
We all agree that science is about making observations and measurements. So, when we discuss how fine tuned the universe is, one part in 10^10^128, how could this have occurred without an Intelligent Designer? Atheists have to use an illogical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the many world interpretation, to come up with 10^10^128 universes where the physics constants are all different values. But there are zero observations of even a second universe. I thought science was about observations? Not making wild and irrational claims and trying to make them stick using peer pressure.
enigma - True, we don’t have a name plate that says “made by God”. But the evidence is certainly there. The original post stated the mathematical improbability of the universe forming by chance. Couple that with the mathematical improbability of life forming and you have the signature of an intelligent designer. You are free to believe in chance if you want. But I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
@enigma - My original statement still stands: The fine tuning of the universe is a *good argument* for an intelligent designer. I did not say: "This is proof for the God of the Bible". I would be happy to have that debate, but on on a RUclips comment section.
@enigma I know that federal and state laws exist on databases in DC, state capitols, on the internet, in manuals of state and federal officers. But where do the laws of physics exist? I advocate that the laws of physics and the physics constants are written upon the "thoughts" of God. In contest with my idea, which I can explain more clearly and deeply, there is "nothing" from that atheist physics point of view. My idea is experimentally verifiable. Atheist POV depends upon dumb luck raised to irrational levels that would make a unicorn blush!
I think God is consciousness. God is the consciousness what understands science and much, much more than science, God is the consciousness that unfolds in its revelations and evolves all life forms. God is not only thought, but what gives rise to awareness and makes thought possible. Although not a person, consciousness is always personal.
Christians: how can these kids believe in santa Claus and Easter bunny? Haha, such fools! Also Christians: *goes to church to pray to a fiction character*
Santa Claus and the Easter bunny have nothing to do with Christianity or any other faith tradition. Going to a place of worship in order to worship is by no means just a Christian peculiarity.
@@lylecosmopolite it's not only a Christian peculiarity but I'm talking about the Christians. And I've never said santa Claus ir Easter bunny was part of the Christian belief. Maybe read again before talking.
@@nickmendez5693 Nobody has the prerogative to say what can and cannot be talked about in a social media thread. What I wrote was addressed to all readers of this thread, not to you alone. No one can blame Christians for doing X, when billions of nonChristians also do X.
talking about god LOL... we have no clue what human consciousness is all about .let alone god... the brain has 86 billon neurons, each neuron can form 1000 synapses to map ll ,a computer will take around 3 million years !!!!!!! .. and we are trying to figure out what/who/where god (or gods)is/are ??
I think Science can only say "no comment" for versions of God that have (in theory) no observability. But the religions of Judaism and Christianity do in fact make testable assertions, such as that biblical events are real, that reality was constructed in a particular order, and that various historical events occured.
The core of christianity is the resurrection of Jesus what scientific experiment could be performed to test that claim of an anonymous author for which the original manuscript we do not have only copies made by later people that we don’t know either. The discipline of science only attempts to explain what we observe and can make models of. To be able to make accurate predictions and make accurate measurements. Why because they are useful. The four constants maybe just properties of the universe how would any person devise an experiment to prove something that doesn’t manifest in our reality in any way that we can measure ? The strong nuclear force the weak nuclear force electromagnetism and gravity. If you insert God you compound the problem because now you have to demonstrate the existence of what that is ? Other than an abstract concept manifested in the thoughts that are the emergent property of a physical brain.
This is practically admitting that people who pretend science disproves God's existence are wrong and unscientific in their statement (not following the standard they claim they follow). What I expect from a scientist is to be at least as honest and humble as to say "I don't know. No proof can be constructed to prove or disprove God".
A very mature presentation. This is a respectable way to present the position of science in relation to questions like ‘does God exist?’ or ‘is there a multiverse?’ Both God and the multiverse are unobservable and thus not in the scientific realm. That’s not to say they are not real, but they are unobservable and therefore not part of scientific inquiry. Freedom of religion gives people the choice to believe what they want, be it personal gods, Satan, the multiverse, or the little green man and zoom zoom.
However, I question whether your assumption that "they are unobservable and therefore not part of scientific inquiry". How does one explain the event at Fatima, Portugal in October 13, 1917 when thousands of people saw the "Miracle of the Sun"? Even atheist news journalists were present and wrote about what they saw with their own eyes. That is, the "sun dancing about the sky", or the "sun moving and changing colors like a disc that danced around the sky". These observations were predicted by three very young children who were told presumably via an apparition by the Virgin Mary that a miracle would be performed that day "for all to see". The three young children of Fatima Portugal in 1917 were told by a "lady" who promised on the "13th day of each month from May 13, 1917 until October, 13, 1917. She told the three children that two of them would not survive. Two died from the Spanish flu outbreak at the time, but the third, Jacinta lived into her 80s. How is it that many thousands of people were able to see the same miracle, including atheists? It had rained and rained that day, but after the "Miracle of the Sun" the muddy ground was completely dry. This is scientific proof of a predicted miracle. Science has observed the facts. Science has never disproved these facts. Science simply either forgot about them, or chose to ignore this facts. Thus there is evidence of God. There are other "miracles" that have also been observed by "Science" but have never been scientifically explained. Science has not been able to explain how the image of the "Shroud of Turin" was created. Oh, and please don't waste you time citing the C-14 test. That test approximated dated a strip of the Shroud that was added via the 13th century art of "French Reweaving". So how does modern day science explain "miracles" which by definition from the Latin, "marvelous event caused by God". Or, "to wonder at"? These events can be traced back in history. See www. Shroud.com for evidence on the Shroud. You can do you own YT search on Fatima and the "Miracle of the Sun". My point is that it is a misnomer that there are no facts to point to a God. There are very many if you open your mind and look for them.
@@daffidavit So....you have three kids that convince people to stare at the sun, hope for something to happen. And you are surprised that they see strange colors and movements of the sun? I have a prophecy for you - my cat just told it to me - tomorrow at noon you must stare at the sun for miracles will happen. I promise you you will see things! Also, you may live to old age - but you will unfortunately suffer from poor vision.
@@jarls5890 The sun hurt nobody's eyes as they gazed at it. It looked like a "silver disc" changing colors. There are swore depositions by people who came to make fun of the event only to see a "miracle". There's even YT videos on the subject if anybody cares to view them.
Ahsen Salim’s Conjecture: “The algebra of science and the algebra of belief are neither isomorphic nor homomorphic.” Assuming that this is true, it is meaningless to ask science to provide answers to questions (“mappings”) on beliefs (e.g. the existence God), and equally meaningless to ask a belief system about answers to science questions (e.g. ask the Bible to explain the existence and workings of black holes). So anyone who nevertheless insists on posing these types of questions, is making the assumption that the aforementioned conjecture is false (because they are expecting such answers or mappings). Attempts to continue to ask such questions are either misguided or have some other motivation.
Pedro S thank you and indeed many scientists fall into the same trap, as well as many believers. This causes scientists to reject spiritual beliefs because (almost by definition) beliefs are unscientific, but more importantly and more sadly it causes many non-scientists to reject science because in their mind science contradicts their belief, and this latter rejection has strong negative implications for their personal growth and progress, and for society in general.
Very well put. I am a scientist still not everything is measurable as scientists would like the folk to think. How would you measure the amount of love a mother has for her children? How would one measure hope? Another example from the technical field, the humble number one 1. Does it even exist outside our mind? Isn't 1 just a belief with no measurable or observable consequences? Yet, so useful!
I can make a conjecture and then follow up with my ideology that the conjecture supports..it doesn't make it correct or scientific. That being said everyone has their own belief system and have the right to have it.
'... is making the assumption that the aforementioned conjecture is false' Well, it is a conjecture, after all. We don't need to belive in that conjecture until proven.
Yes, its true that if someone gives you a computer program assuming it was written by an intelligent being adds absolutely nothing to understanding the code. You can analyze it to a sufficient degree to understand it completely and predict its behavior without ever assuming it was designed. In fact you can safely assume it came into existence randomly as the result of a permutation of keystrokes lasting several billion years for every one hundred lines of functional code. And you can do this without losing even the slightest ability to quantify its behavior. According to this logic we can therefore conclude that postulating the existence of software engineers is pointless and unscientific. The simplest possible explanation, the most scientific one, is to assume that all computer programs occur randomly and that the existence of intelligent programmers is a myth.
This is where science and philosophy/theology intersect: To explain why the universe, which is not eternal, began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, you need a cause that is not matter, energy, space-time, or the physical constants of the universe as we know them. You also have to explain the fine-tuning. There are two main competing theories on this: God and the infinite multiverse theory, with a few others that are less known (e.g., brane theory). None of these theories are scientifically testable and may be forever untestable, meaning that most atheists are philosophically dependent on a fundamentally religious idea, as you yourself point out in the multiverse video.
And that is precisely why science has hit a brick wall and been stuck for about 20 years on the issues of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Because physics and wondered into the realms of philosophy, not science. Worse still, it has done so for largely disingenuous reasons. I’m kinda late to this party but, for what it’s worth . . . It is true that science has nothing to say about, “God.” Certainly not the God of the three main faiths that share the same original Jehovah. In the same way that physics has nothing to say about an individual’s personal taste in music, or to explain why we’re happy or sad. And that works both ways. While one’s personal faith might inform a scientist’s personal approach to their work, their relationships within the scientific community, or the type of physics they are interested in, God will not show up in their equations, nor should He. I take issue, only in part, with one thing you said. Dark Energy is my exemplar to explain why. People assume it exists, because of observed phenomena, but they might be investigating something that is not even there, or real in a physical sense? It could be an effect of gravity that has not yet been discovered, or any one of several other hypotheses that have been suggested by great minds? Yet, we investigate it, because we want to understand the universe better and settle on a universally understood theory, which would benefit all of science and, ultimately, all of human kind. You will say, “Yes. But that is a scientific response to a real, observable phenomena in the universe, which science has something to say about.” But, my answer would be that there are phenomena which are genuinely, objectively experienced in the universe, which could be caused by something outside of our time space continuum, like Dark Energy, that could be caused by a knowing, all powerful, “god-like,” consciousness. Science cannot rule that out, despite the fact that there is no hypothesis for investigating it directly. That being said, though science has nothing to say about God and God has nothing to say about hard science, all I’m suggesting is that, once we start using science to refute the existence of God, we have done a disservice to both science and people of faith. On the one hand, we are ruling out the possibility of something, without any evidence to support that stance: attempting to prove a negative, which is by its nature, impossible. And, on the other hand, we are making God a preoccupation of science, whilst arguing that God has no place in science. If scientists believe there’s no place for God in the physics, they fail to see the fallacy of their own placing of God at the centre of the science, in a vain attempt to prove a negative. That’s comes off as a bad faith exercise, and somewhat oppressive to people of faith, don’t you think? Scientists need to leave God alone, if they truly have no belief in him. A trivial point, you think? If you think that, you’re failing to see why physics has hit a brick wall in the last 20 or so years. Instead of doing the science they get paid to do, physicists (not all of them, obviously) have devoted themselves to the disputation of faith, spending time, money and other resources on ever increasingly extravagant hypotheses, which are reaching a breaking point of sheer lunacy, if you ask me! “Many Worlds?” Really? An entire structure of, “scientific,” thinking, upon which millions have now been spent, despite there being ZERO proof for any of it! Sure, there are elegant mathematic theorems, etc, but all of them are fatally flawed when any attempt is made to apply them to the real world. An infinite number of dimensions, stretching out forever, from every single decision point of every living creature, which would make one minute of one day create so many separate universes springing into existence (out of thin vacuum) that their number is literally incalculable; yet bigger than the number of electrons in the known universe? Give me a break! It’s a philosophy, not a scientific hypothesis, and what’s more, it is far less plausible than the notion of a god. So yes, I would agree that the two spheres of human endeavour, “faith,” and, “science,” have NOTHING to say to each other. But, instead of fallaciously trying to rid god from the equations, why don’t scientists get their own message, and leave God alone? If they stuck to the observable universe, instead of wasting vast sums on colliders, we might have all had our flying cars by now, floating on a cloud of Dark Matter, repelling the effects of gravity? I mean, who knows? Does it really require a new, enlightened generation before science can take its next paradigm shift, back to real physics? . . . ✌️
@@andrewg3196 Only by ASSUMING (without a lick of evidence) an infinite number of universes, each of which has randomized physical constants. Even Hawking, in his final paper, calls that a fundamentally religious concept in that it can never be tested and is, therefore, an article of faith.
@@ReturnofBenjamin that's not the argument put forth in her video at all. It's quite clear you have your own preconceptions so I won't waste my time with a fool like you.
"meaning that most atheists are philosophically dependent on a fundamentally religious idea," I disagree, I would like to say "I do not know" is not a fundametally religious idea.
Physicists exist to discover the perfection of God's creation. God exists to bring meaning and purpose to creation. Thus science and religion are a duality, not a dichotomy.
That's the very Crust formula of the Cosmic Biscuit Dude. Or as Zappa had put it... ''The Crux of the biscuit is the Apostrophe.'' Now a then; as for bringing the meaning and the purpose to it all... All the Dude ever wanted, was his rug back! *All the Creator ever want's, is His Children back. Reckon the both of them are seeking to reclaim The same perfect Universal closure formula; that really ties their rooms together? Dichotomy? Any dichotomies lie within them inept Dick-Headed Nihilists! ''Gestalt?'' *-...And it seemed real. It seemed like us. And it seemed like well... our home... If not Arizona, then a land, not too far away, where all parents are strong and wise and capable, and all children are happy and beloved... I dunno, maybe it was Utah. -H. I. McDunnough -9419
This is a disingenuous video. If she is saying that believing in God can only be viewed in a religious sense, apposed to a philosophical or scientific sense, then she is back-handingly saying that belief in God has no rational merit and should not be believed by mature adults.
I don’t think that’s what she is saying. All she is saying is we can’t use the scientific method to study God. I do not know what she personally believes but it appears she is trying to be as unbiased as possible and keep her faith (or lack of) out of the equation, because that’s just how proper science works. She never said there was no merit to religion or philosophy. And I, as a Christian myself, obviously believe there is great merit in such things. But if we can put our faith under a microscope is it faith any more or does it cease to be faith and merely become evidence? Similarly, once speculation beyond observation enters science, are we properly using the scientific method any more? It’s not that faith and science cannot coexist in explaining existence, but merely that they are fundamentally different tools that work in completely different ways. Neither is wrong, but because of the parameters of each tool being so fundamentally different, when you try to force the two together you end up doing something that is neither.
@@JairCrawford no, she would certainly say faith is indeed wrong because there is no logical reason to have faith. And only science should dictate belief. She is in the flying spaghetti monster camp.
@@jeffo3455 I mean, that very well could be her beliefs on the issue but that’s not the point she is making in this video. In other words whether she is against religion or not has no bearing on how the scientific method works, so it’s irrelevant to the point she is making here, specifically.
I decided exactly that when I was 10 years old and I chose to stop praying and believing in a god or gods. Basically I suspected that nobody was listening when I was praying every night and I decided that I did not need to add a god in order to understand what I was observing every day. I have been an atheist for over 5 decades now and it hasn't bothered me even once.
@@ruschein I'm really on the fence on this. I mean I'm not particularly religious but part of me feels uncomfortable with the idea of there being no God.
@@jackkraken3888 Well, the way I look at it is the same as the way I feel about a grey and rainy day. Just because I don't like it, I still have to accept it. Of course I am over 60 now and I have never missed believing in a deity. Also, how would you decide which one or ones to believe in? In my country most religious people are either Christian or Muslim. If you want to guess w/ a very high level of accuracy which religion someone is following you just have to know their last name. What I am trying to say is that the "choice" of religion seems to be purely cultural 99% of the time. I bet in India it would be the same if you had to guess if someone is a Hindu or a Muslim. If the parents are Hindus, the person is most likely a Hindu o/w the person is probably a Muslim. There does not seem to be an objective way to choose a religion. I have a Ph.D. in physics and know a lot of people who are biologists. Most physicists and biologists seem to be atheists. Why is it that people that study the basic laws of our universe and life seemingly feel no need to postulate the existence of gods in order to explain what they know? Also if there were one or more gods, why should they have anything to do with an unimportant race of primates (we are the closest relatives of chimps not gorillas or orang-utans)? The universe is an incredibly large place and it always struck me as incredibly arrogant that religious people seem to think the whole thing just exists because of us and that we're somehow the chosen species of an all-powerful god.
@@ruschein What is your opinion of the afterlife crutch. Do all Atheists believe there is nothing after death? If so why suffer all of this? If I didn't believe in an unmoved mover that initiated all consequences, I would off myself to avoid further suffering.
@@eugenetalley7447 I've never heard of an atheist who believes in an afterlife. I mean can there be an afterlife unless you believe in a soul? Personally I think that idea is preposterous. Why suffer all this? One strong reason why "we suffer all this" is that as animals that are products of natural selection we have very strong survival instincts. That is, it's not easy to end your own life for most of us. Apart from that, I try to enjoy the ride. I am fascinated by the world we live in and I have a lot of fun. Did I have experiences that were hugely depressing: yes, I most certainly did. Still, I have so much fun! Whether it's watching another SpaceX launch, hanging out with a friend, petting a random cat that I meet in the street, studying kanji, visiting Tokyo, working on solving a programming problem or watching anime. I could go on and on. When I was very young, I was thinking about eternal life. Back then I decided that I did not want to live forever, just so long until there was nothing left that intrigued me. I assume that would be a very long time indeed, but, as a human being I am not sure I could last so long given the burden of the losses and damage that we accumulate in a long life. Today I discovered another joy: listening to jazz hip hop. Totally awesome! So little time, so much to enjoy!
I think the main problem with your position is that it completely ignores Classical Theism(which is under the Scholastic tradition). The God of Classical Thesim is NECESSARY because he is the unactualised actualiser, non contingent being from whom all contingent 'beings' derive their existence from. Science and all the scientific theories cannot, by definition, explain why something exists metaphysically, it can only explain how it came into being by referring to some other contingent 'beings'. This is not flawed. But it is incomplete if your goal is to under the whole of reality and the foundation of it, not just how changes occurs or how the world behaves.
I personally don’t believe in the existence of gods that look like culturally specific humans (or animals that a culture knew of), espouse culturally specific norms and taboos, and isn’t “sticking his head of the clouds” in a way that can’t be faked or imitated by human beings to tell us what’s up. These three qualities strongly suggest to me that such a god or gods are the culturally specific product of human imagination, and not actually real. If your god has a problem with me believing this, then maybe this god should stick its head out of the clouds and say something about it itself. As opposed to me listening to yet another human being, whose access to “god” is the same as mine, rationalize this god’s existence or provide more non-evidence. If God won’t say anything itself, then it either doesn’t care if I believe because it’s looking to see if I’m a virtuous person irrespective of faith, or it’s evil and punishes people for not worshiping it in exactly the way it wants to be worshipped even when they don’t know any better (and refuses to stick its head out of the clouds to tell us how), or it does not exist.
It seems approaching the subject these days is a taboo that most say is a needless risk to one's career. Kind of like touching the third rail. As such most people ignore the topic in much the same way you wrap up the existence of god. Great video and I applaud you for taking on the subject!
@@CheapHomeTech No it's not. Science is not able to prove "God" does or does not exist. Atheism claiming that "God doesn't exist"/i.e. "God is falsifiable" is only slightly less unscientific as any church claiming "God exists"/ i.e. "God is verifiable". Agnosticism gets it least wrong by saying: "The concept called "God" is - per definitionem - not falsifiable, let's occupy ourselves with something useful instead." Why do some people need the "verification of the nonexistence of God" for their mental peace?
@@susanne5803 Perhaps you ought to rewatch the above video. I'm not saying anything more other than it removes most all religions. I'm not inclined to continue chatting with you since you said in a previous video you disagree with genetics.
@@CheapHomeTech You must mistake me for someone else. The only part of genetics I strongly disagree with is the use of genetic knowledge for so-called "eugenics".
@@CheapHomeTech I remember: if I understood correctly you suggested some kind of evolutionary upward spiral. I disagreed. Darwin at no point suggests that evolution follows any goals. Modern evolutionary theory includes genetics and is therefore able to include a lot of bacterias and viruses. There is no reason to assume there is a plan or any order in evolution.
Your videos are amazing, love the way you mix science and art ... Sure that a lot of your colleagues in science community don't approve what you say, because they only care about their career and promotion.. Schuss....
@paul w What a arrogant person you are , she didn't say that god exist or not, she only explained that there is no proof for both theories ,so you most be more humble , am sure that the hole planet would be happy to hear your theory about god..
The three natures of light are the field, photon, and wave. Light behaves as a wave until we look for it then as a photon. We know the field exists even though we can't see it. The three natures of God are the father, son, and holy spirit.
How about metaphorical existence? As in, god really did and does exist, in that no pope has ever deluded themselves with expecting an answer from god when they pray. It's metaphor for power and hierarchy, and it's used to reinforce and justify inequality
I like what you have discussed about and how you tried to show that physical consequences have tangible sources. But what about intangible things like love, justice, truth, right and wrong? Can these be observed and reproduced by a scientific method? I sincerely believe these should be studied too in a ‘scientific way’, can they be?? I am curious to know.
I think the answer is no. The closest we can get are things like philosophy and the social sciences. That doesn't mean these things aren't real, it just means that they are empirically slippery or even unfalsifiable. But the scientific method is a tool, and should not become a worldview, because when it becomes a worldview/an ontological stance,it's really easy to just write off anything that's unfalsifiable altogether, and you get New Atheist and reductionist ideologues who make pronouncements like "it can't be pinned down, and we can't prove it's necessary for causation in the physical world, so it simply does not exist" . You following me?
That makes no sense. You would have to define god first before you can prove that god is real. And science can not "prove" anything. You're a terrible non-scientist.
There is a no direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy, but they are believed to exist through indirect observations. If science can't tell us what dark matter is, I wouldn't look to science to explain God.
It's a logical deduction that the fine-tuning of the universe leads to either God or an infinite set of universes. Theologians choose the former, atheists choose the later.
How did she "link" belief in God to belief in the universe? I think she just suggested to those who are already believers that there must be something true about their beliefs.
@@robertromero8692 We do not have any evidence of space-time either. General relativity is a theory. Why did she choose multiverse theory? I think it was to throw a lifeline to those who still believe in the supernatural. A belief in God is a theory too. She knows about quantum interference but does not like the multiverse explanation and has no alternative. Or does she see an opportunity to to sell her books or videos to the gullible?
@@patmoran5339 Of course we have evidence of space and time. We directly observe those things all the time, even if we don't fully understand their nature. Neither God nor the multiverse are theories, since they're not testable.
@@robertromero8692 Thank you for your comment. I would like to point out to you that Dr. Hossenfelder avoided discussion of the other interpretation for quantum interference. The only two interpretations we have currently are the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds or multiverse interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is quite vague. It says that somehow human observation or human consciousness somehow interferes. At heart, the difference between the many world interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation is a deep philosophical problem. Many schools of physics teach that philosophy is not necessary since we know that empiricism is the best model of philosophy. However, they somehow miss the fact that if empiricism were true, there would be no need for science. Everything would already be known. When learning about philosophy most physics students are still taught to “shut up and calculate.” The multi-verse interpretation remains the best explanation of quantum interference. And Hossenfelder is, whether she intended or not, throwing out a lifeline to those who are still believers . It fits in nicely with their brand of the misconception that everything that is knowable is already known.
Brilliant , full of clarity , and respectful of both science and religion : that's the way it should be so that anyone can watch it and learn something ! Because we only get a very short life to figure out the answers to the questions that confront all of us..
“Unless one is born or Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom.” She cannot see because she is simply flesh and blood, and she doesn’t hear her own contradictions when saying she depends on observation when all the paradigm defining elements of the science cult are literally non-observable. Big Bang, evolution, DNA, even the globe cannot be observed with one single photo because it is official that the “blue marble” is a patched together rendering of many other smaller photos. You’re living in delusion and call it reality.
'Ignoring evidence is not an option" 70 million Americans beg to disagree, so do 1.8 billion Muslims, 1.2 billion Catholics, hundreds of millions of lottery players, and billions of children under the age of 14.
What evolution has proved, is that a God who needs to be worshipped,does not exist. Two thousand years of Christians singing praises to God, is a total waste of time. God managed without human worship for billions of years, and does not need it now. Even if a God existed,contact with this Being is meaningless.
David Hume (Einstein's favorite writer) came up with this same argument about 250 years ago in response to Intelligent Design Theory. Hume shocked everyone by agreeing that the universe is so complex and perfect that a god must have planned it. But then he pointed out that since God has chosen not to intervene in our daily lives we must conduct ourselves as though no god exists.
So she points out that certain versions of god added to scientific models does nothing to make those models better, or simpler. Therefore we would say that that kind of god is logically superfluous and therefore not a valid topic of rational inquiry, or that it is a "Russell's teapot." Now Sabine does not believe in non-deterministic free will-she holds that all of our thoughts, ideas, theories, models etc. were determined by the physical state of the universe prior to those ideas etc. If that is true, then those conclusions were all inevitable, and we have no justification in adding the logically superfluous statement that they are "true" or "rational". If a conclusion was inevitably determined to occur, then positing that some inevitable conclusions are true or rational and others are inescapably delusional adds nothing. In other words, it becomes logically superfluous to call a conclusion logical. If logic excludes logical conclusions as a meaningful category of "inevitable" conclusions, then logic is self contradictory. Therefore, logic is only valid if the universe is not physicalistically deterministic. If it is not physicalistically deterministic then there must be non-physicalistic agents that play a part in determining the course of the universe. Ultimately what I am saying is that it is logically superfluous to presuppose that observations map an underlying reality unless we have non-deterministic free will which itself is an extra-physicalistic entity which fulfills a foundational definition of a god. .
One can find “god of the gaps” argument everywhere… that one can’t find or know a rational scientific reason…. Easy to fall for that logical nonsense…😅
You are so not like Richard Dawkins - a compliment for you. You understand very well the idea of 'boundary conditions'; a phrase used more freely than perhaps I should use it. What I mean is that you have a good grounding and understanding of the domain and range of science - Dawkins does not unfortunately. Dawkins adds his own hubris to scientific inquiry and what conclusions it can arrive at; in doing so he sometimes fails to see its limits - the places where it has no power to explain - such as the hubris of categorically stating there is no God. Scientists are people with the same limits and flaws as the rest of humanity. Some of them suffer from physic inflation otherwise stated as 'having all the answers ' Carl Sagan got it right when he noted that religious belief is just another way of trying to make sense of it all - science has the same goal but follows the path of repeatable evidence that can then offer up predicted outcomes. Those two attributes by default establish boundaries of scientific knowledge.
We can categorically state that Nothing which cannot be validated exists because there are infinite Potentially existing things and we have no choice but to rationally disregard them unless and until that changes. For something to be considered real we have to be able to replicate it.
1:00 "But who himself does not result in any additional observable consequences ..." Then who/what established the laws of physics, the laws of nature, fundamental constants, etc.? Has random natural processes ever been observed to have the ability to create these laws/constants?
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 ain't the complexity the problem but the actual "arising". The arising that comes out of eternal void breaks the laws of all science. The Big Bang is supernatural in nature. .
Great video! A big problem with this question is that the “fine tuning” argument, love it or hate it, is greatly understated by people who readily dismiss it. The odds of circumstances in a cosmological and biological setting happening for life to exist are overwhelming to say the least. That along with the fallacy that belief in God stunts intelligence and halts advances in research it really does paint a dishonest picture of the current scientific climate.
Let's not jump the gun here. The biological world looked "fine tuned" until Charles Darwin came along. It's the same thing over again. "we don't know how it happened" doesn't imply "god did it".
@@Harry351ify Yes but nobody serious views it in such simplistic terms. Our understanding in these fields are becoming more complex by magnitudes. There's a fallacy that making inquiries through the lens of design stunts progress and research. This simply isn't true it's just something professors say until they're pressed on specifics. What if it does look like there is design present in these systems, so what? How fascinating would that be to discover from any worldview?
@@lowku6421 "nobody serious views it in such simplistic terms" - that's.. kind of what I'm saying. It's simplistic to say "somebody created it" be done with it. It could be more complicated than that. "making inquiries through the lens of design stunts progress and research" - nobody said that. What stunts progress is holding on to faith no matter what evidence comes out. "How fascinating would that be to discover from any worldview?" -yes. But then that begs the question "who created God?" Super God?
@@tonydarcy1606Oh yeah? Let's just ignore that The Big Bang is Supernatural in nature. Becouse let's just ignore that what comes out of eternal void breaks the laws of any physical model and all the science. Let's just assume whatever made the laws and the constants we can measure today in those times that time itself wasn't created probably - is not God. Becouse let's look into the Eye of God and still see your pride and deny God.
@@LyubomirIko Who said the big bang was supernatural ? Not me. Your posited "God" as the cause just raises more questions than it is supposed to answer.
@@tonydarcy1606 The Big Bang event established them all- the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, etc. Has random natural processes ever been observed to have the ability to create laws/constants?
The second law of thermodynamics is a probabilistic law that does create a average behavior tendency toward thermodynamic equilibrium… so yea… and just wait until you read about the quantum. Ps. No one knows how the universe began.
@@juanausensi499 I became a apatheist after learning that there is many Definitons of gods aswell seeing Religious Wars on every comment section Because someone said the Word "God"
God's existence has no observable consequences? I guess she forgot the existence of something rather than nothing, the origin of life, the consistency and predictability of physical laws, and personal consciousness, including moral reasoning (consciousness of objective moral laws), all of which cannot be explained in any way apart from God. Yes, faith is required, for any explanation, more so for the naturalist and materialist.
I am not religious, but I believe in God, and to my own surprise, science has led me to this point. For me, the question is no longer whether God exists, but what God is. What if the evidence is not measurable and precisely this not measurability, this lack of results - is the result / proof? What if the universe is a multidimensional singularity and has properties similar to those of a mathematical singularity, ie a point that is not definable and exactly defined by it? I would not consider that if there was no evidence for this hypothesis, but how is it possible to prove something scientifically if the proof is exactly what is not measurable? At least not yet ^^
If something is not mesurable, it must have never interacted with “phisical” reality, which means it has never done something usefull because otherwise we could measure it. If something has never done any sort of Interaction it is a useless thing and it doesn’t make sense to call it god
@@odtkl3921 Unless it is outside of our spacetime then it's not measurable but may still be the source of everything. It's like the ZERO in math, it has no value that add up to anything else but it's the center, the source of our number system (basically any number system). But without it neither science or math could have been evolved to the current level. If our universe is a singularity - and I've no doubt about that - then there is a singular point that connects everything but isn't measurable because of its absolute unique properties. The tricky part is: If the universe is a singularity then EVERYTHING within are also singularities - even our brain and most likely our consciousness - and all are connected via that absolute unique singular point, whose characteristics are explicitly not measurable with our current standards. The closest thing that would be measurable, would be something at the first dimensional expansion, e.g. that could be a particle like the electron, omnipresent from our perspective but still not the source. It's debatable how to name that absolute unique omnipresent point that connects everything but to my understanding the word God is exactly that - a word for the inconceivable, immeasurable. It's get even more interesting when it comes to the ability to make use of that point - or being able to control it. What or whoever that is, holds the fate of the universe and everything within.
eXtremeDR a singularity is something in our universe that doesn’t work with our currents physichs laws (the center of a blackhole for exemple). Saying that the universe is a singularity doesn’t make any sense to me, considering that most of it is predictable. What do you mean? And is your “God” in our universe? So it could be a blackhole? However if god really had some connection with matter we would be able to measure it anyway
@@odtkl3921 Thank you for asking those questions. Indeed, when I started to research the concept of a singularity, I couldn't find much information except that black holes are considered singularities. Black holes aren't the only singularities, there are different types of singularities and they are all around us, at any level - from bosons, atoms, cells, stars, solar-systems, galaxies, etc. - all singularities. A singularity has specific properties, e.g. each is unique (that's why everything in the universe is unique) and they all share a dimensional evolution, starting at dimension 0. At this point our current understanding of physics reaches its limits. Something extraordinary happens at that 0 point but what exactly? Whatever it is, it defies observation but we can observe the outcome, the surrounding. We are made of singularities, we are surrounded by them - wherever you look, you see a singularity. Of all structures I know, the singularity is the only one able to describe/represent everything - including all life forms. Isn't that what God is - everything? Interestingly, only now we can calculate such a complex structure and begin to understand what couldn't be understood before. Something wonderful will happen when we are ready.
God is a historical way of explaining things we don't understand. Now we know better about so much there is no room for god so the concept becomes a comfort blanket for people to hang onto because the harsh reality offers no afterlife or reward for being good. Also, most concepts of god that people worship are seriously awful beings, how they get regarded as a force for good is beyond me,. We don;t need god as an explanation and are better off without religion. We are also better at writing moral codes than god ever was, no idea why he persists so much. None of this means he doesn't exist, just that nobody - no pope, bishop or imam - knows more about it than anyone else does. Live. love. meditate, look at the stars and keep asking questions. Much better to have questions that can;t be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
Having religion involved in science education is like when you do not know how to solve a math problem in algebra and you just + god in the equation hoping to score brownie points.
Very funny that sounds just like + gravity being the answer when you do not know how to solve a problem in science. What keeps the air on earth from escaping into the surrounding vacuum of space? Gravity. What keeps the air in a balloon from escaping into the surrounding space? The balloon itself. It follows that gravity must be a balloon.
Sabine, I find your logic flawless. I especially lioe how you took the time to define what you mean, exactly, by the word "god." Most scientists who attempt to tackle this issue neglect to do so, and many go on to make the mistake of offering a binary opinion without supporting evidence. Your presentation made no such mistakes nor any other. I applaud you, Sabine. May you live long and prosper! 🙂👌🇺🇸
The question indeed depends on the definition. An omnipotent creator god can logically not exist due to the self-contradiction within the very definition. But superior beings are a possibility, although we have not seen evidence for their existence yet and therefore no reason to presume it.
@@magister.mortran exactly. What I liked so much about her opinion offered is that God, in terms of a person, is scientifically irrelevant as long as that person is not physically present. Religious texts abound with persons claiming to be a god or the God, but invariably, they all left. Or died. Should such superior beings exist, science can simply have no opinion as long as they are not physically present and identifying themselves in observable ways.
I'm glad that you take the time to define what you mean by the term "God." That simple step alone would prevent many of the silly arguments I hear about this topic. Sadly, the last thing many people want to do is actually avoid an argument.
@@ezrawilson6986 No thanks. I guess trying to hide from the onslaught of the destruction of your religion must feel like everything is slipping, slipping, slipping away? So you claimed she "took time to define"what she meant by the term "God." I ask you what it was because I heard no explanation. You want me to read a book. I prefer to stay in reality. No thanks. By the way arguments are absolutely necessary for good science. But beliefs in the supernatural are pessimistic, regressive, and dehumanizing.
Another reason you really should read the book. You think you’re gaining tribal status when you’re actually showing your ignorance. But hey, whatever works for you!
I think science DOES say something about the existence of god. If science looks, but can find no observable evidence, nor need for god in its theories, then: While it does not prove god does NOT exist, it leaves you bereft of reason to believe in him/her.
Could you please make a video on quantum mechanics and evolution. Some people who studied quantum mechanics say theory of evolution is wrong and they stopped believing in it after studying quantum mechanics. Please explain it in detail. Thanks in advance
If "God" became human...would it then not just be another human? - Then no...that would be just another human. Or are you actually implying something portraying a human - but with superhuman powers? - Then yes...that would be observable consequence - would it not?
Science, the study of the natural physical world, has a limited scope. Science is not math (although Physics seems to be the science field that most depends on it. But science is based on empirical evidence with repeatable observations and experiments. But math is abstract. There is no point or line in the physical world. There is no equilateral triangle in the physical world or any object like the equilateral triangle that can be envisioned between distant galaxies or between protons in an atom. If you tried to prove a math theorem by empirical evidence you would be kicked out of the math department. You can not use a repeatable scientific experiment to determine if Washington was America's first president. This historical fact is not from the natural world. To think that science could be used to answer any areas outside of the natural physical world seems to often be a means for humans to look to science as a religion. Including its own creation mythology of primordial soup.
Science does not determine anything, it simply strives to model what is observable. Observations are not limited to repeatable experiments. George Washington exists in as much as we model the evidence as best we can and satisfy ourselves that the best theory is that he did exist. There are no proofs in science.
@@jimcervantes5659 , you seem to be describing, not the physical natural world, but reality. If you're trying to use science to make a religion, belief system, or any other frame of reality outside of the natural physical world then you don't have science.
@@jimcervantes5659 , that the physical world , although a part of our reality, is not all of reality . For example the abstract mathematical reality . I see it as self contradictory to mandate the notion that reality is wholly comprised of the physical world and then use the palpalbly unphysical reality of mathematics to discern the physical reality. Wouldn't even the notion that "reality is only the material" be itself unmaterial?
@@allenrhoades8482 Abstract thought is real. It exists in our brains. The question of whether abstractions exist outside of human thought is a matter of philosophy, not science.
I agree with almost everything but your view of God is way too small. God created everything including all of the order you are able to discover through science. Evidence for this includes the Big Bang, fine tuning of the universe for life and the unfathomable complexity within even a single cell.
While it's true that science does not have answer whether if God exist, science however have very good answer to another question. Whether if God DOES ANYTHING in a particular situation. Like the movement of the solar system, God doesn't do anything. Flood, tsunami, earthquake, storm, etc. also nothing. And for the most part, since every "proof" of God doing anything are included in the Bible, science pretty sure that God didn't do any of that.
It's so comforting to know that there are rational people in the world. So many "intellectuals" are merely gifted in science and engineering and can't tell the difference between the fields of study and how far science and philosophy can go... and how far they _can't_ go. Then you try to defend that the question is not in the realm of science and get labeled as a theist. By the way, what the hell did Hawking mean when he said philosophy was useless?
I have a game for you- it’s a treasure hunt. I’ll give the clue and you have to find the answers: 1.) Can you find the hidden cross in Numbers chapter 2? Hint, it’s pretty big. 2.) Genesis chapter 5- what do the names mean in Hebrew? Hint, Make a list from Adam to Noah on the left and on the right do the translation. 3.)Why did Jesus keep his miracles secret until the triumphal entry? Hint: 173,880. 1Cor6:9 - WE ARE ALL SINNERS. No one is better than the next. John 3:3 we must be BORN again. Jesus often says “Go, and sin no more”. Sinning after repentance is still sin- repent and be done with the world.
Very devout spiritual person (who actually does believe in faith healing) here who also happens to think science is really cool. This video is fantastic. I think science is awesome and I think faith is beautiful. They need not negate each other. But also, we must stop trying to mesh the two together because when we do, we are turning them both into something that is no longer either faith, or science. If we can put our faith under a microscope we no longer have a reason to even engage in faith. Because it just becomes evidence instead. When we try to speculate our faith into science, we cease to use the scientific method and begin to speculate philosophically. So then it’s no longer science.
If one is seeking a true and complete explanation, it is impossible to avoid meshing all forms of knowledge. The reality is that true religion/faith and true physical science and all other forms of knowledge can coexist without contradiction. It was the spirit of medieval Christendom that spurred science on. Trusting that an all-knowing rational creator, who is not trying to deceive us, made all creation, they came to the conclusion that creation also must be intelligible and that studying it will lead to no contradictions.
If you want to talk seriously about topics like this, you need to study philosophy, and especially metaphysics. Possibly the greatest problem with science in our day is that scientists have begun to imagine that their method of knowing is the only valid method of knowing. In entering into this delusion, they tend to wind up at the conclusion that since their method is the only way of knowing, the only knowledge that exists is scientific knowledge. This is nonsense, and if taken to it's logical conclusion, it comes very close to insanity. Science itself rests upon a foundation of philosophy. There are only certain philosophical premises that allow for science to have valid meaning. Those premises cannot be arrived at by scientific means. When scientists deny or ignore philosophy, they cut off their own discipline at the knees. One of the interesting things going forward is that our society has adopted a philosophy that doesn't really have a viable foundation for science. I suspect that more and more we are going to see a denigration and redefinition of science as a result. Another way of saying this would be something like this. God is not necessary for any scientific theory, or explanation. But God IS necessary in order to have a universe in which science is possible and meaningful.
What do you mean with "method of knowing"? Science is not a method of knowing, it's a method for acquiring knowledge. And it's the most reliable method we have. Do you know a better one? _"God IS necessary in order to have a universe"_ That is an assumption not supported by good evidence.
Sabine, I would really appreciate it if you took the time to respond to this comment (even debunking any flaws contained). In this video, you speak about religion as being completely orthogonal to science. I think that this is not true. You see, it is well established that religion (and I am not talking about any particular one -- I am myself not affiliated with any) is a world-wide phenomenon and we do have observations for it. These observations are of two types: First, the indirect observations in which one can measure how religion affects other people's behavior and (mostly mental) well-being (see e.g. "Religion, Spirituality and Health: the Research and Clinical Implications", Harold Koenig). The second type is more direct as well as tricky and involves our personal experience as human beings. We observe, for instance, the feeling of free will. Now, ancient philosophers like Plato have pointed out this distinction between the world of ideas (aka spiritual world) and the world of senses. Physics works almost explicitly with sensory observations. But what about these other "spiritual" observations? The problem with them is that they are very subtle and any particular person is very likely to misinterpret them. But there has been some research on the matter by the various religions around the world. For example, Buddhism has developed meditation practices that actually produce results in the human brain (see e.g. www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/02/09/7-ways-meditation-can-actually-change-the-brain/?sh=261d89861465). Now, religions do work in different ways than science, because of the particular obstacles that they have to face: The observations are much more subtle and easily misinterpreted and some phenomena could be (reportedly) very unlikely: e.g., it could be the case that the probability that a person has the "spiritual" clarity that Jesus was claimed to have is so small that the frequency of such observations is very small (e.g. one every couple of hunder years for example). There are other possible problems like the reaction of (the much greater number of) people of lower "spiritual" value and the difficulty of assessing (or even defining) such a concept as "spiritual" value. The reason that it needs to be defined is that it does produce results in the psychology of people and these results/experiences are, reportedly, very intense. I call "spirituality" as esoteric science, although as I mentioned, (sensory-classical) science works in very different ways, due to the privilege that senses are almost the same for all human beings - while esoteric senses can vary significantly. I would like to hear a comment on the above as well as an answer to the question of whether it could be, some day, that esoteric science and sensory science unify.
I found the quote of the Brecht story I commented on (earlier video): "A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: “I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behavior would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.” " Source: www.bopsecrets.org/CF/brecht-keuner.htm "
The mind is like a little box, limited to the borders of your skull. Like the ocean that cannot fit inside a hole on the beach, so the Infinite cannot be "known" by the mind, never Truly. The mind can make 'caricatures', of the tree, of the mountain, of the sun, even of "your self". Yet it can never conceive of them truly--as they are--inside the boxes of ideas. And yet, the infinite runs through every section of 'my self', it shapes my lungs as it shapes the air and the wind, it shapes my tongue, the growth of my hair, the 'tissue' of every muscle, the 'flesh' of every cell, the same it shapes the lightning in the sky, it shapes the 'lightning' inside 'my brain'. Only the infinite knows, without mistake, without simplification, without reduction into 'symbol', without translation into ''words', the precise concurrent symphony, concurrent rhythms that all sing at once, even as 'my' fingers move to strike the keys; my reason does not know, and can but describe 'a caricature', of the spontaneous Infinity, which in every corner of existence finds its source, of itself, onto itself. I could never hope to know it with reason, never really, never truly--within a box. And yet, it's always there, found "beneath" the surface of thought, the consciousness of Nature
@@BojanBojovic The key part I was getting at was that Sabine demonstrates the understanding that the notion of God is "a priori" to the existence of material reality. So trying to apply the scientific method (a method invented for material reality) to trying to "discover" the existence of God is a philosophically counter intuitive approach for both believer and non believer. The question of God belongs primarily to the realms of history and philosophy, not any science concerned with material reality
@@will9444555 Sounds like apologetics to me. The god either exist or not. Dividing your thought process to the scientific and the rest is also apologetics, as critical thinking should be the norm 24/7. It is very interesting that humans do the critical thinking almost all the time in their lives, except when it comes to defending their beliefs, then suddenly the new rules are introduced. As for putting the god in history and philosophy, I totally agree as there is no need for those beliefs in todays world, however the reality is different and people take those beliefs very seriously.
@@BojanBojovic No it is not apologetics. Apologetics is concerned with defending specific theological narratives and doctrines, very rarely does the question of god's actual existence come into it. In apologetics God's existence is taken as an assumption. There will always be questions beyond scientific thinking and these are gaps that can only be filled mathematical logic and philosophy. A simple analogy would be if I poured a glass of water and left no material evidence that I did such a thing would you logically be able to deduce my existence from the glass containing the water? Some people might say yes because clearly someone had to fill the glass with water, others might say no and say it is possible the water was always there or appeared by some other mechanism and this is where belief comes in
All that is observable is secondary. It is not direct knowledge of any of the participants. ie we don't know what it is like to be an electron etc. But most, if not all of us at some point do experience what it is like to be in love. That is something which no scientific method can measure let alone make one perceive. Occam's razor just means a particular hypothesis in the observable framework does not seem to need the idea of "God or Unity". But not knowing the definition, let alone how to test it through the known scientific methodology is not evidence for its absence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that too based on the epistemic metric of the scientific method.
Styngray : "to be in love....something which no scientific method can measure". Are you sure about that? Perhaps find a better example? neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harvard-mahoney-neuroscience-institute/brain-newsletter/and-brain-series/love-and-brain
@@alancrabb if science can tell me what emotions I have and why I have them. It may say oh..you have so much cortisol, so much this and that hormone and create a pattern algorithm to explain it however it. Neither science tells us what is that keeps body alive and what that is not their when person dies even if body is fully repairable.
@@alancrabb Yes I am sure. This has been pointed out in philosophy of science long ago, not to mention theological debates. I think you are mistaking direct knowledge of something for learned knowledge. Setting that aside, measures of various harmones, vitals, crosstalk in various neuronal pathways, even if complete hardly suffices for the direct knowledge of being in love. How can science or learned knowledge, make you feel what it is to accidently cut yourself while slicing a onion. It can't, regardless of how much one talks about pathophysiology of nociception and reflexes and perception of pain etc. Direct knowledge or perception cannot be arrived at by the scientific method. But that is not the job of science. The job of the process of science is to elucidate proximate relationships in the observable ontic framework.
@@StyngRay1 ; 1. Your original assertion was " "to be in love....no scientific method can measure". That is what you have to defend. Whether "measures...can... suffice for the direct knowledge.." is another issue. Science can 'measure' (and even stimulate) many of the mental processes underlying ecstasy, lust, depression, motherly bonding, and (yes) romantic love, etc etc. This neither implies nor requires empathy, and in no way invalidates the 'reality' of the personal experience. 2. You have a serious point to make : I merely suggested that you found a more defensible example. What I NOW suggest is that you re-word your proposition, and make clear how it relates to what the author of this video says. Kind regards.
A better way to understand the concept of a god is to look at the historical evolution of religions- where they started, the needs of society/the ruling class for that religion/god/philosophy, etc. You don't need science to explain the existence of a god, only a wide,realistic view of humanity and human history.
@Michael Lochlann As I said, atheistic reductionism. I mean, "invisible guy," really? You can't engage with anything more sophisticated than a first-grader's theology?
Actually, science could have an answer. First you define what god is. For example, god is everywhere. Well that claim is easy to test. God should be easy to find. If not, there is no god. But of course, the goalpost moves. This is not the fault of science. God becomes an undetectable, invisible being that is everywhere, but Carl Sagan astutely pointed out, "What is the difference between an undetectable being and one that does not exist?"
Religious beliefs, as long as they aren't just remains of a pre-scientific worldview, are experiential. The same goes for existential positions, hopes, values and so on. None of these deal with things that exist in a scientific sense.
@@M-CH_ If a religious belief was found to be useful to explain an observation, then science would have to accept it. I always figured that was why evolutionists cling to Darwin so tightly. There is a strong illusion of design in nature that fooled the smartest people for all of history. Darwinian Evolution is a tautology wrapped in a blanket of circular reasoning, but it is the only way to stave off the assaults of the design contingent. Saying that those creatures in a particular generation who are able to survive and reproduce will be over represented in the following generations is such a statement of the obvious that it apparently wasn't obvious for thousands of years. If Evolution is described as change over time and nothing more, which is what the fossils show, it would not keep a lot of scientists employed.
@@caricue I'll skip the part about evolution because I don't want to get into this old argument. Instead I'll stick to methodology: if you use a religious concept as an inspiration for a theoretical entity that you use in a scientific theory, you are no longer doing religion, you're doing science. Philosophy tends to serve as a floodgate for such religious concepts before they enter science. Creation science, transpersonal psychology, or psychotronics, whatever one may think of their standing as sciences, no longer belong to the field of religion (ie. they aren't theologies). During scientific revolution there were attempts at creating experimental theologies - Spiritism of Allan Kardec was one. It ended up as just another family of religions. How? Various branches of Spiritism developed their orthodoxies. An experimental religion, where hypotheses would be formed and tested after a scientific manner, could know no orthodoxy. In science "orthodoxy" is a foul word, an accusation of academic malpractice. In religions it is always present to some extent - there it's a feature, not a bug, it's one of the things which create social cohesion. Such cohesion is needed if a comunity is to reach any goals that surpass the capacity of any of its individual members. Both religions and sciences set such goals for themselves, but those goals are vastly different. In sciences the goal is to build a conceptual framework which - to paraphrase dr Hossenfelder, messily - lets us predict future observations the best, as well as describe them adequately in a synthetic way. Need I say these are not the goals of a religion? Theology borrows some tools of science to develop a coherent conceptual framework for a religion, but it is subservient to the goals of a religion; it is not to validate or undermine the foundation upon which a consensus of a given religious community is built (which is what I refer to as "orthodoxy"). In science the social cohesion is obtained by common standards of conducting and presenting research. If you want to see a community where some experiences of transcendence are shared, but with no agreement as to the "theology" (and therefore as to what those experiences mean), you can look at ceremonial magicians, or UFO contactees. Unless a subset of such communities negotiate some "theology" of their own, some "orthodoxy" - or limits of what kind of interpretations of putatively common experiences are even considered, there's little to no cohesion.
@@M-CH_ You obviously have your own set of issues that you find interesting or annoying. It's too bad you are not in the Southeast US because it would be nice to be able to discuss these fascinating issues in person and not in the limited format of a comment section. I respect you not taking the bait on the whole Evolution thing. Paradigms are only discarded when a preferable one comes along to replace it. I don't have a new theory of evolution, so we are stuck with the status quo. Speaking of pet peeves, some of science has been corrupted so badly that orthodoxy is not only not a foul word, but required in order to stay in polite society. Climate Change has led the way with its consensus science, but as the old saying goes, science advances one funeral at a time. One last thing, you mentioned originally that you agreed with the concept that religion was an experiential phenomenon, I would add UFO's and UFO abduction to that since you don't believe, until you do!
Proof that God is real and Jesus is the messiah and Jesus is God the son Matthew 24:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. Kinginhabitat.com/scientists-hypothesize-why-earthquakes-happen-where-they-shouldnt/ Matthew 24:5 King James Version (KJV) 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. King James Version (KJV) Fake Jesus in Siberia ruclips.net/video/n8BOMqks-gQ/видео.html Prophecy of the Return of Jeus Christ King James Version (KJV) Revelation 19:11-14 King James Version (KJV) 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Explanation of aliens and please read king james version of the Bible ezekiel chapter 1:5-22 its numbered you can't miss it www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezekiel-Chapter-1/ since the angels of God have control over UFOs the fallen angels also have controls over their own Ufo's. the sons of Anak are of the giants Numbers 13:33 states this And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. the giants were created from fallen angels Genesis 6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. and please read king james version of the Bible ezekiel chapter 1:5-22 its numbered you can't miss it www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezekiel-Chapter-1/ since the angels of God have control over UFOs the fallen angels also have controls over their own Ufo's. the sons of Anak are of the giants Numbers 13:33 states this And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. the giants were created from fallen angels Genesis 6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
"You're in the wrong channel. Goodbye." I love this no nonsense lady.
@BYJOB Why? Why do you default to nothing existing before something? Maybe something has always existed. We also know from quantum physics that virtual particles are constantly popping into existence out of "nothing."
I really like her videos. I do believe in personal God -- Christian. But I realize that my belief is based on Faith, not direct observation. I can observe the difference that such faith makes in a person, but that doesn't prove that God exists, only that belief does have consequences. Most people argue against God because He can't be observed scientifically. IMO, that doesn't prove non-existence.
I really like Sabine's matter of factness about this.
So do I 🙂
If people knew absolutely everything in the world, then they would not be atheists. Well, yes: they would be Gods, but the Gods are not atheists.
Science says universe start from a big bang, after that big explosions everything look so beautiful...sound like a fairy tale to me...atheists don't believe in God and science they believe in Disney magic.
"ignoring evidence is not an option" i'm going to get a t shirt with this on it.
Lies. Ignoring evidence is _always_ an option.
...a stupid option but it's still an option.
@@liesdamnlies3372 an honest opinion cannot be a lie, idiot.
@@liesdamnlies3372 good point
@@liesdamnlies3372 That's something Kent Hovind,a Young Earth Creationist,does.
As she blithely ignores evidence because of her preconceived notions...
I love your videos.
No nonsense, just the stuff we need to hear.
Thank you.
Atheists are deluded. The universe has physics constants that are fine tuned for stable chemistry, 118 elements. Atheist physicists sweep that fact under the rug by setting those physics constants to 1, effectively ignoring them. It was the Christian community that discovered the oversight. Your welcome. :)
Christian community ? What about other 3999 communities 🤣 ? Even the presence of a religion naturally spits on other group of humans who don't belong to that religion. First get everyone to follow at least one GOD , thn worry about his existence 😑
@@wulphstein Says the deluded one...
@@wulphstein Those stable observable attributes that you mention are axiomatic. What would one expect an observed to see? Would expect to see a state of chaos that would preclude the existence of the observer and the things she observes? What the observer never sees is a god. But feel free to add one or more gods to your religion as Sabine suggested. That's where they belong, safely tucked away where they can never be verified or falsified. Religion is tuned that way by holy men.
@@wulphstein So you disagree with the expanding universe theory? you know, the one where those constants will change over time as our universe tears itself apart at the subatomic level, you'd think any all knowing creator would correct for this, however no, in about 14 billion years this universe won't exist, there will be no evidence that it ever existed, it's called the heat death.
I love this channel. And I have to admit, I'm almost at a loss to describe to others what Sabine is like. My new favorite RUclips addiction.
Her face, her personality, her poise, her demeanor and not the least....her intelligence is somehow to me very relaxing and pleasing
For me this is small talk, at most.
If you ask me.... John has a crush on the teacher.
@@mickelodiansurname9578 nothing wrong with having a crush on the teacher, very understandable.
@@mickelodiansurname9578 this is how much if “science” works. Put pretty girl or handsome man on screen = profit
She has a bit of a "Run Lola Run" vibe about her.
I appreciate the view that God and science are orthogonal. If God transcends physical laws, then by definition science cannot postulate on his existence.
If God transcends physical laws, then he could certainly “break” the laws scientists have observed and provide science the evidence to his existence.
The fact that many dogmas today says that God refuses to be tested, and therefore my disbelief will result in my eternal punishment ... I can say:
There is no evidence for the existence of god, but if god does exist I would certainly choose not to worship such a being who would punish me for not having faith in charlatans.
And for the most part, I don’t believe god exists because there is no evidence. So the burden of proof is on those who disagree because I can’t prove a unicorn doesn’t exist either.
@@thomasreedy4751 Don't confuse belief in God with membership in a particular religious organization. That's like saying cars can't be reliable because my '78 Chevy Camaro was a piece of junk.
@@thomasreedy4751 God provided science with the evidence to His existence. It's called nature. All of nature is evidence of God's existence. He doesn't need to break the laws of nature to reveal Himself.
The problem is most scientists these days spend little time reflecting on the meaning of creation. This is very much opposed to the origins of scientific inquiry where part of the reason for studying creation was to know the creator.
@@thomasreedy4751 to Play devil's advocate if there was empirical evidence of a God then that would trump many purposes of an omnipotent being (to spread maximal good) as many would worship out of fear.
@@arthurkalb1817 The professor simply said there is no need to add GOD to the scientific system because doing so does not make anything simpler or easier. Having a GOD or not, dose not change the nature or science, or the study of science. So she said, GOD is superfluous, at least for science. My take is, (1) if one believes GOD creates nature, doing research is less ideal than just praying for an answer; (2) if science can be explain based on observable facts solely collected by human scientists, there is no need to bother GOD, regardless the status of one's religious belief.
What, wait, homework again...
Typical teacher
next time just copy a sentence of prayer to your homework and see what does you teacher say. Basically this is what scientists use multi-verse on sloppy equations
Clarification needed: "observable" should include the aspect of reproducibility. Reproducibility might rule out some things that are true, but it keeps us from ruling in things that turn out to be illusion. It's the thing that makes science so powerful, and it is the difference between science and simply working math and logic problems.
It is impossible to answer metaphysical questions using the scientific method.
Its not metaphysical. It psychological.
@@mavrosyvannah Ancient meme. Auguste Comte accused religion of being purely psychological hundreds of years ago. It doesnt hold up.
@@jacobbritton7359 comparing my statement to a dead Frenchman is like comparing the creator of AI, (me) to the invention thief T.E. Since I have doubled the human lifespan with my technology, I say we follow me, not the meme of God.
@@jacobbritton7359 in addition, without the map of consciousness, the psychological paradigm is as loose change in a deep pocket. It is the total understanding of consciousness that made my A.I. possible in 1991. FREEDOM from the god illusion made extinction avoidance and delay possible. All that has ruined the world comes from an acceptance as real that which can NEVER be real in any universe multi or not.
@@mavrosyvannah I think my respect for Auguste Comte just increased.
Also, if you still say things like "meme of God" in 2021 after 3000 years of deep philosophical and logical inquiry has been devoted to the subject, I assume you do not read books.
Believing in something does not make it real. Our brain is not restricted to think beyond what is real.
I love the way she explain things
I guess I missed it. What did she explain?
I can't believe that you make Jesus wear a crucifix!
Jesus don't like crosses. Vampires don't like crosses.
Think about it.
Drink of my blood and ye shall have eternal life . . .
No wonder the Romans were worried.
Rupert Chappelle I thought about it and determined your grammar is incorrect. It should say, Jesus doesn’t like crosses.
@@kipling1957 Thank you for that distinction. You're so right; your way is much funnier.
avmgeorge You’re welcome.
Feel free to drain two pints from me, I confess. Grammar Vampires suck the life out of humor.
Too many people have overlooked the fact that this video is a buildup to towards explaining (and possibly rejecting) the idea of the multiverse, rather than God's existence
i was about to say that too
_"A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist."_ [Matt Dillahunty]
Yes, but physical reality is not the only type of reality. That claim needs further proofs
@@ultron3693: "Yes, but physical reality is not the only type of reality."
> Stick to the quote & don't fight a silly straw man. The quote just speaks of "reality". There's no specification.
@ultron: "That claim needs further proofs."
> Why? If "God" is playing hide (& seek), how do you want to beat him?!
Not really a comment about this video. But, this reminds me of when I talk to atheists and try to convince them that atheism is a faith based religion, and science is on the side of being agnostic. We don't have any test data on God beyond personal experience. Science has not discovered a test for these experiences Then they scream at me with religious fury about how there is no God because "science and logic". All I can do is face palm and walk away. As far as we know we exist in some kid's computer in another dimension. But Atheists "just know" science already has all the answers, despite the lack thereof. We live in a giant room, in a big house, and all we can study right now is the paint on the walls.
I am the type of Atheist you are arguing against here, so maybe I can explain that religious fury a bit. ;)
The god described in this Video (often called philosophical god) is consistent with science, because it does nothing.
The reason people get angry when you mention that is that (almost) nobody has ever believed in such a god. No religion would call such a being without any influence on anything a god, since it would be entirely irrelevant.
In addition to that the debate about the existence of god is usually not about god at all and instead about a huge set of religious doctrines that gets infused into the term god. It is usually expected that you believe god has certain properties like omniscience whenever you use that term, because most people only know about the Christian or a similar god.
@@richardhauer7354 That is an opinion with a lot of assumptions about what a God should do and how a God should operate. As far as we know, we are a waste product from something a God is really interested in. As far as we knows God lies to people constantly and tells everyone different things in their personal experiences. I am putting no parameters on God. That is a big problem with Atheists, they think science has defined God, and ruled out God. Basically, if you are not agnostic, you are not using science. We don't have the data beyond personal experience. God may or may not exist. God may only whisper to people in the middle of the night to change their minds. He may show up every day and destroy the universe, only to reload it from his last save point. He may not exist at all.
@@OakInch
" As far as we know God lies to people constantly and tells everyone different things in their personal experiences."
No, why would anyone believe that? If you hear mysterious voices or something like that, there would be no reason to immediately assume you heard a god.
You could just as well believe that your dead grandpa talks to you or any other common superstition.
"That is an opinion with a lot of assumptions about what a God should do and how a God should operate. "
I think you misunderstood me a bit here.
You described a god that listens to your prayers. If he answers your prayers by doing something, you can prove his existence.
If he gives everyone similar answers, that they could not know otherwise, you could also prove his existence.
The only type of "god" you can not rule out is a completely useless one.
There is no reason to call some background noise of the brain god. That term has historically always been used for entities in religion, so if you suddenly start to call all sorts of weird stuff a god that's just needlessly confusing.
"He may show up every day and destroy the universe, only to reload it from his last save point. "
In that case the term god makes sense, but the whole idea is still just a random and needless assumtion. Instead of assuming there is a god, you could assume any other nonsense as well.
So, the point I am trying to make ist that "Deos God exist?" is a trick question:
You could just as well ask "Do Ghosts or UFOs exist?" and end up with the same result: It just a waste of time.
Everybody gangsta 'til Sabine calls you out on your BS. By the way I love this channel, super instructive and interesting.
I think God is a concept that people share as we contemplate our own person and awareness. If we could apply science to our own selves to understand what we are, no matter how many results are found, it would not be enough to satisfy the need to be always assured that we are more than just a random collection of star dust.
@Clips: "... it would not be enough to satisfy the need to be always assured that we are more than just random collection of star dust ..."
> Speak for yourself!
Hi Sabine! People arguing in the comments on things that does not have any observable consequence tells a lot about our society. Thanks for your great videos and I have to admit, it is incredibly nice to see a -my dear opinion- great scientist with a taste in art!
@mertoteles
It is not true that God concept does not have any explanatory value or any observable consequence.
For argument’s sake, let us assume that the universe is infinite. Then the distance from one end of the universe to its other end will be infinite. If space is absolute, as it was in Newton’s theory, then this infinite distance would remain an infinite distance for everybody. Now, introduce an omnipresent God here. This God being omnipresent, it will be present at each and every point of the universe at the same time. God being present at both ends of the universe at the same time, the infinite distance will no longer remain infinite; it will become zero for God. So, with the presence of an omnipresent God, we get this: what is an infinite distance for us is zero distance for God. In the same way, it can be shown that what is an eternity for us is no time for God.
So, the existence of an omnipresent God can explain why space and time cannot be absolute.
Here, I have not claimed that there is a God. I have only shown that God concept does have observable consequence.
I have seen God's envolvement, in circomstances, and events. The reason I have seen this, is because I call to Him, in Jesus name, and I see things change, in a way that relates to my prayers.
Science may not be able to prove God's existence but it can help explain why the belief in God exists.
Even if true (and I think the studies in question confuse correlation with causation), that just commits the genetic fallacy. Einstein fudged his equations to get away from an expanding, non-eternal universe. That doesn't change the fact that said equations, the cosmological constant, do a good job of describing the effects of Dark Energy.
Dawkins pretty much explained it in many of his interviews/debates/books/whatever. The human mind tends to give ‘agencies’ to observations. Like the wind moving the leaves of a tree: you can’t see the wind, so you assign an agent (a wind god) to it. These beliefs then get passed on to others, and there you have religion.
Which by itself wouldn’t be a problem, but at some point it went wrong and started to indoctrinate. That’s a question for historians.
Psychologist Jordan Peterson takes a pretty good crack at explaining how the bible's stories in Genesis reflect upon human psychology. ruclips.net/p/PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat
Peterson points out that the main problem that a person faces in day to day life, especially 2 to 3 thousand years ago, is not so much how to know, but how to act properly and choose worthwhile goals so that you and the people around you can live a good life. The very concept of objective truth didn't exist at the time that the ancient religious text was put together, so in order to understand what the authors were trying to get at, you have to read it from their point of view: a world where 5000 people was a large city, a world with no police, no doctors, no grocery store, no courts, no books, no schools, barely any government or civilization at all. Of course the stories read like nonsense if taken as a description of objective reality. The stories are early lessons told allegorically, on how to create a functioning society, how to avoid pitfalls, how to become a better person and live properly without people constantly being at each other's throats.
When understood from this perspective, as an early guidebook for living at a time when there were only a handful of any written texts, the bible and other similar kinds of religious writings can be seen as serving a useful purpose in helping people survive.
Science may not be able to prove God's existence but the existence of God can help explain why science exists.
@@Michiel_de_Jong That's an incredible statement for which there is zero evidence. medium.com/@benbob/on-dogma-the-perils-of-belief-without-proof-f8d084b5313a
Hi Sabine you said that ignoring evidence is not an option. And yet there are literally volumes that have and are being written about religious experience, paranormal activity, miracles, and many other highly frequent events and we could draw a statistical inference from all of these events to prove that natural alone does not exist.
We might label these events as non other than "supernatural" events, and they should be called "super-natural," because they seem to display an interference patter with nature and emerge from something beyond our own vantage point in the physical 4th dimension of space-time.
Many people claim that these supernatural occurrences are not "repeatable in a lab" and therefore are not in the domain of science, but that is because super-natural events are not the consequences of laws of nature which act consistently, but are subject to the changing agency of super-natural forces which may have changing wills like those of humans. Additionally, if you took the summation of all the supernatural events which have been recorded across the analogues of history and were to subtract all the events that there is proof of confirmation bias, lying testimony, etc., and you would inevitably be still left with millions of testimonies of the supernatural which demand and explanation, if not from science, then we must make an inference to the best framework that explains our experiences of the supernatural in some other domaine and that is exactly what religious have done (with a surprising amount of consistency about the key points of the operations and nature of God and even Spirits).
Science works with natural stuff. If you want to study "super-natural" stuff, go to church. You don't have to mix these two.
@@sudo-apt-upgrade-brain I don’t disagree. Science’s task should be relegated to the empirical domain. There is a place for the systematic study of the super natural, and that is the domain of theology :)
You answered your own question. They are not repeatable, and therefore, not useful to scientific calculations, whether they exist or not. God bless
_"which demand and explanation, if not from science,[...]"_
We already have sciences to offer the best yet explanation.
Psychology and Sociology give us explanations which are as of yet the best repeatable answers we've got. Measurements, Reference, Framework and all
Something else might pop up and give clearer answers, but till then we have some pretty clear explanations already: We humans are just very fallible, every single one of us, and honest self-reflection is VERY difficult if not impossible to do.
Sabine The Physics Goddess has spoken! Obey her commands you presumptuous mortal physicists!
Sabine is not a Goddess because her existence results in observable consequences and provides a simplified explanation for how her channel exists. Did you learn nothing from the video?
@@bobbyc1120 you wouldn't know a goddess if it smacked you in the kisser.
We all agree that science is about making observations and measurements. So, when we discuss how fine tuned the universe is, one part in 10^10^128, how could this have occurred without an Intelligent Designer? Atheists have to use an illogical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the many world interpretation, to come up with 10^10^128 universes where the physics constants are all different values. But there are zero observations of even a second universe. I thought science was about observations? Not making wild and irrational claims and trying to make them stick using peer pressure.
wulphstein - I agree 100%. The fine tuning of the universe is a good argument for an intelligent designer.
enigma - True, we don’t have a name plate that says “made by God”. But the evidence is certainly there. The original post stated the mathematical improbability of the universe forming by chance. Couple that with the mathematical improbability of life forming and you have the signature of an intelligent designer. You are free to believe in chance if you want. But I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
@enigma - My original statement still stands: The fine tuning of the universe is a *good argument* for an intelligent designer. I did not say: "This is proof for the God of the Bible". I would be happy to have that debate, but on on a RUclips comment section.
@enigma this is tiresome.
@enigma I know that federal and state laws exist on databases in DC, state capitols, on the internet, in manuals of state and federal officers. But where do the laws of physics exist? I advocate that the laws of physics and the physics constants are written upon the "thoughts" of God. In contest with my idea, which I can explain more clearly and deeply, there is "nothing" from that atheist physics point of view. My idea is experimentally verifiable. Atheist POV depends upon dumb luck raised to irrational levels that would make a unicorn blush!
I think God is consciousness. God is the consciousness what understands science and much, much more than science, God is the consciousness that unfolds in its revelations and evolves all life forms. God is not only thought, but what gives rise to awareness and makes thought possible. Although not a person, consciousness is always personal.
I agree
I have never seen any evidence of God, Satan, Haven, Hell & the like.
Well they don’t exist in this universe
Christians: how can these kids believe in santa Claus and Easter bunny? Haha, such fools!
Also Christians: *goes to church to pray to a fiction character*
Santa Claus and the Easter bunny have nothing to do with Christianity or any other faith tradition.
Going to a place of worship in order to worship is by no means just a Christian peculiarity.
Its 11:59 did you come to that conclusion scientifically? Typical incel
@@nathanmount3232 it's not a conclusion you idiot, it's a joke/meme.
@@lylecosmopolite it's not only a Christian peculiarity but I'm talking about the Christians. And I've never said santa Claus ir Easter bunny was part of the Christian belief.
Maybe read again before talking.
@@nickmendez5693 Nobody has the prerogative to say what can and cannot be talked about in a social media thread. What I wrote was addressed to all readers of this thread, not to you alone. No one can blame Christians for doing X, when billions of nonChristians also do X.
talking about god LOL... we have no clue what human consciousness is all about .let alone god... the brain has 86 billon neurons, each neuron can form 1000 synapses
to map ll ,a computer will take around 3 million years !!!!!!! .. and we are trying to figure out what/who/where god (or gods)is/are ??
I think Science can only say "no comment" for versions of God that have (in theory) no observability. But the religions of Judaism and Christianity do in fact make testable assertions, such as that biblical events are real, that reality was constructed in a particular order, and that various historical events occured.
Exactly, the Christian God does not exist, unless you reshape him so he can hide himself in a black hole.
"I think Science can only say "no comment" for versions of God that have (in theory) no observability."
She said that, (in different words).
The core of christianity is the resurrection of Jesus what scientific experiment could be performed to test that claim of an anonymous author for which the original manuscript we do not have only copies made by later people that we don’t know either. The discipline of science only attempts to explain what we observe and can make models of. To be able to make accurate predictions and make accurate measurements. Why because they are useful.
The four constants maybe just properties of the universe how would any person devise an experiment to prove something that doesn’t manifest in our reality in any way that we can measure ? The strong nuclear force the weak nuclear force electromagnetism and gravity.
If you insert God you compound the problem because now you have to demonstrate the existence of what that is ? Other than an abstract concept manifested in the thoughts that are the emergent property of a physical brain.
This is practically admitting that people who pretend science disproves God's existence are wrong and unscientific in their statement (not following the standard they claim they follow). What I expect from a scientist is to be at least as honest and humble as to say "I don't know. No proof can be constructed to prove or disprove God".
A very mature presentation. This is a respectable way to present the position of science in relation to questions like ‘does God exist?’ or ‘is there a multiverse?’
Both God and the multiverse are unobservable and thus not in the scientific realm.
That’s not to say they are not real, but they are unobservable and therefore not part of scientific inquiry.
Freedom of religion gives people the choice to believe what they want, be it personal gods, Satan, the multiverse, or the little green man and zoom zoom.
However, I question whether your assumption that "they are unobservable and therefore not part of scientific inquiry". How does one explain the event at Fatima, Portugal in October 13, 1917 when thousands of people saw the "Miracle of the Sun"? Even atheist news journalists were present and wrote about what they saw with their own eyes. That is, the "sun dancing about the sky", or the "sun moving and changing colors like a disc that danced around the sky". These observations were predicted by three very young children who were told presumably via an apparition by the Virgin Mary that a miracle would be performed that day "for all to see".
The three young children of Fatima Portugal in 1917 were told by a "lady" who promised on the "13th day of each month from May 13, 1917 until October, 13, 1917. She told the three children that two of them would not survive. Two died from the Spanish flu outbreak at the time, but the third, Jacinta lived into her 80s. How is it that many thousands of people were able to see the same miracle, including atheists? It had rained and rained that day, but after the "Miracle of the Sun" the muddy ground was completely dry.
This is scientific proof of a predicted miracle. Science has observed the facts. Science has never disproved these facts. Science simply either forgot about them, or chose to ignore this facts. Thus there is evidence of God. There are other "miracles" that have also been observed by "Science" but have never been scientifically explained.
Science has not been able to explain how the image of the "Shroud of Turin" was created. Oh, and please don't waste you time citing the C-14 test. That test approximated dated a strip of the Shroud that was added via the 13th century art of "French Reweaving". So how does modern day science explain "miracles" which by definition from the Latin, "marvelous event caused by God". Or, "to wonder at"? These events can be traced back in history. See www. Shroud.com for evidence on the Shroud. You can do you own YT search on Fatima and the "Miracle of the Sun". My point is that it is a misnomer that there are no facts to point to a God. There are very many if you open your mind and look for them.
@@daffidavit So....you have three kids that convince people to stare at the sun, hope for something to happen. And you are surprised that they see strange colors and movements of the sun? I have a prophecy for you - my cat just told it to me - tomorrow at noon you must stare at the sun for miracles will happen. I promise you you will see things! Also, you may live to old age - but you will unfortunately suffer from poor vision.
@@jarls5890 The sun hurt nobody's eyes as they gazed at it. It looked like a "silver disc" changing colors. There are swore depositions by people who came to make fun of the event only to see a "miracle". There's even YT videos on the subject if anybody cares to view them.
Ahsen Salim’s Conjecture: “The algebra of science and the algebra of belief are neither isomorphic nor homomorphic.” Assuming that this is true, it is meaningless to ask science to provide answers to questions (“mappings”) on beliefs (e.g. the existence God), and equally meaningless to ask a belief system about answers to science questions (e.g. ask the Bible to explain the existence and workings of black holes).
So anyone who nevertheless insists on posing these types of questions, is making the assumption that the aforementioned conjecture is false (because they are expecting such answers or mappings). Attempts to continue to ask such questions are either misguided or have some other motivation.
Exactly. Sadly this is a point missed by most people, including a good quantity of scientists.
Pedro S thank you and indeed many scientists fall into the same trap, as well as many believers. This causes scientists to reject spiritual beliefs because (almost by definition) beliefs are unscientific, but more importantly and more sadly it causes many non-scientists to reject science because in their mind science contradicts their belief, and this latter rejection has strong negative implications for their personal growth and progress, and for society in general.
Very well put. I am a scientist still not everything is measurable as scientists would like the folk to think. How would you measure the amount of love a mother has for her children? How would one measure hope? Another example from the technical field, the humble number one 1. Does it even exist outside our mind? Isn't 1 just a belief with no measurable or observable consequences? Yet, so useful!
I can make a conjecture and then follow up with my ideology that the conjecture supports..it doesn't make it correct or scientific. That being said everyone has their own belief system and have the right to have it.
'... is making the assumption that the aforementioned conjecture is false'
Well, it is a conjecture, after all. We don't need to belive in that conjecture until proven.
Yes, its true that if someone gives you a computer program assuming it was written by an intelligent being adds absolutely nothing to understanding the code. You can analyze it to a sufficient degree to understand it completely and predict its behavior without ever assuming it was designed. In fact you can safely assume it came into existence randomly as the result of a permutation of keystrokes lasting several billion years for every one hundred lines of functional code. And you can do this without losing even the slightest ability to quantify its behavior. According to this logic we can therefore conclude that postulating the existence of software engineers is pointless and unscientific. The simplest possible explanation, the most scientific one, is to assume that all computer programs occur randomly and that the existence of intelligent programmers is a myth.
This is where science and philosophy/theology intersect: To explain why the universe, which is not eternal, began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, you need a cause that is not matter, energy, space-time, or the physical constants of the universe as we know them. You also have to explain the fine-tuning. There are two main competing theories on this: God and the infinite multiverse theory, with a few others that are less known (e.g., brane theory).
None of these theories are scientifically testable and may be forever untestable, meaning that most atheists are philosophically dependent on a fundamentally religious idea, as you yourself point out in the multiverse video.
And that is precisely why science has hit a brick wall and been stuck for about 20 years on the issues of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Because physics and wondered into the realms of philosophy, not science. Worse still, it has done so for largely disingenuous reasons.
I’m kinda late to this party but, for what it’s worth . . . It is true that science has nothing to say about, “God.” Certainly not the God of the three main faiths that share the same original Jehovah. In the same way that physics has nothing to say about an individual’s personal taste in music, or to explain why we’re happy or sad. And that works both ways. While one’s personal faith might inform a scientist’s personal approach to their work, their relationships within the scientific community, or the type of physics they are interested in, God will not show up in their equations, nor should He.
I take issue, only in part, with one thing you said. Dark Energy is my exemplar to explain why. People assume it exists, because of observed phenomena, but they might be investigating something that is not even there, or real in a physical sense? It could be an effect of gravity that has not yet been discovered, or any one of several other hypotheses that have been suggested by great minds? Yet, we investigate it, because we want to understand the universe better and settle on a universally understood theory, which would benefit all of science and, ultimately, all of human kind. You will say, “Yes. But that is a scientific response to a real, observable phenomena in the universe, which science has something to say about.” But, my answer would be that there are phenomena which are genuinely, objectively experienced in the universe, which could be caused by something outside of our time space continuum, like Dark Energy, that could be caused by a knowing, all powerful, “god-like,” consciousness. Science cannot rule that out, despite the fact that there is no hypothesis for investigating it directly.
That being said, though science has nothing to say about God and God has nothing to say about hard science, all I’m suggesting is that, once we start using science to refute the existence of God, we have done a disservice to both science and people of faith. On the one hand, we are ruling out the possibility of something, without any evidence to support that stance: attempting to prove a negative, which is by its nature, impossible. And, on the other hand, we are making God a preoccupation of science, whilst arguing that God has no place in science. If scientists believe there’s no place for God in the physics, they fail to see the fallacy of their own placing of God at the centre of the science, in a vain attempt to prove a negative.
That’s comes off as a bad faith exercise, and somewhat oppressive to people of faith, don’t you think? Scientists need to leave God alone, if they truly have no belief in him. A trivial point, you think? If you think that, you’re failing to see why physics has hit a brick wall in the last 20 or so years. Instead of doing the science they get paid to do, physicists (not all of them, obviously) have devoted themselves to the disputation of faith, spending time, money and other resources on ever increasingly extravagant hypotheses, which are reaching a breaking point of sheer lunacy, if you ask me!
“Many Worlds?” Really? An entire structure of, “scientific,” thinking, upon which millions have now been spent, despite there being ZERO proof for any of it! Sure, there are elegant mathematic theorems, etc, but all of them are fatally flawed when any attempt is made to apply them to the real world. An infinite number of dimensions, stretching out forever, from every single decision point of every living creature, which would make one minute of one day create so many separate universes springing into existence (out of thin vacuum) that their number is literally incalculable; yet bigger than the number of electrons in the known universe? Give me a break! It’s a philosophy, not a scientific hypothesis, and what’s more, it is far less plausible than the notion of a god.
So yes, I would agree that the two spheres of human endeavour, “faith,” and, “science,” have NOTHING to say to each other. But, instead of fallaciously trying to rid god from the equations, why don’t scientists get their own message, and leave God alone? If they stuck to the observable universe, instead of wasting vast sums on colliders, we might have all had our flying cars by now, floating on a cloud of Dark Matter, repelling the effects of gravity? I mean, who knows? Does it really require a new, enlightened generation before science can take its next paradigm shift, back to real physics? . . . ✌️
Fine-tuning lmfao get out of here. This channel itself has a video on why fine - tuning is BS, and there are many more.
@@andrewg3196 Only by ASSUMING (without a lick of evidence) an infinite number of universes, each of which has randomized physical constants. Even Hawking, in his final paper, calls that a fundamentally religious concept in that it can never be tested and is, therefore, an article of faith.
@@ReturnofBenjamin that's not the argument put forth in her video at all. It's quite clear you have your own preconceptions so I won't waste my time with a fool like you.
"meaning that most atheists are philosophically dependent on a fundamentally religious idea,"
I disagree, I would like to say "I do not know" is not a fundametally religious idea.
Physicists exist to discover the perfection of God's creation. God exists to bring meaning and purpose to creation. Thus science and religion are a duality, not a dichotomy.
That's the very Crust formula of the Cosmic Biscuit Dude.
Or as Zappa had put it... ''The Crux of the biscuit is the Apostrophe.''
Now a then; as for bringing the meaning and the purpose to it all...
All the Dude ever wanted, was his rug back!
*All the Creator ever want's, is His Children back.
Reckon the both of them are seeking to reclaim
The same perfect Universal closure formula; that really ties their rooms together?
Dichotomy? Any dichotomies lie within them inept Dick-Headed Nihilists!
''Gestalt?''
*-...And it seemed real. It seemed
like us. And it seemed like well...
our home... If not Arizona, then a
land, not too far away, where all
parents are strong and wise and
capable, and all children are happy
and beloved... I dunno, maybe it was
Utah. -H. I. McDunnough -9419
This is a disingenuous video. If she is saying that believing in God can only be viewed in a religious sense, apposed to a philosophical or scientific sense, then she is back-handingly saying that belief in God has no rational merit and should not be believed by mature adults.
I don’t think that’s what she is saying. All she is saying is we can’t use the scientific method to study God. I do not know what she personally believes but it appears she is trying to be as unbiased as possible and keep her faith (or lack of) out of the equation, because that’s just how proper science works. She never said there was no merit to religion or philosophy. And I, as a Christian myself, obviously believe there is great merit in such things. But if we can put our faith under a microscope is it faith any more or does it cease to be faith and merely become evidence? Similarly, once speculation beyond observation enters science, are we properly using the scientific method any more? It’s not that faith and science cannot coexist in explaining existence, but merely that they are fundamentally different tools that work in completely different ways. Neither is wrong, but because of the parameters of each tool being so fundamentally different, when you try to force the two together you end up doing something that is neither.
@@JairCrawford no, she would certainly say faith is indeed wrong because there is no logical reason to have faith. And only science should dictate belief. She is in the flying spaghetti monster camp.
@@jeffo3455 I mean, that very well could be her beliefs on the issue but that’s not the point she is making in this video. In other words whether she is against religion or not has no bearing on how the scientific method works, so it’s irrelevant to the point she is making here, specifically.
"personally I'm not sure what sense it makes to postulate the existence of something that has no observable consequences."
Savage level 1000
I decided exactly that when I was 10 years old and I chose to stop praying and believing in a god or gods. Basically I suspected that nobody was listening when I was praying every night and I decided that I did not need to add a god in order to understand what I was observing every day. I have been an atheist for over 5 decades now and it hasn't bothered me even once.
@@ruschein I'm really on the fence on this. I mean I'm not particularly religious but part of me feels uncomfortable with the idea of there being no God.
@@jackkraken3888 Well, the way I look at it is the same as the way I feel about a grey and rainy day. Just because I don't like it, I still have to accept it. Of course I am over 60 now and I have never missed believing in a deity. Also, how would you decide which one or ones to believe in? In my country most religious people are either Christian or Muslim. If you want to guess w/ a very high level of accuracy which religion someone is following you just have to know their last name. What I am trying to say is that the "choice" of religion seems to be purely cultural 99% of the time. I bet in India it would be the same if you had to guess if someone is a Hindu or a Muslim. If the parents are Hindus, the person is most likely a Hindu o/w the person is probably a Muslim. There does not seem to be an objective way to choose a religion. I have a Ph.D. in physics and know a lot of people who are biologists. Most physicists and biologists seem to be atheists. Why is it that people that study the basic laws of our universe and life seemingly feel no need to postulate the existence of gods in order to explain what they know? Also if there were one or more gods, why should they have anything to do with an unimportant race of primates (we are the closest relatives of chimps not gorillas or orang-utans)? The universe is an incredibly large place and it always struck me as incredibly arrogant that religious people seem to think the whole thing just exists because of us and that we're somehow the chosen species of an all-powerful god.
@@ruschein What is your opinion of the afterlife crutch. Do all Atheists believe there is nothing after death? If so why suffer all of this? If I didn't believe in an unmoved mover that initiated all consequences, I would off myself to avoid further suffering.
@@eugenetalley7447 I've never heard of an atheist who believes in an afterlife. I mean can there be an afterlife unless you believe in a soul? Personally I think that idea is preposterous. Why suffer all this? One strong reason why "we suffer all this" is that as animals that are products of natural selection we have very strong survival instincts. That is, it's not easy to end your own life for most of us. Apart from that, I try to enjoy the ride. I am fascinated by the world we live in and I have a lot of fun. Did I have experiences that were hugely depressing: yes, I most certainly did. Still, I have so much fun! Whether it's watching another SpaceX launch, hanging out with a friend, petting a random cat that I meet in the street, studying kanji, visiting Tokyo, working on solving a programming problem or watching anime. I could go on and on. When I was very young, I was thinking about eternal life. Back then I decided that I did not want to live forever, just so long until there was nothing left that intrigued me. I assume that would be a very long time indeed, but, as a human being I am not sure I could last so long given the burden of the losses and damage that we accumulate in a long life. Today I discovered another joy: listening to jazz hip hop. Totally awesome! So little time, so much to enjoy!
The more we know, the closer we will be to find the God. Science will eventually take us there.
Your statement presupposes existence of God. Wrong, do it again.
@@BrightBlueJim Yeah, can't argue, that's only my subjective feeling.
@@BrightBlueJim do what again
@@ShidaiTaino (Said by mean teacher when student gets answer wrong.) (From Pink Floyd's "The Wall".)
I'm very excited at the perspective of analysing a sample of God.
Just discovered Sabine today! Wow best RUclips I've never seen before.
I love her. Have you seen all her videos yet?
I think the main problem with your position is that it completely ignores Classical Theism(which is under the Scholastic tradition). The God of Classical Thesim is NECESSARY because he is the unactualised actualiser, non contingent being from whom all contingent 'beings' derive their existence from.
Science and all the scientific theories cannot, by definition, explain why something exists metaphysically, it can only explain how it came into being by referring to some other contingent 'beings'. This is not flawed. But it is incomplete if your goal is to under the whole of reality and the foundation of it, not just how changes occurs or how the world behaves.
I personally don’t believe in the existence of gods that look like culturally specific humans (or animals that a culture knew of), espouse culturally specific norms and taboos, and isn’t “sticking his head of the clouds” in a way that can’t be faked or imitated by human beings to tell us what’s up. These three qualities strongly suggest to me that such a god or gods are the culturally specific product of human imagination, and not actually real.
If your god has a problem with me believing this, then maybe this god should stick its head out of the clouds and say something about it itself. As opposed to me listening to yet another human being, whose access to “god” is the same as mine, rationalize this god’s existence or provide more non-evidence. If God won’t say anything itself, then it either doesn’t care if I believe because it’s looking to see if I’m a virtuous person irrespective of faith, or it’s evil and punishes people for not worshiping it in exactly the way it wants to be worshipped even when they don’t know any better (and refuses to stick its head out of the clouds to tell us how), or it does not exist.
It seems approaching the subject these days is a taboo that most say is a needless risk to one's career. Kind of like touching the third rail. As such most people ignore the topic in much the same way you wrap up the existence of god. Great video and I applaud you for taking on the subject!
Though the title "Does God exist? Science does not have an answer." is truly wimpy and a horrible surrender in itself.
@@CheapHomeTech No it's not. Science is not able to prove "God" does or does not exist.
Atheism claiming that "God doesn't exist"/i.e. "God is falsifiable" is only slightly less unscientific as any church claiming "God exists"/ i.e. "God is verifiable".
Agnosticism gets it least wrong by saying: "The concept called "God" is - per definitionem - not falsifiable, let's occupy ourselves with something useful instead."
Why do some people need the "verification of the nonexistence of God" for their mental peace?
@@susanne5803 Perhaps you ought to rewatch the above video. I'm not saying anything more other than it removes most all religions. I'm not inclined to continue chatting with you since you said in a previous video you disagree with genetics.
@@CheapHomeTech You must mistake me for someone else.
The only part of genetics I strongly disagree with is the use of genetic knowledge for so-called "eugenics".
@@CheapHomeTech I remember: if I understood correctly you suggested some kind of evolutionary upward spiral. I disagreed. Darwin at no point suggests that evolution follows any goals.
Modern evolutionary theory includes genetics and is therefore able to include a lot of bacterias and viruses. There is no reason to assume there is a plan or any order in evolution.
Your videos are amazing, love the way you mix science and art ...
Sure that a lot of your colleagues in science community don't approve what you say, because they only care about their career and promotion..
Schuss....
@paul w What a arrogant person you are , she didn't say that god exist or not, she only explained that there is no proof for both theories ,so you most be more humble , am sure that the hole planet would be happy to hear your theory about god..
The three natures of light are the field, photon, and wave. Light behaves as a wave until we look for it then as a photon. We know the field exists even though we can't see it.
The three natures of God are the father, son, and holy spirit.
How about metaphorical existence? As in, god really did and does exist, in that no pope has ever deluded themselves with expecting an answer from god when they pray. It's metaphor for power and hierarchy, and it's used to reinforce and justify inequality
Intelligence, so lacking in the majority of men and women, is my only viagra.
I like what you have discussed about and how you tried to show that physical consequences have tangible sources. But what about intangible things like love, justice, truth, right and wrong? Can these be observed and reproduced by a scientific method? I sincerely believe these should be studied too in a ‘scientific way’, can they be?? I am curious to know.
I think the answer is no. The closest we can get are things like philosophy and the social sciences. That doesn't mean these things aren't real, it just means that they are empirically slippery or even unfalsifiable. But the scientific method is a tool, and should not become a worldview, because when it becomes a worldview/an ontological stance,it's really easy to just write off anything that's unfalsifiable altogether, and you get New Atheist and reductionist ideologues who make pronouncements like "it can't be pinned down, and we can't prove it's necessary for causation in the physical world, so it simply does not exist" . You following me?
Brilliant! I love how you pronounce 'superfluous', which I have adopted (but give you full credit).
Why would you copy someone that's pronouncing it incorrectly?
I thought she was talking superfluids and skipped back
@@jorgepeterbarton I love her wideos too!
The Theory of Existence !?
If studying just a tiny fraction of the Universe doesn't prove to you that God is real, then you're a terrible scientist.
That makes no sense. You would have to define god first before you can prove that god is real. And science can not "prove" anything. You're a terrible non-scientist.
@Eric Smoove: No.
@@Ken.- The issue is trying to define God. Good luck with that.
@pari thrush That's just what I said.
There is a no direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy, but they are believed to exist through indirect observations. If science can't tell us what dark matter is, I wouldn't look to science to explain God.
@Hilmar Zonneveld What is that evidence?
@Hilmar Zonneveld Sorry but that is not evidence to me. Give me something observable and measurable.
It's a logical deduction that the fine-tuning of the universe leads to either God or an infinite set of universes. Theologians choose the former, atheists choose the later.
We could also be in a computer simulation. In that case base reality could be different than the simulated reality.
I like how you link belief in God to belief in the multiverse.
How did she "link" belief in God to belief in the universe? I think she just suggested to those who are already believers that there must be something true about their beliefs.
@@patmoran5339 The link is that both believe in something for which there is no evidence.
@@robertromero8692 We do not have any evidence of space-time either. General relativity is a theory. Why did she choose multiverse theory? I think it was to throw a lifeline to those who still believe in the supernatural. A belief in God is a theory too. She knows about quantum interference but does not like the multiverse explanation and has no alternative. Or does she see an opportunity to to sell her books or videos to the gullible?
@@patmoran5339 Of course we have evidence of space and time. We directly observe those things all the time, even if we don't fully understand their nature. Neither God nor the multiverse are theories, since they're not testable.
@@robertromero8692 Thank you for your comment. I would like to point out to you that Dr. Hossenfelder avoided discussion of the other interpretation for quantum interference. The only two interpretations we have currently are the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds or multiverse interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is quite vague. It says that somehow human observation or human consciousness somehow interferes.
At heart, the difference between the many world interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation is a deep philosophical problem.
Many schools of physics teach that philosophy is not necessary since we know that empiricism is the best model of philosophy. However, they somehow miss the fact that if empiricism were true, there would be no need for science. Everything would already be known. When learning about philosophy most physics students are still taught to “shut up and calculate.” The multi-verse interpretation remains the best explanation of quantum interference. And Hossenfelder is, whether she intended or not, throwing out a lifeline to those who are still believers . It fits in nicely with their brand of the misconception that everything that is knowable is already known.
Brilliant , full of clarity , and respectful of both science and religion : that's the way it should be so that anyone can watch it and learn something ! Because we only get a very short life to figure out the answers to the questions that confront all of us..
What has the idea of "God" got to do with whatever you mean by (and you clearly have no idea), religion?
How do you define religion?
“Unless one is born or Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom.”
She cannot see because she is simply flesh and blood, and she doesn’t hear her own contradictions when saying she depends on observation when all the paradigm defining elements of the science cult are literally non-observable.
Big Bang, evolution, DNA, even the globe cannot be observed with one single photo because it is official that the “blue marble” is a patched together rendering of many other smaller photos. You’re living in delusion and call it reality.
'Ignoring evidence is not an option"
70 million Americans beg to disagree, so do 1.8 billion Muslims, 1.2 billion Catholics, hundreds of millions of lottery players, and billions of children under the age of 14.
God is beyond time and space.Intellect or mind cannot go beyond time and space.
What evolution has proved, is that a God who needs to be worshipped,does not exist. Two thousand years of Christians singing praises to God, is a total waste of time. God managed without human worship for billions of years, and does not need it now. Even if a God existed,contact with this Being is meaningless.
Do subscriptions exist I've a feeling they're very very rare indeed if they do.
I am a subscriber.
David Hume (Einstein's favorite writer) came up with this same argument about 250 years ago in response to Intelligent Design Theory. Hume shocked everyone by agreeing that the universe is so complex and perfect that a god must have planned it. But then he pointed out that since God has chosen not to intervene in our daily lives we must conduct ourselves as though no god exists.
You are ignoring the evidence that G0d does exist and does intervene.
Hail Satan 😈
@@notstayinsdowns There is no such evidence
@@yourfaceisyourlife2323 ,
Everyone knows the Bible exist so your post doesn't make sense.
@@notstayinsdowns The bible is not evidence. It's just a book written by ignorant savages.
So she points out that certain versions of god added to scientific models does nothing to make those models better, or simpler. Therefore we would say that that kind of god is logically superfluous and therefore not a valid topic of rational inquiry, or that it is a "Russell's teapot." Now Sabine does not believe in non-deterministic free will-she holds that all of our thoughts, ideas, theories, models etc. were determined by the physical state of the universe prior to those ideas etc. If that is true, then those conclusions were all inevitable, and we have no justification in adding the logically superfluous statement that they are "true" or "rational". If a conclusion was inevitably determined to occur, then positing that some inevitable conclusions are true or rational and others are inescapably delusional adds nothing. In other words, it becomes logically superfluous to call a conclusion logical. If logic excludes logical conclusions as a meaningful category of "inevitable" conclusions, then logic is self contradictory. Therefore, logic is only valid if the universe is not physicalistically deterministic. If it is not physicalistically deterministic then there must be non-physicalistic agents that play a part in determining the course of the universe.
Ultimately what I am saying is that it is logically superfluous to presuppose that observations map an underlying reality unless we have non-deterministic free will which itself is an extra-physicalistic entity which fulfills a foundational definition of a god.
.
One can find “god of the gaps” argument everywhere… that one can’t find or know a rational scientific reason….
Easy to fall for that logical nonsense…😅
@@ashm-wl4xg I don't know what that has to do with what I wrote.
You are so not like Richard Dawkins - a compliment for you. You understand very well the idea of 'boundary conditions'; a phrase used more freely than perhaps I should use it. What I mean is that you have a good grounding and understanding of the domain and range of science - Dawkins does not unfortunately. Dawkins adds his own hubris to scientific inquiry and what conclusions it can arrive at; in doing so he sometimes fails to see its limits - the places where it has no power to explain - such as the hubris of categorically stating there is no God. Scientists are people with the same limits and flaws as the rest of humanity. Some of them suffer from physic inflation otherwise stated as 'having all the answers ' Carl Sagan got it right when he noted that religious belief is just another way of trying to make sense of it all - science has the same goal but follows the path of repeatable evidence that can then offer up predicted outcomes. Those two attributes by default establish boundaries of scientific knowledge.
We can categorically state that Nothing which cannot be validated exists because there are infinite Potentially existing things and we have no choice but to rationally disregard them unless and until that changes. For something to be considered real we have to be able to replicate it.
1:00 "But who himself does not result in any additional observable consequences ..." Then who/what established the laws of physics, the laws of nature, fundamental constants, etc.? Has random natural processes ever been observed to have the ability to create these laws/constants?
A large part of physics is devoted to developing simple dynamical explanations for why the constants of nature are the way they are.
Science is about confronting the tough questions, not about shying away from them.
Is the Universe too complex to have arisen by itself?
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 ain't the complexity the problem but the actual "arising".
The arising that comes out of eternal void breaks the laws of all science. The Big Bang is supernatural in nature. .
@@LyubomirIko is that a yes or a no?
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 that is both.
Great video! A big problem with this question is that the “fine tuning” argument, love it or hate it, is greatly understated by people who readily dismiss it. The odds of circumstances in a cosmological and biological setting happening for life to exist are overwhelming to say the least. That along with the fallacy that belief in God stunts intelligence and halts advances in research it really does paint a dishonest picture of the current scientific climate.
Let's not jump the gun here. The biological world looked "fine tuned" until Charles Darwin came along. It's the same thing over again. "we don't know how it happened" doesn't imply "god did it".
@@Harry351ify Yes but nobody serious views it in such simplistic terms. Our understanding in these fields are becoming more complex by magnitudes. There's a fallacy that making inquiries through the lens of design stunts progress and research. This simply isn't true it's just something professors say until they're pressed on specifics. What if it does look like there is design present in these systems, so what? How fascinating would that be to discover from any worldview?
@@lowku6421 "nobody serious views it in such simplistic terms" - that's.. kind of what I'm saying. It's simplistic to say "somebody created it" be done with it. It could be more complicated than that.
"making inquiries through the lens of design stunts progress and research" - nobody said that. What stunts progress is holding on to faith no matter what evidence comes out.
"How fascinating would that be to discover from any worldview?" -yes. But then that begs the question "who created God?" Super God?
In my eyes all the science data points to a creator. Something has always been lurking behind the scene
"Lurking behind the scene" eh ? Sorry, I don't buy it. Natural causes all the way down IMO.
@@tonydarcy1606Oh yeah? Let's just ignore that The Big Bang is Supernatural in nature. Becouse let's just ignore that what comes out of eternal void breaks the laws of any physical model and all the science. Let's just assume whatever made the laws and the constants we can measure today in those times that time itself wasn't created probably - is not God. Becouse let's look into the Eye of God and still see your pride and deny God.
@@LyubomirIko Who said the big bang was supernatural ? Not me. Your posited "God" as the cause just raises more questions than it is supposed to answer.
@@tonydarcy1606 The Big Bang event established them all- the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, etc. Has random natural processes ever been observed to have the ability to create laws/constants?
The second law of thermodynamics is a probabilistic law that does create a average behavior tendency toward thermodynamic equilibrium… so yea… and just wait until you read about the quantum.
Ps. No one knows how the universe began.
Athiesm too cannot be backed by science, i.e. denying what cannot be observed.
True. Apatheism is the way to go.
@@juanausensi499 I became a apatheist after learning that there is many Definitons of gods aswell seeing Religious Wars on every comment section Because someone said the Word "God"
God exists in people's minds and nowhere else. Just like pink unicorns.
God's existence has no observable consequences? I guess she forgot the existence of something rather than nothing, the origin of life, the consistency and predictability of physical laws, and personal consciousness, including moral reasoning (consciousness of objective moral laws), all of which cannot be explained in any way apart from God. Yes, faith is required, for any explanation, more so for the naturalist and materialist.
I am not religious, but I believe in God, and to my own surprise, science has led me to this point. For me, the question is no longer whether God exists, but what God is. What if the evidence is not measurable and precisely this not measurability, this lack of results - is the result / proof?
What if the universe is a multidimensional singularity and has properties similar to those of a mathematical singularity, ie a point that is not definable and exactly defined by it?
I would not consider that if there was no evidence for this hypothesis, but how is it possible to prove something scientifically if the proof is exactly what is not measurable? At least not yet ^^
If something is not mesurable, it must have never interacted with “phisical” reality, which means it has never done something usefull because otherwise we could measure it. If something has never done any sort of Interaction it is a useless thing and it doesn’t make sense to call it god
@@odtkl3921 Unless it is outside of our spacetime then it's not measurable but may still be the source of everything.
It's like the ZERO in math, it has no value that add up to anything else but it's the center, the source of our number system (basically any number system). But without it neither science or math could have been evolved to the current level.
If our universe is a singularity - and I've no doubt about that - then there is a singular point that connects everything but isn't measurable because of its absolute unique properties.
The tricky part is: If the universe is a singularity then EVERYTHING within are also singularities - even our brain and most likely our consciousness - and all are connected via that absolute unique singular point, whose characteristics are explicitly not measurable with our current standards.
The closest thing that would be measurable, would be something at the first dimensional expansion, e.g. that could be a particle like the electron, omnipresent from our perspective but still not the source.
It's debatable how to name that absolute unique omnipresent point that connects everything but to my understanding the word God is exactly that - a word for the inconceivable, immeasurable.
It's get even more interesting when it comes to the ability to make use of that point - or being able to control it. What or whoever that is, holds the fate of the universe and everything within.
Do more science and see that we are all one. That should be obvious to everyone.
eXtremeDR a singularity is something in our universe that doesn’t work with our currents physichs laws (the center of a blackhole for exemple). Saying that the universe is a singularity doesn’t make any sense to me, considering that most of it is predictable. What do you mean? And is your “God” in our universe? So it could be a blackhole? However if god really had some connection with matter we would be able to measure it anyway
@@odtkl3921 Thank you for asking those questions. Indeed, when I started to research the concept of a singularity, I couldn't find much information except that black holes are considered singularities.
Black holes aren't the only singularities, there are different types of singularities and they are all around us, at any level - from bosons, atoms, cells, stars, solar-systems, galaxies, etc. - all singularities.
A singularity has specific properties, e.g. each is unique (that's why everything in the universe is unique) and they all share a dimensional evolution, starting at dimension 0. At this point our current understanding of physics reaches its limits.
Something extraordinary happens at that 0 point but what exactly? Whatever it is, it defies observation but we can observe the outcome, the surrounding.
We are made of singularities, we are surrounded by them - wherever you look, you see a singularity.
Of all structures I know, the singularity is the only one able to describe/represent everything - including all life forms. Isn't that what God is - everything?
Interestingly, only now we can calculate such a complex structure and begin to understand what couldn't be understood before. Something wonderful will happen when we are ready.
What a brain! And, as an aside, what a beautiful lady!
this is no place to hit on her....
she is open for proposals, move ur As.ss don't wait ")
@@vladimir7838 🤣🤣🤣
@@vladimir7838 I can see you have trouble with women.
God is a historical way of explaining things we don't understand. Now we know better about so much there is no room for god so the concept becomes a comfort blanket for people to hang onto because the harsh reality offers no afterlife or reward for being good. Also, most concepts of god that people worship are seriously awful beings, how they get regarded as a force for good is beyond me,. We don;t need god as an explanation and are better off without religion. We are also better at writing moral codes than god ever was, no idea why he persists so much. None of this means he doesn't exist, just that nobody - no pope, bishop or imam - knows more about it than anyone else does. Live. love. meditate, look at the stars and keep asking questions. Much better to have questions that can;t be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
God is a social existance, based on human belief. It can at best be understood as social science or psychological science
Having religion involved in science education is like when you do not know how to solve a math problem in algebra and you just + god in the equation hoping to score brownie points.
Very funny that sounds just like + gravity being the answer when you do not know how to solve a problem in science. What keeps the air on earth from escaping into the surrounding vacuum of space? Gravity. What keeps the air in a balloon from escaping into the surrounding space? The balloon itself. It follows that gravity must be a balloon.
Nor does science have an answer that a unicorn exists or pixies or fairys !
Unicorns do exist in multiverse
Where what ever one can think comes in to reality
But God even does not exist there
As a Christian who loves science, this was a great explanation of the relationship between science and God. Thank you.
The question you should be asking is "does science exist? Certain can not say it does after learning the truth about C-19.
You cant prove a negative: i.e. god does not to exists. You can logically and empirically show that most defs of god are rationally false.
Sabine, I find your logic flawless. I especially lioe how you took the time to define what you mean, exactly, by the word "god."
Most scientists who attempt to tackle this issue neglect to do so, and many go on to make the mistake of offering a binary opinion without supporting evidence.
Your presentation made no such mistakes nor any other. I applaud you, Sabine. May you live long and prosper! 🙂👌🇺🇸
The question indeed depends on the definition. An omnipotent creator god can logically not exist due to the self-contradiction within the very definition. But superior beings are a possibility, although we have not seen evidence for their existence yet and therefore no reason to presume it.
@@magister.mortran exactly. What I liked so much about her opinion offered is that God, in terms of a person, is scientifically irrelevant as long as that person is not physically present.
Religious texts abound with persons claiming to be a god or the God, but invariably, they all left. Or died.
Should such superior beings exist, science can simply have no opinion as long as they are not physically present and identifying themselves in observable ways.
I'm glad that you take the time to define what you mean by the term "God." That simple step alone would prevent many of the silly arguments I hear about this topic.
Sadly, the last thing many people want to do is actually avoid an argument.
I guess I missed the definition. Could you give a brief definition? Argument is necessary for good science.
Pat Moran Read “The Experience of God” by David Bentley Hart
@@ezrawilson6986 No thanks. I guess trying to hide from the onslaught of the destruction of your religion must feel like everything is slipping, slipping, slipping away? So you claimed she "took time to define"what she meant by the term "God." I ask you what it was because I heard no explanation. You want me to read a book. I prefer to stay in reality. No thanks. By the way arguments are absolutely necessary for good science. But beliefs in the supernatural are pessimistic, regressive, and dehumanizing.
Pat Moran what makes you think I believe in the supernatural?
Another reason you really should read the book. You think you’re gaining tribal status when you’re actually showing your ignorance. But hey, whatever works for you!
I think science DOES say something about the existence of god. If science looks, but can find no observable evidence, nor need for god in its theories, then:
While it does not prove god does NOT exist, it leaves you bereft of reason to believe in him/her.
3:50 - That's called metaphysics.
Could you please make a video on quantum mechanics and evolution. Some people who studied quantum mechanics say theory of evolution is wrong and they stopped believing in it after studying quantum mechanics. Please explain it in detail. Thanks in advance
What if God became human and walked among us for some 33 years,
Would that have any significance?
If "God" became human...would it then not just be another human? - Then no...that would be just another human.
Or are you actually implying something portraying a human - but with superhuman powers? - Then yes...that would be observable consequence - would it not?
Only if he would turn water into wine and walk on water. Like Dynamo.
@@peteralleyman1388 But Dynamo cheated !
Science, the study of the natural physical world, has a limited scope.
Science is not math (although Physics seems to be the science field that most depends on it. But science is based on empirical evidence with repeatable observations and experiments.
But math is abstract. There is no point or line in the physical world. There is no equilateral triangle in the physical world or any object like the equilateral triangle that can be envisioned between distant galaxies or between protons in an atom. If you tried to prove a math theorem by empirical evidence you would be kicked out of the math department.
You can not use a repeatable scientific experiment to determine if Washington was America's first president. This historical fact is not from the natural world.
To think that science could be used to answer any areas outside of the natural physical world seems to often be a means for humans to look to science as a religion. Including its own creation mythology of primordial soup.
Science does not determine anything, it simply strives to model what is observable. Observations are not limited to repeatable experiments. George Washington exists in as much as we model the evidence as best we can and satisfy ourselves that the best theory is that he did exist. There are no proofs in science.
@@jimcervantes5659 , you seem to be describing, not the physical natural world, but reality.
If you're trying to use science to make a religion, belief system, or any other frame of reality outside of the natural physical world then you don't have science.
@@allenrhoades8482 What is the distinction you're making between the physical world and reality?
@@jimcervantes5659 , that the physical world , although a part of our reality, is not all of reality . For example the abstract mathematical reality .
I see it as self contradictory to mandate the notion that reality is wholly comprised of the physical world and then use the palpalbly unphysical reality of mathematics to discern the physical reality.
Wouldn't even the notion that "reality is only the material" be itself unmaterial?
@@allenrhoades8482 Abstract thought is real. It exists in our brains. The question of whether abstractions exist outside of human thought is a matter of philosophy, not science.
I agree with almost everything but your view of God is way too small. God created everything including all of the order you are able to discover through science.
Evidence for this includes the Big Bang, fine tuning of the universe for life and the unfathomable complexity within even a single cell.
While it's true that science does not have answer whether if God exist, science however have very good answer to another question. Whether if God DOES ANYTHING in a particular situation. Like the movement of the solar system, God doesn't do anything. Flood, tsunami, earthquake, storm, etc. also nothing. And for the most part, since every "proof" of God doing anything are included in the Bible, science pretty sure that God didn't do any of that.
It's so comforting to know that there are rational people in the world. So many "intellectuals" are merely gifted in science and engineering and can't tell the difference between the fields of study and how far science and philosophy can go... and how far they _can't_ go. Then you try to defend that the question is not in the realm of science and get labeled as a theist. By the way, what the hell did Hawking mean when he said philosophy was useless?
god exist because that voice in my head says so!!
I have a game for you- it’s a treasure hunt. I’ll give the clue and you have to find the answers:
1.) Can you find the hidden cross in Numbers chapter 2? Hint, it’s pretty big.
2.) Genesis chapter 5- what do the names mean in Hebrew? Hint, Make a list from Adam to Noah on the left and on the right do the translation.
3.)Why did Jesus keep his miracles secret until the triumphal entry? Hint: 173,880.
1Cor6:9 - WE ARE ALL SINNERS. No one is better than the next. John 3:3 we must be BORN again. Jesus often says “Go, and sin no more”. Sinning after repentance is still sin- repent and be done with the world.
Very devout spiritual person (who actually does believe in faith healing) here who also happens to think science is really cool. This video is fantastic. I think science is awesome and I think faith is beautiful. They need not negate each other. But also, we must stop trying to mesh the two together because when we do, we are turning them both into something that is no longer either faith, or science. If we can put our faith under a microscope we no longer have a reason to even engage in faith. Because it just becomes evidence instead. When we try to speculate our faith into science, we cease to use the scientific method and begin to speculate philosophically. So then it’s no longer science.
If one is seeking a true and complete explanation, it is impossible to avoid meshing all forms of knowledge. The reality is that true religion/faith and true physical science and all other forms of knowledge can coexist without contradiction.
It was the spirit of medieval Christendom that spurred science on. Trusting that an all-knowing rational creator, who is not trying to deceive us, made all creation, they came to the conclusion that creation also must be intelligible and that studying it will lead to no contradictions.
@@arthurkalb1817 completely agree.
Everyone else is arrogant for not believing in my imaginary friend.
That is a good one. Can I use it?
And everyone else is arrogant for believing in something I can neither prove nor disprove, hm?
If you want to talk seriously about topics like this, you need to study philosophy, and especially metaphysics.
Possibly the greatest problem with science in our day is that scientists have begun to imagine that their method of knowing is the only valid method of knowing. In entering into this delusion, they tend to wind up at the conclusion that since their method is the only way of knowing, the only knowledge that exists is scientific knowledge. This is nonsense, and if taken to it's logical conclusion, it comes very close to insanity.
Science itself rests upon a foundation of philosophy. There are only certain philosophical premises that allow for science to have valid meaning. Those premises cannot be arrived at by scientific means.
When scientists deny or ignore philosophy, they cut off their own discipline at the knees.
One of the interesting things going forward is that our society has adopted a philosophy that doesn't really have a viable foundation for science.
I suspect that more and more we are going to see a denigration and redefinition of science as a result.
Another way of saying this would be something like this. God is not necessary for any scientific theory, or explanation. But God IS necessary in order to have a universe in which science is possible and meaningful.
What do you mean with "method of knowing"? Science is not a method of knowing, it's a method for acquiring knowledge. And it's the most reliable method we have. Do you know a better one?
_"God IS necessary in order to have a universe"_
That is an assumption not supported by good evidence.
Sabine, I would really appreciate it if you took the time to respond to this comment (even debunking any flaws contained).
In this video, you speak about religion as being completely orthogonal to science. I think that this is not true. You see, it is well established that religion (and I am not talking about any particular one -- I am myself not affiliated with any) is a world-wide phenomenon and we do have observations for it. These observations are of two types: First, the indirect observations in which one can measure how religion affects other people's behavior and (mostly mental) well-being (see e.g. "Religion, Spirituality and Health: the Research and Clinical Implications", Harold Koenig). The second type is more direct as well as tricky and involves our personal experience as human beings. We observe, for instance, the feeling of free will.
Now, ancient philosophers like Plato have pointed out this distinction between the world of ideas (aka spiritual world) and the world of senses. Physics works almost explicitly with sensory observations. But what about these other "spiritual" observations? The problem with them is that they are very subtle and any particular person is very likely to misinterpret them. But there has been some research on the matter by the various religions around the world. For example, Buddhism has developed meditation practices that actually produce results in the human brain (see e.g. www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/02/09/7-ways-meditation-can-actually-change-the-brain/?sh=261d89861465). Now, religions do work in different ways than science, because of the particular obstacles that they have to face: The observations are much more subtle and easily misinterpreted and some phenomena could be (reportedly) very unlikely: e.g., it could be the case that the probability that a person has the "spiritual" clarity that Jesus was claimed to have is so small that the frequency of such observations is very small (e.g. one every couple of hunder years for example). There are other possible problems like the reaction of (the much greater number of) people of lower "spiritual" value and the difficulty of assessing (or even defining) such a concept as "spiritual" value. The reason that it needs to be defined is that it does produce results in the psychology of people and these results/experiences are, reportedly, very intense.
I call "spirituality" as esoteric science, although as I mentioned, (sensory-classical) science works in very different ways, due to the privilege that senses are almost the same for all human beings - while esoteric senses can vary significantly. I would like to hear a comment on the above as well as an answer to the question of whether it could be, some day, that esoteric science and sensory science unify.
I found the quote of the Brecht story I commented on (earlier video):
"A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: “I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behavior would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.” "
Source:
www.bopsecrets.org/CF/brecht-keuner.htm
"
Mr. K is neglecting some alternatives here.
Good one
There is also another possible alternative: you need God to not exist
Either way, the effect is the same
"Does the Multi-Verse exist?"
Noice.
Religious existence = imaginary existence (I.e. no existence )
The mind is like a little box, limited to the borders of your skull.
Like the ocean that cannot fit inside a hole on the beach,
so the Infinite cannot be "known" by the mind,
never Truly. The mind can make 'caricatures', of the tree, of the mountain, of the sun,
even of "your self". Yet it can never conceive of them truly--as they are--inside the boxes of ideas.
And yet, the infinite runs through every section of 'my self',
it shapes my lungs as it shapes the air and the wind,
it shapes my tongue, the growth of my hair, the 'tissue' of every muscle, the 'flesh' of every cell,
the same it shapes the lightning in the sky, it shapes the 'lightning' inside 'my brain'.
Only the infinite knows, without mistake,
without simplification, without reduction into 'symbol', without translation into ''words',
the precise concurrent symphony, concurrent rhythms that all sing at once,
even as 'my' fingers move to strike the keys;
my reason does not know, and can but describe 'a caricature',
of the spontaneous Infinity, which in every corner of existence finds its source, of itself, onto itself.
I could never hope to know it with reason, never really, never truly--within a box.
And yet, it's always there, found "beneath" the surface of thought,
the consciousness of Nature
amongus
Atom cannot be self-powered.
Therefore, the universe is likely externally-powered, too.
How do you reach the conclusion that an atom cannot be self powered? Your argument doesn't seem to compelling as it is.
@@erikottema2620 Thermodynamically, nothing can be self-powered.
As a religious person I appreciate your understanding of what the definitions of God are and what they are not
What is the proper definition of god?
@@BojanBojovic I used the plural for a reason
@@BojanBojovic The key part I was getting at was that Sabine demonstrates the understanding that the notion of God is "a priori" to the existence of material reality. So trying to apply the scientific method (a method invented for material reality) to trying to "discover" the existence of God is a philosophically counter intuitive approach for both believer and non believer. The question of God belongs primarily to the realms of history and philosophy, not any science concerned with material reality
@@will9444555 Sounds like apologetics to me. The god either exist or not. Dividing your thought process to the scientific and the rest is also apologetics, as critical thinking should be the norm 24/7. It is very interesting that humans do the critical thinking almost all the time in their lives, except when it comes to defending their beliefs, then suddenly the new rules are introduced.
As for putting the god in history and philosophy, I totally agree as there is no need for those beliefs in todays world, however the reality is different and people take those beliefs very seriously.
@@BojanBojovic No it is not apologetics. Apologetics is concerned with defending specific theological narratives and doctrines, very rarely does the question of god's actual existence come into it. In apologetics God's existence is taken as an assumption. There will always be questions beyond scientific thinking and these are gaps that can only be filled mathematical logic and philosophy. A simple analogy would be if I poured a glass of water and left no material evidence that I did such a thing would you logically be able to deduce my existence from the glass containing the water? Some people might say yes because clearly someone had to fill the glass with water, others might say no and say it is possible the water was always there or appeared by some other mechanism and this is where belief comes in
All that is observable is secondary. It is not direct knowledge of any of the participants. ie we don't know what it is like to be an electron etc. But most, if not all of us at some point do experience what it is like to be in love. That is something which no scientific method can measure let alone make one perceive. Occam's razor just means a particular hypothesis in the observable framework does not seem to need the idea of "God or Unity". But not knowing the definition, let alone how to test it through the known scientific methodology is not evidence for its absence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that too based on the epistemic metric of the scientific method.
Styngray : "to be in love....something which no scientific method can measure". Are you sure about that? Perhaps find a better example?
neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harvard-mahoney-neuroscience-institute/brain-newsletter/and-brain-series/love-and-brain
@@alancrabb if science can tell me what emotions I have and why I have them. It may say oh..you have so much cortisol, so much this and that hormone and create a pattern algorithm to explain it however it. Neither science tells us what is that keeps body alive and what that is not their when person dies even if body is fully repairable.
@@varunnagpal6927 Brain death is the absence of electromagnetic activity in the brain. That's what is not there.
@@alancrabb Yes I am sure. This has been pointed out in philosophy of science long ago, not to mention theological debates. I think you are mistaking direct knowledge of something for learned knowledge.
Setting that aside, measures of various harmones, vitals, crosstalk in various neuronal pathways, even if complete hardly suffices for the direct knowledge of being in love.
How can science or learned knowledge, make you feel what it is to accidently cut yourself while slicing a onion. It can't, regardless of how much one talks about pathophysiology of nociception and reflexes and perception of pain etc.
Direct knowledge or perception cannot be arrived at by the scientific method. But that is not the job of science. The job of the process of science is to elucidate proximate relationships in the observable ontic framework.
@@StyngRay1 ;
1. Your original assertion was " "to be in love....no scientific method can measure". That is what you have to defend. Whether "measures...can... suffice for the direct knowledge.." is another issue. Science can 'measure' (and even stimulate) many of the mental processes underlying ecstasy, lust, depression, motherly bonding, and (yes) romantic love, etc etc. This neither implies nor requires empathy, and in no way invalidates the 'reality' of the personal experience.
2. You have a serious point to make : I merely suggested that you found a more defensible example. What I NOW suggest is that you re-word your proposition, and make clear how it relates to what the author of this video says.
Kind regards.
A better way to understand the concept of a god is to look at the historical evolution of religions- where they started, the needs of society/the ruling class for that religion/god/philosophy, etc. You don't need science to explain the existence of a god, only a wide,realistic view of humanity and human history.
I find atheistic reductionism and continual appeal to the genetic fallacy to be unconvincing.
@Michael Lochlann As I said, atheistic reductionism. I mean, "invisible guy," really? You can't engage with anything more sophisticated than a first-grader's theology?
Science is EVIDENCE for God's existence. Not complete evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
Actually, science could have an answer. First you define what god is. For example, god is everywhere. Well that claim is easy to test. God should be easy to find. If not, there is no god. But of course, the goalpost moves. This is not the fault of science. God becomes an undetectable, invisible being that is everywhere, but Carl Sagan astutely pointed out, "What is the difference between an undetectable being and one that does not exist?"
A person can experience the divine in the same way that one experiences one's own existence. What that means in terms of reality, I don't know.
Religious beliefs, as long as they aren't just remains of a pre-scientific worldview, are experiential. The same goes for existential positions, hopes, values and so on. None of these deal with things that exist in a scientific sense.
@@M-CH_ If a religious belief was found to be useful to explain an observation, then science would have to accept it. I always figured that was why evolutionists cling to Darwin so tightly. There is a strong illusion of design in nature that fooled the smartest people for all of history. Darwinian Evolution is a tautology wrapped in a blanket of circular reasoning, but it is the only way to stave off the assaults of the design contingent. Saying that those creatures in a particular generation who are able to survive and reproduce will be over represented in the following generations is such a statement of the obvious that it apparently wasn't obvious for thousands of years. If Evolution is described as change over time and nothing more, which is what the fossils show, it would not keep a lot of scientists employed.
@@caricue I'll skip the part about evolution because I don't want to get into this old argument. Instead I'll stick to methodology: if you use a religious concept as an inspiration for a theoretical entity that you use in a scientific theory, you are no longer doing religion, you're doing science. Philosophy tends to serve as a floodgate for such religious concepts before they enter science. Creation science, transpersonal psychology, or psychotronics, whatever one may think of their standing as sciences, no longer belong to the field of religion (ie. they aren't theologies). During scientific revolution there were attempts at creating experimental theologies - Spiritism of Allan Kardec was one. It ended up as just another family of religions. How? Various branches of Spiritism developed their orthodoxies. An experimental religion, where hypotheses would be formed and tested after a scientific manner, could know no orthodoxy. In science "orthodoxy" is a foul word, an accusation of academic malpractice. In religions it is always present to some extent - there it's a feature, not a bug, it's one of the things which create social cohesion. Such cohesion is needed if a comunity is to reach any goals that surpass the capacity of any of its individual members. Both religions and sciences set such goals for themselves, but those goals are vastly different. In sciences the goal is to build a conceptual framework which - to paraphrase dr Hossenfelder, messily - lets us predict future observations the best, as well as describe them adequately in a synthetic way. Need I say these are not the goals of a religion? Theology borrows some tools of science to develop a coherent conceptual framework for a religion, but it is subservient to the goals of a religion; it is not to validate or undermine the foundation upon which a consensus of a given religious community is built (which is what I refer to as "orthodoxy"). In science the social cohesion is obtained by common standards of conducting and presenting research. If you want to see a community where some experiences of transcendence are shared, but with no agreement as to the "theology" (and therefore as to what those experiences mean), you can look at ceremonial magicians, or UFO contactees. Unless a subset of such communities negotiate some "theology" of their own, some "orthodoxy" - or limits of what kind of interpretations of putatively common experiences are even considered, there's little to no cohesion.
@@M-CH_ You obviously have your own set of issues that you find interesting or annoying. It's too bad you are not in the Southeast US because it would be nice to be able to discuss these fascinating issues in person and not in the limited format of a comment section. I respect you not taking the bait on the whole Evolution thing. Paradigms are only discarded when a preferable one comes along to replace it. I don't have a new theory of evolution, so we are stuck with the status quo. Speaking of pet peeves, some of science has been corrupted so badly that orthodoxy is not only not a foul word, but required in order to stay in polite society. Climate Change has led the way with its consensus science, but as the old saying goes, science advances one funeral at a time. One last thing, you mentioned originally that you agreed with the concept that religion was an experiential phenomenon, I would add UFO's and UFO abduction to that since you don't believe, until you do!
Proof that God is real and Jesus is the messiah and Jesus is God the son
Matthew 24:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Kinginhabitat.com/scientists-hypothesize-why-earthquakes-happen-where-they-shouldnt/
Matthew 24:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
King James Version (KJV)
Fake Jesus in Siberia
ruclips.net/video/n8BOMqks-gQ/видео.html
Prophecy of the Return of Jeus Christ
King James Version (KJV)
Revelation 19:11-14 King James Version (KJV)
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Explanation of aliens
and please read king james version of the Bible ezekiel chapter 1:5-22 its numbered you can't miss it
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezekiel-Chapter-1/
since the angels of God have control over UFOs the fallen angels also have controls over their own Ufo's.
the sons of Anak are of the giants
Numbers 13:33 states this
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
the giants were created from fallen angels
Genesis 6:1-4
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
and please read king james version of the Bible ezekiel chapter 1:5-22 its numbered you can't miss it
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezekiel-Chapter-1/
since the angels of God have control over UFOs the fallen angels also have controls over their own Ufo's.
the sons of Anak are of the giants
Numbers 13:33 states this
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
the giants were created from fallen angels
Genesis 6:1-4
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.