@@unnanointedonesufi being religious is nothing to boast about, i mean you worship a god who regularly kills people for fun. someone who makes up his morals as he goes and basically has all the charisma of hannibal lector. in fact i think you religious people are sick, and i mean really sick minded, defending at all costs a guy who drowns babies cos he let things get out of hand. demonstrate god to me or bugger off cos you're essentially a liar.
@@unnanointedonesufi tell me, if the quran is the perfect word of god, why do scholars have to check it? they check it cos it might be wrong no? how can it be wrong if god wrote it? why bother checking it if it's perfect? you're an idiot pal.
@@unnanointedonesufi Normally I wouldn’t comment on spelling errors, I make plenty of them myself, but in this case you may have wanted to spellcheck first.
He can't follow science.1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Sean is into fiction, not science. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Sean isn't brilliant. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
I'm a big fan of Sean Carroll - Of all the books on time that I've read From Eternity To Here is probably my favourite, and his back-to-back, time-symmetric cosmology fascinating. Generally though I just like the way he thinks. He shares a common trait amongst my favourite scientists and philosophers, which is an impatience with, and a disdain for, woolly thinking, obscurantism and sophistry coloured by wishful thinking.
Sean doesn't follow science. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Hey Sean, why don't you follow science? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Hey, do tell how we got this all on its own. You always avoid that. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
That girl waffled incoherently for about a minute and a half, and Sean Carroll politely says that she asked a good question. He doesn't have to be so nice.
It was a fair question, just not put very succinctly. But these are students, so some fumbling for words is to be expected as they grapple with ideas that may be quite new to them. The question amounts to "Is it fair to insist that a hypothetical god be responsible for EVERYTHING?" The answer that I would give, without reference to cosmology, is that this is the conventional formulation for god, one that Carroll is pointing out has not met its burden of proof. Another response is to ask whether a partipotent god is at all a better hypothesis than a strictly omnipotent one. On its face, it's just an ex post facto moving of the goalposts. It adds complexity, and doesn't begin to justify the underlying premise of there being some kind of god at all. (This is not at all the same case as refining the definition or boundary conditions of something already known to exist. The whole exercise at hand here is to see whether the existence claim is justified in the first place.) In terms of cosmology, I think that Carroll was pointing out that it would be premature to assume that various parameters are unrelated when our model doesn't yet account for how they came about. Maybe they're unrelated, but maybe they're intimately related. So if we're to examine the hypothesis that an external agent was responsible for some parameter values (based, remember, on the fine tuning argument) then we have to notice that the hypothesis does not successfully predict that all of the parameters are similarly fine tuned. And that's a problem for the hypothesis that can't be simply waved off. It would have to be addressed.
Suspending disbelief for a moment (which is an element of a good mystery novel), would it make sense for God to preface his book with a spoiler? You wouldn't buy the book, would you? It really makes me wonder at the hubris of naturalism vs. the audacity of faith, that God by necessity cannot be at least partially explained by human nature, or nature in general, in the same way that we at least partially understand artists by their art.
To listen to humans explain anything at all about God is like having Sarah Palin talking about anything. God's context is based on faith alone, not facts. That renders discussion moot because because faith is singularly and strictly personal.
That's a good way to tell people with faith to shut up, while nodding to adherents of naturalism to plunder on in their ridicule of faith. I have no problem with the ramblings of the select elite of physicists on their narrative of the prelude to the Big Bang. It reads like a dime romance novel, and little wonder, as it was first conceived in a wet dream of a frustrated monastic celibate. One reading of Steven Hawking's essays demonstrates the "quantum leaps" of faith in things not perceived by the senses.(empiricism? not). The theory of "The Singularity" and its 'infinite density" and growth and heat and explosion...and spontaneous existence from "Nothing" with no external agent, has been soundly dismissed as an epitome of unscientific reasoning, by some of the most eminent cosmologists and physicists in the world. But we are asked to take it on faith. Personally I don't give a damn about that. Everyone to their fetish. I would be satisfied with an end of the assault on monotheism by activist atheists among the community of scientists, and couldn't care less if they are merely atheists who stick to their domains of genuine or phony empiricism.When they begin to inform youth on ethics and "morals" in the venue of public education, paid for with the tax dollars in a community, they picked their own battle. You are entitled to your circular reasoning, My concern is the underpinning of the civic education and the nurturing of critical thinking skills in the k-12 public school crowd. I propose academic non-proselytizing treatment of religion,faith and philosophy in the civics and social studies venue, right alongside of social ethics, secular law and political studies.I also oppose extrapolation from the views of the likes of Peter Singer in any venue in k-12, since they are in stark contrast with the underpinnings of the current rule of law.
i am surprised and puzzled that scientists even bother to address the 'god question' which is both irrational and not addressable by science, let alone all the ridiculous man-made religions especially the biblical ones.
I think this is brought forth by the insistence of religions to be able to insert their fantasy god-friends into areas of science. When they do that, scientists, or scientific educators, feel forced to respond. Even scientists, who themselves believe in such magical god beings, react to such intrusions. Kenneth Miller is a good example of that. Theism is very dangerous and debilitating. The US for example is a good example of what happens when theism destroys parts of education. This is currently a growing problem in the US.
Well then, smart person, do tell how we got the universe on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
i suggest you leave the science to scientists unless you wish to educate yourself in which case i do encourage you to study something else than your bible (jewish mythology) and stop hanging on to irrationality and delusions.
@@2fast2block "can't happen naturally" who says? you? "had to be done supernaturally" says who again. if you can devise a supernatural method for demonstrating the supernatural please do, if ghosts and fairies are real i want to know about ti and get the lottery numbers. the problem you have is you can't even think ahead to see that you're talking gibberish. "the supernatural did it" "god did it" you can't DO anything with either of those statements except laugh. the supernatural can't even boil a kettle.
Help those who will give you any credibility to think for themselves wether you agree with them or not. We live in the same universe with the same properties, so everyone adapts to their situation independently and that prepares them to see the equivalence of apparently separated lives. If some people give credibility to a deity it's because an authority figure has convinced them of their unworthyness, and that they are going to have to pay for restoration of "spiritual" health. It's similar to the attitudes toward uneducated people who have been conned into debt for courses they will never be able to pay for. All the good advice, no matter what its source, is simply good advice, and can get one out of almost any situation, but it has to be yours by immersion in "full" understanding. Beliefs are hit and miss.
You Can't DO science Imagining spiritual intervention at each step. But METAPHYSICS is by logical definition, OUTSIDE the domain of empirical science. Ultimately S Carroll is reduced to elaborative SPECULATION on untestable metaphysics.
Christians get understanding of arguments from the same place they get an understanding of God. It cannot be moral or ethical to suggest there is a god. As if one should respect the suggestion, we all travel with one foot in fantasyland, using a fantasyland vocabulary. People expect them to lie & God loves you. Who is going to get elected claiming they will induce mass-starvation, & chaos in a futile attempt to deal with rapid global heating induced mass-starvation & chaos? I can imagine global sequential crop failures within a few months. Already, the coal power is keeping me cool enough to survive by air-conditioning. Christians are authoritarians for whom truth is irrelevant, the end justifies the means. They will keep burning fossil-fuels for you, going extinct by the heat or starvation. Atheism doesn't explain anything, but the faithful don't have any standards for explanations. It cannot be moral or ethical to suggest there is a god. As if one should respect the suggestion, we all travel with one foot in fantasyland, using a fantasyland vocabulary. You know them by their works, so what does it tell you about those advocating prayer? Nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. Who advocates faith, when it is worthless if you can't move mountains using faith & verbal commands to landscape? What kind of person speaks of god as if we did not have a saying: God helps those helping themselves, because gods have a perfect record of doing nothing, outside of fiction. No wonder Freud wrote the antidote to Christianity is literacy.@@joehinojosa8314
We are all part (creations) of the (a) supreme power; (which we term God). If you cannot accept this, then you would have to come up with an alternative intelligent source of everything. (Always has been, or an accident which produces everything from NOTHING, (and maintains it remember) is simply avoiding the issue. The power within each and every atom,( together with its rules of operation) throughout the universe can hardly be termed 'an accident', since it is on-going or continuous.
How it’s possible for intelligent, rational and logical people to believe in the impossibility of God. First you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God, the being actually exists. Then you must prove that this God created everything. The impossibility for the existence of God is staggering
It is so easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God, the Creator, actually exists. If an intelligent Creator doesn't exist how does one explain dna? The dna in a single cell, half from a mom and half from a dad, can create a human body. The complexity of a human being is awe inspiring. No one has ever see complex, coded and specified, information without an information originator. For example a car needs a designer to make all of the parts for that car. What idiot would think that a car just popped into existence? It is so easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God, the being actually exists. If an intelligent Creator doesn't exist how does one explain dna? the dna in a single cell, half from a mom and half from a dad, can create a human body. The complexity of a human being is awe inspiring. No one has ever see complex, coded and specified, information without an information originator. For example a car needs a designer to make all of the parts for that car. What idiot would think that a car just popped into existence?
@@nahshon9998 Here’s the problem with your example. Just because DNA exists, as complex as it is, there is no evidence that it was “created” by a God. An ameba is a single celled organism that can replicate itself.. asexual reproduction, no God necessary. We reproduce like all other living creatures on earth without the help of a God either. No woman can just have a baby spontaneously, they need a man to fertilize the egg, they don’t need a God to do so. Why would a God not creat women so they could reproduce asexually? It would be more efficient? You assumption that God exists is due to your faith in your belief in God. God must have created us and everything around us. We need a creator right? The ameba doesn’t think so. He’s proof that we don’t need one. There’s a problem If you think that everything needs a creator, if that’s the case, then who created God if nothing comes from nothing? Another problem is that just because you have faith in your belief that God exists and created everything, faith in your belief is evidence of nothing. Faith is not a verifiable confirmation for your belief. At one point I’m sure that you believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny… you likely had all the faith in the would to have those beliefs because someone that you trusted said that they were real. Then at some point you found out that they were not. At the same time, if someone tried to convince you that they were still real, you would use logic, rational thought and common sense and determine that no, they do not exist, you would rationalize as to why they were impossible, then you would dismiss any claim that they could possibly exist. With God and religion, you throw logic, rational though and common sense to the wind, and you literally rape your brain looking for reasons and ways to convince yourself that he does because you have faith that God must exist…so you must believe…..he has to exist…. otherwise you would have to admit that you do not have any verifiable evidence for the existence of God that can be confirmed by any measure…and..that you were blinded by your faith which kept you from using logic, rational thought and common sense to realize the sheer impossibility of God. If God existed…and he was as powerful as you believe…you should have very little problem proving that he does exist. You know deep down that God is impossible…but your faith in your beliefs keep you from admitting that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of God. You ignore the irrational impossibility for his existence. You know that you can’t prove to others that he does, or yourself for that matter if you were given the task to do so, by any rational, reasonable verifiable measure because there is no such thing that can be presented for this kind of confirmation. Therefore, there is no evidence of God. The only reasonable conclusion that can be determined is…that God does NOT exist. Be well.
@@maxxwellbeing9449 "there is no evidence that it was “created” by a God" a single molecule of dna can hold 3 billion bits of information. One single strand of dna can create a human being.
@@nahshon9998 Fascinating…if you’re suggesting that because dna is so complicated that God had to have created it….that’s a foolish notion. First you mush give verifiable evidence that God exists. Even if you could somehow miraculously confirm that God actually exists, you still have to prove the he created dna. That will never happen, there is no God. Where does it say that Hod created dna anyway…?When the made up the stories in the Bible, they had no idea that da existed… your all knowing God only knew what the men that made him up knew… There is no God and you can’t prove otherwise.
@@maxxwellbeing9449 "Just because DNA exists, as complex as it is, there is no evidence that it was “created” by a God." No it doesn't. Just like when I see a space shuttle there is no evidence of a space shuttle creator. Brilliant point. "An ameba is a single celled organism that can replicate itself.. asexual reproduction, no God necessary." You have to be joking. It isn't the reproduction is the single celled organism that needs a creator. The first single celled organism needed a creator. No scientist on earth can create a single celled organism. So how did it happen? You can't make one. "We reproduce like all other living creatures on earth without the help of a God either." Do you have any schooling? It isn't about reproduction! It is about how all living creatures on Earth came into being. Get with the program! We are talking about how life came into being, not how existing life reproduces.
I'm glad we don't live in a world of cloned robots and I'm glad everyone has their own ideas and and beliefs but it would be nice if everyone had this level of intelligence and understanding, healthy skepticism along with rationality and reason. The evidence does show that we exist in a natural universe and not a magical one.
You and Sean show you hate science and thinking. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
He looks like somebody. A British actor? Oh yeah. That guy that was on that show with that other guy where they were like antique hustlers. No, not old hustlers. They were hustling antiques. And that other guy was the guy in that Western show where he was a pimp or something and all the dialogue in the show was like "fuck.. fuck.. fuck.. blah blah blah".
If life is exclusive to this insignificant planet, then surely it's a miracle, but not evidence for a Gd outside of our universe. The act was local and passive. This reminds me of the passive gods Sean mentioned. Do you think there are such entities wondering around our universe? You wouldn't even need to be a god. Just a divinely good chemist.
How did we get the universe? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
If your "God" isn't the entire Universe, it's too small! The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!
Our job is to be real and Sean is not. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2blockyou have not shown this. You have just made an assertion. Everything we have come to understand has been a result of the nature of matter and energy. Not once have we found a supernatural or divine cause for anything, ever. These facts would seem to make naturalism the logical default for the things we don’t yet understand, at least until some evidence for an act of supernatural is found. Got any?
The cosmological argument for God falls short compared to the moral argument for God. Not only do we all have a sense of what "good and evil" is-- we all have a sense that "good and evil" exists in the first place, and the pursuit of justice is an important, objective thing that we should all take seriously.
The so called sense of what’s good and evil is evolving. The things we consider good and evil today differs greatly from what we considered good and evil 2000 years ago. That we get some sort of moral absolute from a higher being doesn’t make sense since it’s constantly changing.
I am glad my morality does not come from the gods of the book. Otherwise, I would have to stone my unruly child, kill gay people, buy slaves from foreigners etc. The gods of the major religions are evil, made up, critters. Obviously, morality does not come from these fantasy beings. This has been known for a very long time now. Even the old greeks destroyed the moral argument effectively.
we never needed a deity for develop a morality - moral rules popped up whenever we needed something our way - we didn't want to be killed - so "thou shalt not kill" - we needed to prevent someone else from impregnating our women (or keep another women from stealing our husbands) - so "thou shalt not commit adultery" - this results in a feeble code - notice that the 10 commandments are not adequate to run a society - societies have since (and probably before) Hammurabi have a much more extensive list of "shalt not"s
@John Eyon I'm not saying we need religion to tell us what is good and evil. In order for morality to be objective in the first place, we need a transcendental creator and arbiter of morality to ground it in something outside of us. If there's no God, right and wrong is subjective and relative.
@@christopher19894 - even with a god - morality is subjective - we've had a couple thousand years of christian morality - often leading to mass bloodshed - "in the name of god" - objective? - when all sides of a war can claim to be following god commandments - then it cannot be objective
I don't see how we can ever explain the characteristics of God. For example, why is he good ? Perhaps it is his nature to be good. But then we need an explanation for his nature. Perhaps we should just pack it in.
SlimThrull Apologies, only just found your reply. Yes... "I'm, er, I'm awfully sorry, but would you, um, mind if I, sort of flooded the earth and murdered everybody?" "Well...yes, I would. So would the rest of the human race." "Oh. I rather thought you'd go along with the whole thing. The last chap did you see." "Well I don't. Fuck off." "Yes, uh, very good. Sorry for bothering you." "Are you still here?"
The Sprawl LOL "Em well what if I say um flood the world but let you have a spot of tea first?, Would that be alright then" "what kind of tea?" "Earl grey... no? well how about one of those rather large American lattes?" "yes ok." "Oh good show.. alright then the flooding will commence at 10am sharp. and when you're boarding the Ark .. do mind the gap, wont you?"
What percentage of the known universe has been shown to be conducive for sentient life? And whether God is responsible for 100% of the universe, or just the tiny sliver that allows us to exist, makes no difference. There is no reason that we are able to survive in this dangerous universe without some kind of help from “something.” The magnificence of our existence and a home to exist on/in should not be taken for granted.
What do you mean help for survival? 99.9% of the species that ever lived on this planet have gone extinct. It's very possible that one day so does human race as well. The only possible way to avoid that fate is scientific development. God or gods won't make that happen, it's us, humans.
@@srelma look…. Nothing existed, then the Big Bang happened, then the universe evolved and now we are here. How did free will enter the stoichiometry of the gluon-quark plasma? You won’t ever have any acceptable answer without including a GOD that made it all possible.
@@srelma literally anything can be a god or a demon… think bigger and connect all of space time. All ideas are “real .” The TRUTH is the only God that everyone can accept.
+mzenji: It seems that not all of them are really smart. You can see at the end sad faces of some students that would not applaud this presentation...Some broken beliefs might be the reason.
Public speaking is a completely different skill than research. Not complicated to understand. You can be intelligent and be nervous about speaking in front of a room of people and/or on camera.
God has the evidence, not Sean. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Theist: Without creator there is no creation Atheist: who created universe or life?. Theists: God created universe and all. Without god no universe or life Atheist: who created God? Theist: Creator can't be created. God is Self-existent. Atheist: If god is self-existent,Then what is the problem universe/life as self-existent. If god created perfect living beings then evolution tells us "no need god for existence".
God can be judged by the same aspects of any scientifc theory. My point of view is that the region that the robot is not going to harm us. One of my favorite parts is very raw and I remember owning a physical copy but one of the problems is that God somes plays the role of a musical series. One I would argue against God is that I'm a bird photographer and spend hours sitting on a portable stool. What a fantastic actor.
To prove their is a Real Creator to the hole universes remember that our Jesus creat a birde from clay wihout useing your theorms in creating a cell which depend on long time and othe perameters in the past as you said !!!???
Written where? Of course the bible. Of what value is the desert wanderers book to me? Zero!! I am not an Israelite of thousands of years ago, so I am really not in the least interested. Especially not in the foreign peoples god.
One great argument for a Creator is that all life on Earth is information based. Dna is a molecule that carries complex, coded and specified information. Information has never been observed to come from any source except an intelligent mind. No intelligent Creator, no life. Sorry Sean but you are not even close. You have a belief, a religion, called evolution. But you also add to that belief that life created itself. How can anything create itself? Everyone would agree that a car must have a car designer. Or a space shuttle designer. The problem is that people don't want God because God makes rules they don't want to follow. But if you look at America today you find that all that ails us is rooted in atheism. Our founding fathers got it right. God exists and America was founded on Christian beliefs.
"Information has never been observed to come from any source except an intelligent mind." Since you're making an inductive argument here, let’s first consider what makes for a good inductive inference. Consider the following two inferences: 1. Every crow that we've ever observed is black, therefore it’s probably the case that all crows are black. 2. Every form of life that we've ever observed is on earth, therefore it’s probably the case that all forms of life are on earth. If you’re like me, you probably get the sense that #2 has some kind of problem that does not apply to #1. So I'm curious to get your thoughts on this. What do you think is the relevant difference between these two examples that explains why #1 is justified but #2 is unjustified? Once we answer that question, we can start to analyze whether your argument about information meets the standards of a strong inductive inference.
@@chad969 Neither is justified. There might be crows that are albino but since we recognize crows as black we don't recognize them as crows. The real question to #2 is why is there life on Earth? No one on Earth has ever created life nor can can anyone create life from non-life. If life cannot be created by humans then who created life? #2 is completely justified. What do we know about complex, coded and specified information? That is the question. And that question once answered overturns the belief that life arose from non life.
@@nahshon9998 You said that neither is justified and then you said that #2 is completely justified. Isn't that a contradiction? ________ "There might be crows that are albino but since we recognize crows as black we don't recognize them as crows" let's parody that reasoning when it comes to swans and see what happens: There might be swans that are black but since we recognize swans as white we don't recognize them (the black swans) as swans. But oh wait, we DO recognize black swans as swans. So if we can recognize black swans as swans despite the fact that most swans are white, why couldn't we recognize white crows as crows even if most crows are black? But there's a deeper problem here which is that the exact same type of reason you provided to say that #1 unjustified could be used to say that your inductive inference about information is unjustified. The reason you gave as to why the crow inference is unjustified is that if the hypothesis were false (the hypothesis that all crows are black) we might not recognize it as false because there could be white crows that we simply don't recognize as crows. Similarly, one could say that if your hypothesis is false (that all information comes from an intelligent source) we might not recognize it as false because there's no way to empirically verify that information can come from a non intelligent source. I mean ask yourself, if there were information that came from some source other than an intelligent mind, how would we recognize that? What possible observation could we make that would falsify the hypothesis that information can only come from an intelligent source?
@@nahshon9998 If you don't understand how what I said is relevant to the topic I will explain it for you. The topic is whether your argument for God is justifiable. Your argument involves the premise that "Information has never been observed to come from any source except an intelligent mind". The inductive inference you're drawing from this data is that therefore all information comes from an intelligent mind. Now in my last comment, I explained how the same type of reasoning you use dismiss other inductive inferences as unjustified (like the crow example) applies equally well to your argument. So if you were being logically consistent you would reject your own inductive inference for the same reason you reject the two inferences that I provided earlier.
We cannot even create a fly yet Sean cannot see the role God could play as Designer of the universe. It sounds like Sean just doesn't want to believe in God and he's masking it in pseudo scientific gibberish which his audience are too eager to swallow.
Total non-sequitor. We couldn’t create electricity until 200 years ago, does that mean we would have been justified saying Zeus made the lightning? When your only argument is “if you don’t agree with me you’re either stubborn or lying,” you’re admitted that you have no arguments.
I am the only one commenting after 4 months? And only the second one in 9 months? Maybe no one else is buying this BS either. I am sure that Sean is a very nice guy. But his theories are nonsense. Life didn't arise from non-life without a Creator. And the universe did not arise from a point, wherever that came from. Get real, get a real world view that explains what we see around us.
["Get real, get a real world view that explains what we see around us."] You say this, not knowing just how much of a self-own this is. We went and got a real world view, giving up the fables written down by middle eastern shepherds thousands of years ago, and moving on to what we can demonstrate.
@@nahshon9998 Depends on what definitions you apply to those words. If you are talking about DNA, DNA is not coded, specified, complex, or information, at least for conversational definitions of those terms. It is a chemical compound of repeating subunits which interacts with other compounds according to the laws of chemistry.
@@Kyeudo Whoa down! Where did you get that misinformation? Bill Gates claims that Dna is like a computer program but far more complex than any computer program written by humans. One strand of Dna, half from your mom and half from your dad, gave all the instructions to build your body. Your vascular system, miles and miles and miles of it. Your heart, lungs, kidneys. skin, hair, all of it coded in your Dna Repeating subunits. Hardly. You try creating life some day.
Scientists so called experts of this world are mere observers of what God has created. They can only describe frequently wrong and contrived. That in turn defines and limits how they perceive things around them to be. Isn't that funny postulating or assuming things about the Creator within the realm and grasp of the created which therefore is an exercise in futility. An animal running after its tail is more like this effort. Exodus 3 "I AM WHO I AM. This is what are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' Each so called expert trying to sound intelligent puffing up themselves saying "you don't need God to create things"? In fact what y'all can do is not "create out of nothing". Only God can do that. What you y'all can do is make things derived from what God created. Limited to making things derived from what God has provided. John 1:3- "Through Him (the Lord Jesus) all things were made, without Him nothing was made that has been made. " Psalm 19:1"The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands. " Scientist even called "dark matter that which they think holds all things together that they cannot explain but merely observe. Stop being windbags and humble yourselves to God. Surely, the evidence about God will be put to light to each and everyone and put to life through His works and promises which He fulfills for those who do according to His will. He even made warnings mainly to prevent mankind from destroying themselves even to those who rebel and foolishly question the existence of God himself. To God be the Glory! Amen.
i tell you what, you PRODUCE GOD, you bring god out of hiding and then we can talk, i'm sick of people claiming pixies did this and voodoo did that, you PROVE god exists or shut the fk up.
@nashon If you have proof of your statement you are going to become a very famous and rich person. Nobody in the history of humankind has managed to prove the existence of any god. You will be lauded and worshiped forever. Please present your evidence.
@@7StarsMA I don't want to be lauded and worshiped forever. The fact that there is a universe and the fact that there is life on earth and the fact that you have a brain and can think for yourself, proves God. To date no one can produce life from non-life. It can only come from a creator. No scientist has ever produced life. No human can create a universe. Only God could do that. I really don't want your worship but thanks for the offer.
It warms my heart to see the youth of this country questioning the religious establishment. This is the sign of a healthy mind.
Not really. Being ireligious doesn't give people healthy minded.
@@unnanointedonesufi being religious is nothing to boast about, i mean you worship a god who regularly kills people for fun. someone who makes up his morals as he goes and basically has all the charisma of hannibal lector. in fact i think you religious people are sick, and i mean really sick minded, defending at all costs a guy who drowns babies cos he let things get out of hand.
demonstrate god to me or bugger off cos you're essentially a liar.
@@unnanointedonesufi tell me, if the quran is the perfect word of god, why do scholars have to check it? they check it cos it might be wrong no? how can it be wrong if god wrote it? why bother checking it if it's perfect?
you're an idiot pal.
@@unnanointedonesufi Normally I wouldn’t comment on spelling errors, I make plenty of them myself, but in this case you may have wanted to spellcheck first.
@@unnanointedonesufi - so claims a feeble-minded theist
The first question took 1 minute and 9 seconds to ask. Sean took 23 seconds to answer.
"one quick question, but first some context, a dash of nuance and my life story so i don't have to repeat myself or bore you..."
He can't follow science.1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
The first questioner is David Wallace. An incredibly smart man. He's a philosopher of physics, whom Sean Carroll has had on his podcast (Mindscape).
Love Sean Carroll. Anyone who hasn't read "The Particle At the End of the Universe" really needs to do themselves that favor. Amazing book.
Sean is into fiction, not science. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
How wonderful to see the brilliance of the human mind , a room full of amazing people.
Sean isn't brilliant. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
I'm a big fan of Sean Carroll - Of all the books on time that I've read From Eternity To Here is probably my favourite, and his back-to-back, time-symmetric cosmology fascinating. Generally though I just like the way he thinks. He shares a common trait amongst my favourite scientists and philosophers, which is an impatience with, and a disdain for, woolly thinking, obscurantism and sophistry coloured by wishful thinking.
Sean doesn't follow science. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
To be fair, other philosophers share the same impatience. They just reach different conclusions based on the evidence.
Heavily coloured by wishful thinking, also ignorance, fear, gullibility and delusion.
Great questions and answers!
Hey Sean, why don't you follow science? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
So we have fine-tuning and lightning.
What more do we need to be sure that Zeus exists ?
Exactly!
Hey, do tell how we got this all on its own. You always avoid that. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block
I completely agree.
Tons of evidence that Zeus exists.
@@tedgrant2 as ALWAYS, you show you're stuck and have nothing to get around those laws I gave. You just fill in space with blah blah.
@@2fast2block
That's because I am stupid.
Why am I stupid ?
Poor design ?
Look at Sean's eyes at 1:36. The video glitches and he has robot eyes lol
John Morris Well spotted! His true robot nature is revealed!
Sean glitched.
That’s David Wallace!
I'm a scientist; but, all I could think during the first question was...Quagmire
Isn't the first one David Wallace?
That girl waffled incoherently for about a minute and a half, and Sean Carroll politely says that she asked a good question. He doesn't have to be so nice.
Yup. She was trying to cherry-pick the data.
It was a good question! But she couldn't put it into the right words
Graham Black but I like that he is so nice and polite
She ought to run for Congress.
It was a fair question, just not put very succinctly. But these are students, so some fumbling for words is to be expected as they grapple with ideas that may be quite new to them.
The question amounts to "Is it fair to insist that a hypothetical god be responsible for EVERYTHING?"
The answer that I would give, without reference to cosmology, is that this is the conventional formulation for god, one that Carroll is pointing out has not met its burden of proof.
Another response is to ask whether a partipotent god is at all a better hypothesis than a strictly omnipotent one. On its face, it's just an ex post facto moving of the goalposts. It adds complexity, and doesn't begin to justify the underlying premise of there being some kind of god at all. (This is not at all the same case as refining the definition or boundary conditions of something already known to exist. The whole exercise at hand here is to see whether the existence claim is justified in the first place.)
In terms of cosmology, I think that Carroll was pointing out that it would be premature to assume that various parameters are unrelated when our model doesn't yet account for how they came about. Maybe they're unrelated, but maybe they're intimately related. So if we're to examine the hypothesis that an external agent was responsible for some parameter values (based, remember, on the fine tuning argument) then we have to notice that the hypothesis does not successfully predict that all of the parameters are similarly fine tuned. And that's a problem for the hypothesis that can't be simply waved off. It would have to be addressed.
Damn I am dumb
any body see snowden sitting next to 1st questioner ?
yep, cunning place to hide.
Suspending disbelief for a moment (which is an element of a good mystery novel), would it make sense for God to preface his book with a spoiler? You wouldn't buy the book, would you? It really makes me wonder at the hubris of naturalism vs. the audacity of faith, that God by necessity cannot be at least partially explained by human nature, or nature in general, in the same way that we at least partially understand artists by their art.
Say what? I no more understand an artist by their art than a sister by her writing.
I sense a defense of atheism but on shaky belief system.
To listen to humans explain anything at all about God is like having Sarah Palin talking about anything. God's context is based on faith alone, not facts. That renders discussion moot because because faith is singularly and strictly personal.
Even the "book of god" , no matter the name of the book, is based on the faith of the writers. Facts are superfluous.
That's a good way to tell people with faith to shut up, while nodding to adherents of naturalism to plunder on in their ridicule of faith. I have no problem with the ramblings of the select elite of physicists on their narrative of the prelude to the Big Bang. It reads like a dime romance novel, and little wonder, as it was first conceived in a wet dream of a frustrated monastic celibate. One reading of Steven Hawking's essays demonstrates the "quantum leaps" of faith in things not perceived by the senses.(empiricism? not). The theory of "The Singularity" and its 'infinite density" and growth and heat and explosion...and spontaneous existence from "Nothing" with no external agent, has been soundly dismissed as an epitome of unscientific reasoning, by some of the most eminent cosmologists and physicists in the world. But we are asked to take it on faith. Personally I don't give a damn about that. Everyone to their fetish. I would be satisfied with an end of the assault on monotheism by activist atheists among the community of scientists, and couldn't care less if they are merely atheists who stick to their domains of genuine or phony empiricism.When they begin to inform youth on ethics and "morals" in the venue of public education, paid for with the tax dollars in a community, they picked their own battle. You are entitled to your circular reasoning, My concern is the underpinning of the civic education and the nurturing of critical thinking skills in the k-12 public school crowd. I propose academic non-proselytizing treatment of religion,faith and philosophy in the civics and social studies venue, right alongside of social ethics, secular law and political studies.I also oppose extrapolation from the views of the likes of Peter Singer in any venue in k-12, since they are in stark contrast with the underpinnings of the current rule of law.
i am surprised and puzzled that scientists even bother to address the 'god question' which is both irrational and not addressable by science, let alone all the ridiculous man-made religions especially the biblical ones.
I think this is brought forth by the insistence of religions to be able to insert their fantasy god-friends into areas of science. When they do that, scientists, or scientific educators, feel forced to respond. Even scientists, who themselves believe in such magical god beings, react to such intrusions. Kenneth Miller is a good example of that.
Theism is very dangerous and debilitating. The US for example is a good example of what happens when theism destroys parts of education. This is currently a growing problem in the US.
Well then, smart person, do tell how we got the universe on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
i suggest you leave the science to scientists unless you wish to educate yourself in which case i do encourage you to study something else than your bible (jewish mythology) and stop hanging on to irrationality and delusions.
@@2fast2block "can't happen naturally" who says? you? "had to be done supernaturally" says who again.
if you can devise a supernatural method for demonstrating the supernatural please do, if ghosts and fairies are real i want to know about ti and get the lottery numbers. the problem you have is you can't even think ahead to see that you're talking gibberish. "the supernatural did it" "god did it" you can't DO anything with either of those statements except laugh. the supernatural can't even boil a kettle.
Help those who will give you any credibility to think for themselves wether you agree with them or not. We live in the same universe with the same properties, so everyone adapts to their situation independently and that prepares them to see the equivalence of apparently separated lives.
If some people give credibility to a deity it's because an authority figure has convinced them of their unworthyness, and that they are going to have to pay for restoration of "spiritual" health. It's similar to the attitudes toward uneducated people who have been conned into debt for courses they will never be able to pay for.
All the good advice, no matter what its source, is simply good advice, and can get one out of almost any situation, but it has to be yours by immersion in "full" understanding. Beliefs are hit and miss.
You Can't DO science Imagining spiritual intervention at each step. But METAPHYSICS is by logical definition, OUTSIDE the domain of empirical science. Ultimately S Carroll is reduced to elaborative SPECULATION on untestable metaphysics.
Christians get understanding of arguments from the same place they get an understanding of God.
It cannot be moral or ethical to suggest there is a god.
As if one should respect the suggestion, we all travel with one foot in fantasyland, using a fantasyland vocabulary.
People expect them to lie & God loves you.
Who is going to get elected claiming they will induce mass-starvation, & chaos in a futile attempt to deal with rapid global heating induced mass-starvation & chaos?
I can imagine global sequential crop failures within a few months.
Already, the coal power is keeping me cool enough to survive by air-conditioning.
Christians are authoritarians for whom truth is irrelevant, the end justifies the means.
They will keep burning fossil-fuels for you, going extinct by the heat or starvation.
Atheism doesn't explain anything, but the faithful don't have any standards for explanations.
It cannot be moral or ethical to suggest there is a god.
As if one should respect the suggestion, we all travel with one foot in fantasyland, using a fantasyland vocabulary.
You know them by their works, so what does it tell you about those advocating prayer? Nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital.
Who advocates faith, when it is worthless if you can't move mountains using faith & verbal commands to landscape?
What kind of person speaks of god as if we did not have a saying: God helps those helping themselves, because gods have a perfect record of doing nothing, outside of fiction.
No wonder Freud wrote the antidote to Christianity is literacy.@@joehinojosa8314
@@joehinojosa8314It’s no longer outside of science when this God is said to insert himself and interact with reality.
We are all part (creations) of the (a) supreme power; (which we term God). If you cannot accept this, then you would have to come up with an alternative intelligent source of everything.
(Always has been, or an accident which produces everything from NOTHING, (and maintains it remember) is simply avoiding the issue.
The power within each and every atom,( together with its rules of operation) throughout the universe can hardly be termed 'an accident', since it is on-going or continuous.
How it’s possible for intelligent, rational and logical people to believe in the impossibility of God. First you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God, the being actually exists. Then you must prove that this God created everything. The impossibility for the existence of God is staggering
It is so easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God, the Creator, actually exists. If an intelligent Creator doesn't exist how does one explain dna?
The dna in a single cell, half from a mom and half from a dad, can create a human body. The complexity of a human being is awe inspiring.
No one has ever see complex, coded and specified, information without an information originator. For example a car needs a designer to make all of the parts for that car. What idiot would think that a car just popped into existence?
It is so easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God, the being actually exists. If an intelligent Creator doesn't exist how does one explain dna?
the dna in a single cell, half from a mom and half from a dad, can create a human body. The complexity of a human being is awe inspiring.
No one has ever see complex, coded and specified, information without an information originator. For example a car needs a designer to make all of the parts for that car. What idiot would think that a car just popped into existence?
@@nahshon9998 Here’s the problem with your example. Just because DNA exists, as complex as it is, there is no evidence that it was “created” by a God. An ameba is a single celled organism that can replicate itself.. asexual reproduction, no God necessary. We reproduce like all other living creatures on earth without the help of a God either. No woman can just have a baby spontaneously, they need a man to fertilize the egg, they don’t need a God to do so. Why would a God not creat women so they could reproduce asexually? It would be more efficient?
You assumption that God exists is due to your faith in your belief in God. God must have created us and everything around us. We need a creator right? The ameba doesn’t think so. He’s proof that we don’t need one.
There’s a problem If you think that everything needs a creator, if that’s the case, then who created God if nothing comes from nothing? Another problem is that just because you have faith in your belief that God exists and created everything, faith in your belief is evidence of nothing. Faith is not a verifiable confirmation for your belief.
At one point I’m sure that you believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny… you likely had all the faith in the would to have those beliefs because someone that you trusted said that they were real. Then at some point you found out that they were not. At the same time, if someone tried to convince you that they were still real, you would use logic, rational thought and common sense and determine that no, they do not exist, you would rationalize as to why they were impossible, then you would dismiss any claim that they could possibly exist.
With God and religion, you throw logic, rational though and common sense to the wind, and you literally rape your brain looking for reasons and ways to convince yourself that he does because you have faith that God must exist…so you must believe…..he has to exist…. otherwise you would have to admit that you do not have any verifiable evidence for the existence of God that can be confirmed by any measure…and..that you were blinded by your faith which kept you from using logic, rational thought and common sense to realize the sheer impossibility of God.
If God existed…and he was as powerful as you believe…you should have very little problem proving that he does exist. You know deep down that God is impossible…but your faith in your beliefs keep you from admitting that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of God. You ignore the irrational impossibility for his existence. You know that you can’t prove to others that he does, or yourself for that matter if you were given the task to do so, by any rational, reasonable verifiable measure because there is no such thing that can be presented for this kind of confirmation. Therefore, there is no evidence of God. The only reasonable conclusion that can be determined is…that God does NOT exist.
Be well.
@@maxxwellbeing9449 "there is no evidence that it was “created” by a God" a single molecule of dna can hold 3 billion bits of information.
One single strand of dna can create a human being.
@@nahshon9998 Fascinating…if you’re suggesting that because dna is so complicated that God had to have created it….that’s a foolish notion. First you mush give verifiable evidence that God exists. Even if you could somehow miraculously confirm that God actually exists, you still have to prove the he created dna. That will never happen, there is no God.
Where does it say that Hod created dna anyway…?When the made up the stories in the Bible, they had no idea that da existed… your all knowing God only knew what the men that made him up knew… There is no God and you can’t prove otherwise.
@@maxxwellbeing9449 "Just because DNA exists, as complex as it is, there is no evidence that it was “created” by a God." No it doesn't.
Just like when I see a space shuttle there is no evidence of a space shuttle creator. Brilliant point.
"An ameba is a single celled organism that can replicate itself.. asexual reproduction, no God necessary." You have to be joking. It isn't the reproduction is the single celled organism that needs a creator. The first single celled organism needed a creator.
No scientist on earth can create a single celled organism. So how did it happen? You can't make one.
"We reproduce like all other living creatures on earth without the help of a God either." Do you have any schooling? It isn't about reproduction! It is about how all living creatures on Earth came into being.
Get with the program! We are talking about how life came into being, not how existing life reproduces.
I'm glad we don't live in a world of cloned robots and I'm glad everyone has their own ideas and and beliefs but it would be nice if everyone had this level of intelligence and understanding, healthy skepticism along with rationality and reason.
The evidence does show that we exist in a natural universe and not a magical one.
You and Sean show you hate science and thinking. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
He looks like somebody. A British actor? Oh yeah. That guy that was on that show with that other guy where they were like antique hustlers. No, not old hustlers. They were hustling antiques. And that other guy was the guy in that Western show where he was a pimp or something and all the dialogue in the show was like "fuck.. fuck.. fuck.. blah blah blah".
yeah, with that other guy, the one who was in the show with the weather and that nurse, with waht's'is name?
If life is exclusive to this insignificant planet, then surely it's a miracle, but not evidence for a Gd outside of our universe. The act was local and passive. This reminds me of the passive gods Sean mentioned. Do you think there are such entities wondering around our universe? You wouldn't even need to be a god. Just a divinely good chemist.
How did we get the universe? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
If your "God" isn't the entire Universe, it's too small!
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
Our job is to be real and Sean is not. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2blockyou have not shown this. You have just made an assertion. Everything we have come to understand has been a result of the nature of matter and energy. Not once have we found a supernatural or divine cause for anything, ever. These facts would seem to make naturalism the logical default for the things we don’t yet understand, at least until some evidence for an act of supernatural is found. Got any?
@@rickdelatour5355 no assertions, that's actually science you and Sean just LOVE to ignore. You sure need to lie though.
@@2fast2block you forgot to respond to my challenge.
@@rickdelatour5355 This lie is all you can present..."Not once have we found a supernatural or divine cause for anything, ever."
Conversation is not clear
Without God, the Universe won’t exist
Amen!
You clearly did not watch the video, or at least didn't understand it.
@@psibert I did understand it.
Prove it
Equations predict they don't answer why
E=MC^2 - that explains why
The cosmological argument for God falls short compared to the moral argument for God. Not only do we all have a sense of what "good and evil" is-- we all have a sense that "good and evil" exists in the first place, and the pursuit of justice is an important, objective thing that we should all take seriously.
The so called sense of what’s good and evil is evolving. The things we consider good and evil today differs greatly from what we considered good and evil 2000 years ago. That we get some sort of moral absolute from a higher being doesn’t make sense since it’s constantly changing.
I am glad my morality does not come from the gods of the book. Otherwise, I would have to stone my unruly child, kill gay people, buy slaves from foreigners etc.
The gods of the major religions are evil, made up, critters.
Obviously, morality does not come from these fantasy beings. This has been known for a very long time now. Even the old greeks destroyed the moral argument effectively.
we never needed a deity for develop a morality - moral rules popped up whenever we needed something our way - we didn't want to be killed - so "thou shalt not kill" - we needed to prevent someone else from impregnating our women (or keep another women from stealing our husbands) - so "thou shalt not commit adultery" - this results in a feeble code - notice that the 10 commandments are not adequate to run a society - societies have since (and probably before) Hammurabi have a much more extensive list of "shalt not"s
@John Eyon I'm not saying we need religion to tell us what is good and evil. In order for morality to be objective in the first place, we need a transcendental creator and arbiter of morality to ground it in something outside of us. If there's no God, right and wrong is subjective and relative.
@@christopher19894 - even with a god - morality is subjective - we've had a couple thousand years of christian morality - often leading to mass bloodshed - "in the name of god" - objective? - when all sides of a war can claim to be following god commandments - then it cannot be objective
you know i was joking? right.
I don't see how we can ever explain the characteristics of God.
For example, why is he good ? Perhaps it is his nature to be good.
But then we need an explanation for his nature.
Perhaps we should just pack it in.
Each nationality has their own culturally specific God. The British God is the more understated, less grandiose God Alrighty.
And probably much more polite than the American one. ;)
SlimThrull Apologies, only just found your reply.
Yes...
"I'm, er, I'm awfully sorry, but would you, um, mind if I, sort of flooded the earth and murdered everybody?"
"Well...yes, I would. So would the rest of the human race."
"Oh. I rather thought you'd go along with the whole thing. The last chap did you see."
"Well I don't. Fuck off."
"Yes, uh, very good. Sorry for bothering you."
"Are you still here?"
The Sprawl LOL
"Em well what if I say um flood the world but let you have a spot of tea first?, Would that be alright then"
"what kind of tea?"
"Earl grey... no? well how about one of those rather large American lattes?"
"yes ok."
"Oh good show.. alright then the flooding will commence at 10am sharp. and when you're boarding the Ark .. do mind the gap, wont you?"
God Alrighty? Half of Frank Zappa's God: God Alreety Alrighty? Sure. Why not.
the british god is an atheist too.
What percentage of the known universe has been shown to be conducive for sentient life? And whether God is responsible for 100% of the universe, or just the tiny sliver that allows us to exist, makes no difference. There is no reason that we are able to survive in this dangerous universe without some kind of help from “something.” The magnificence of our existence and a home to exist on/in should not be taken for granted.
What do you mean help for survival? 99.9% of the species that ever lived on this planet have gone extinct. It's very possible that one day so does human race as well. The only possible way to avoid that fate is scientific development. God or gods won't make that happen, it's us, humans.
@@srelma look…. Nothing existed, then the Big Bang happened, then the universe evolved and now we are here. How did free will enter the stoichiometry of the gluon-quark plasma? You won’t ever have any acceptable answer without including a GOD that made it all possible.
@@srelma and if 99.9 went extinct, it makes it all that much more amazing that I am here, I exist, and I get to observe the mind of God.
@@srelma literally anything can be a god or a demon… think bigger and connect all of space time. All ideas are “real .” The TRUTH is the only God that everyone can accept.
There's no libertarian free will. See this video about the topic
ruclips.net/video/yBbzkR8t-5c/видео.html
These smart people are really bad at formulating their questions. lol.
"so um... um so um sort of um.."
the questions themselves are not bad .
+mzenji: It seems that not all of them are really smart. You can see at the end sad faces of some students that would not applaud this presentation...Some broken beliefs might be the reason.
The girl was very clumsy at formulating. I see the majority are men... thought is a male's activity.
Public speaking is a completely different skill than research. Not complicated to understand. You can be intelligent and be nervous about speaking in front of a room of people and/or on camera.
Is SATAN a bad theory?
yes
Albert Einstein compared God to the mechanisms of quantum processes. He never could understand either one. Still, quantum is a conundrum.
God has the evidence, not Sean. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
and gods are still mythology.
no
Theist: Without creator there is no creation
Atheist: who created universe or life?.
Theists: God created universe and all. Without god no universe or life
Atheist: who created God?
Theist: Creator can't be created. God is Self-existent.
Atheist: If god is self-existent,Then what is the problem universe/life as self-existent. If god created perfect living beings then evolution tells us "no need god for existence".
God can be judged by the same aspects of any scientifc theory. My point of view is that the region that the robot is not going to harm us. One of my favorite parts is very raw and I remember owning a physical copy but one of the problems is that God somes plays the role of a musical series. One I would argue against God is that I'm a bird photographer and spend hours sitting on a portable stool. What a fantastic actor.
Interesting that my comments have been blocked, and I am not even a theist.
am i in an alternative universe? this is a dram come true!
Nerds!!!!
its god showing that sean is an agent of the evil machine, proof of the existence of he allmighty?
gotama420 Ehm.....no.
tell me, god hides right, cos you need faith no certainty? but why is the devl hiding?
To prove their is a Real Creator to the hole universes remember that our Jesus creat a birde from clay wihout useing your theorms in creating a cell which depend on long time and othe perameters in the past as you said !!!???
ali alialamili77 So there is no reason to question the stories in the Bible?
clear as mud, amazing case, totally convincing.
not.
For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Written where?
Of course the bible.
Of what value is the desert wanderers book to me?
Zero!!
I am not an Israelite of thousands of years ago, so I am really not in the least interested.
Especially not in the foreign peoples god.
Surprise surprise. A book full of silly stories that sensible people would doubt says that sensible people will doubt those stories.
One great argument for a Creator is that all life on Earth is information based. Dna is a molecule that carries complex, coded and specified information. Information has never been observed to come from any source except an intelligent mind.
No intelligent Creator, no life.
Sorry Sean but you are not even close. You have a belief, a religion, called evolution. But you also add to that belief that life created itself. How can anything create itself?
Everyone would agree that a car must have a car designer. Or a space shuttle designer.
The problem is that people don't want God because God makes rules they don't want to follow. But if you look at America today you find that all that ails us is rooted in atheism.
Our founding fathers got it right. God exists and America was founded on Christian beliefs.
"Information has never been observed to come from any source except an intelligent mind."
Since you're making an inductive argument here, let’s first consider what makes for a good inductive inference. Consider the following two inferences:
1. Every crow that we've ever observed is black, therefore it’s probably the case that all crows are black.
2. Every form of life that we've ever observed is on earth, therefore it’s probably the case that all forms of life are on earth.
If you’re like me, you probably get the sense that #2 has some kind of problem that does not apply to #1. So I'm curious to get your thoughts on this. What do you think is the relevant difference between these two examples that explains why #1 is justified but #2 is unjustified? Once we answer that question, we can start to analyze whether your argument about information meets the standards of a strong inductive inference.
@@chad969 Neither is justified. There might be crows that are albino but since we recognize crows as black we don't recognize them as crows.
The real question to #2 is why is there life on Earth? No one on Earth has ever created life nor can can anyone create life from non-life.
If life cannot be created by humans then who created life?
#2 is completely justified.
What do we know about complex, coded and specified information? That is the question.
And that question once answered overturns the belief that life arose from non life.
@@nahshon9998 You said that neither is justified and then you said that #2 is completely justified. Isn't that a contradiction?
________
"There might be crows that are albino but since we recognize crows as black we don't recognize them as crows"
let's parody that reasoning when it comes to swans and see what happens:
There might be swans that are black but since we recognize swans as white we don't recognize them (the black swans) as swans. But oh wait, we DO recognize black swans as swans. So if we can recognize black swans as swans despite the fact that most swans are white, why couldn't we recognize white crows as crows even if most crows are black?
But there's a deeper problem here which is that the exact same type of reason you provided to say that #1 unjustified could be used to say that your inductive inference about information is unjustified. The reason you gave as to why the crow inference is unjustified is that if the hypothesis were false (the hypothesis that all crows are black) we might not recognize it as false because there could be white crows that we simply don't recognize as crows. Similarly, one could say that if your hypothesis is false (that all information comes from an intelligent source) we might not recognize it as false because there's no way to empirically verify that information can come from a non intelligent source. I mean ask yourself, if there were information that came from some source other than an intelligent mind, how would we recognize that? What possible observation could we make that would falsify the hypothesis that information can only come from an intelligent source?
@@chad969 Try to stay on topic. The topic is God. Make a claim that you can support.
@@nahshon9998 If you don't understand how what I said is relevant to the topic I will explain it for you. The topic is whether your argument for God is justifiable. Your argument involves the premise that "Information has never been observed to come from any source except an intelligent mind". The inductive inference you're drawing from this data is that therefore all information comes from an intelligent mind. Now in my last comment, I explained how the same type of reasoning you use dismiss other inductive inferences as unjustified (like the crow example) applies equally well to your argument. So if you were being logically consistent you would reject your own inductive inference for the same reason you reject the two inferences that I provided earlier.
Too bad questions
Great question and bad answers
care to elaborate?
We cannot even create a fly yet Sean cannot see the role God could play as Designer of the universe. It sounds like Sean just doesn't want to believe in God and he's masking it in pseudo scientific gibberish which his audience are too eager to swallow.
Total non-sequitor. We couldn’t create electricity until 200 years ago, does that mean we would have been justified saying Zeus made the lightning? When your only argument is “if you don’t agree with me you’re either stubborn or lying,” you’re admitted that you have no arguments.
who are you calling "A Theory"?! How rude!
I am the only one commenting after 4 months? And only the second one in 9 months?
Maybe no one else is buying this BS either.
I am sure that Sean is a very nice guy. But his theories are nonsense.
Life didn't arise from non-life without a Creator.
And the universe did not arise from a point, wherever that came from.
Get real, get a real world view that explains what we see around us.
["Get real, get a real world view that explains what we see around us."]
You say this, not knowing just how much of a self-own this is.
We went and got a real world view, giving up the fables written down by middle eastern shepherds thousands of years ago, and moving on to what we can demonstrate.
@@Kyeudo So does complex, coded and specified, information point to an intelligence?
@@nahshon9998
Depends on what definitions you apply to those words.
If you are talking about DNA, DNA is not coded, specified, complex, or information, at least for conversational definitions of those terms. It is a chemical compound of repeating subunits which interacts with other compounds according to the laws of chemistry.
@@Kyeudo Whoa down! Where did you get that misinformation?
Bill Gates claims that Dna is like a computer program but far more complex than any computer program written by humans.
One strand of Dna, half from your mom and half from your dad, gave all the instructions to build your body. Your vascular system, miles and miles and miles of it.
Your heart, lungs, kidneys. skin, hair, all of it coded in your Dna
Repeating subunits. Hardly.
You try creating life some day.
@@Kyeudo the guy stopped replying you lmao. Same old arguments as Kent Hovind and any first year biology student can debunk those ideas easily.
Scientists so called experts of this world are mere observers of what God has created. They can only describe frequently wrong and contrived. That in turn defines and limits how they perceive things around them to be. Isn't that funny postulating or assuming things about the Creator within the realm and grasp of the created which therefore is an exercise in futility. An animal running after its tail is more like this effort. Exodus 3 "I AM WHO I AM. This is what are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' Each so called expert trying to sound intelligent puffing up themselves saying "you don't need God to create things"? In fact what y'all can do is not "create out of nothing". Only God can do that. What you y'all can do is make things derived from what God created. Limited to making things derived from what God has provided. John 1:3- "Through Him (the Lord Jesus) all things were made, without Him nothing was made that has been made. " Psalm 19:1"The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands. " Scientist even called "dark matter that which they think holds all things together that they cannot explain but merely observe. Stop being windbags and humble yourselves to God. Surely, the evidence about God will be put to light to each and everyone and put to life through His works and promises which He fulfills for those who do according to His will. He even made warnings mainly to prevent mankind from destroying themselves even to those who rebel and foolishly question the existence of God himself. To God be the Glory! Amen.
Quoting a fictional book isn't going to help here.
i tell you what, you PRODUCE GOD, you bring god out of hiding and then we can talk, i'm sick of people claiming pixies did this and voodoo did that, you PROVE god exists or shut the fk up.
I am who I am, too. :-)
The only one trying to sound intelligent is you and you failed badly at it.
God is not a theory, He is a fact. And without God you have no universe nor do you have any life.
Which one? We invented so many of them. ;-)
@nashon If you have proof of your statement you are going to become a very famous and rich person. Nobody in the history of humankind has managed to prove the existence of any god.
You will be lauded and worshiped forever.
Please present your evidence.
@@7StarsMA I don't want to be lauded and worshiped forever.
The fact that there is a universe and the fact that there is life on earth and the fact that you have a brain and can think for yourself, proves God.
To date no one can produce life from non-life. It can only come from a creator. No scientist has ever produced life. No human can create a universe. Only God could do that.
I really don't want your worship but thanks for the offer.
@I Wonder Why You have a lot of faith. Don't we all.
@I Wonder Why Science was invented by bible believing Christians. I assume you meant that you meant "how life arose".