The difference between people like Richard Dawkins and George Pell is that when the former gets a question he can't answer, he goes "I don't know, but I'd love to find out" and the latter goes "I don't know, I'd rather not answer that"
Rational thinking comes from a finite mind where there is a reduced capacity to understand and comprehend spiritual truth. Good News but not common knowledge Mr Josh Timonen helped Richard Dawkins with his website and he also helped him produce documentaries and sell merchandise. Josh Timonen had been Richard Dawkins right hand man for many years and for this loyalty, Richard gave special thanks to Josh in his book “God Delusion” published 2nd Oct 2006, another invention of Richard’s carrying no substance but his opinions, fancies and whims, he further dedicated another book to him called “The Greatest Show on Earth” published on the 3rd Sept 2009. Richard’s interpretation of life. Mr Josh Timonen has today become a born again believer in Jesus Christ, this must have really hurt Richard Dawkins and his crusade against the God he hates without a legitimate cause. How that his books could not capture the heart of Josh, but when he truly came under the sound of the gospel, he became broken in heart and spirit giving his heart to the Lord. The Bible is the book of life. In the parable of the wheat and tares the servant came to the land owner saying did you not sow good seed upon your land, how is it that there are tares among the wheat. The Master said an enemy hath done this. The servant said shall I pull up the tares from among the wheat. The Master said wisely, let both grow together until harvest, lest you pull up some of the wheat with the tares. Josh Timonen appeared to be a tare but turned out to be wheat. Let us continue to pray for Richard Dawkins, that he will repent, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! The Bible can seriously damage your health, so if you are an atheist or agnostic, don’t go near it as its truth is eternal in duration when it comes to spiritual truth manifested in the life of Jesus. Josh now believes in loving God and loving his neighbour as himself. What a wonderful change in his life has been wrought since Jesus came into his heart. The Bible is the book that the Chinese Communist Party fears more than any other book, because it tells the truth. The North Korean Communist Party fear the Bible, the Russian fear the Bible, in-fact all false religions fear the Bible and its content, because there is power in the loving words of Jesus to change lives. No other religion teaches thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. Jesus went further, if you want to be disciples of mine, then you must love your enemies, and as we abide in Jesus daily he enables us to love our enemies, something we could not do in the natural, but when the supernatural is allowed to be imposed on the natural then we are changed into new creatures in Christ. This is why Christians are persecuted and imprisoned for distributing Bibles and preaching the gospel of God’s love and wisdom through Jesus Christ. Fear paralyses communist countries and all false man- made religions. In short people are afraid of the Bible otherwise they would leave Christians alone. Many people read the Bible to find fault with it! A Pharisee named Ga-ma’liel a doctor of the law gave sound advice to the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem saying: Refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this council or work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God [Acts 5:38-39]. What sound advice but they didn’t take heed. It is still the same today. Satanists in their temples and those involved witchcraft burn Bibles on a regular basis because of its contents. The devil and demons are consumed by great fear because they know that their time is short. The prophetic word will be fulfilled despite all the sufferings of Christians who have taken up the cross and followed Jesus to eternal glory. Kind Regards
Here's a good analogy to make the point of gradual evolution: Italian language comes from latin. No latin-speaking woman ever gave birth to an italian-speaking child, unable to understand each other. It's absurd to think there was a "first one". It was gradual, each generation understanding the next one. But after hundreds of years, a lot of small changes resulted in a language distinct from latin.
I know I'm nine years late, but thank you so much for this metaphor. I'm gonna steal it and reuse it for as long as I live. It's an amazing way to explain this complicated concept in a simple way.
1. Biased audience. 2. Mediator kept cutting Dawkins off, but let Pell speak. 3. Dawkins showed remarkable self control throughout this hour long journey.
this crowd is shocking. Pell gets a round of applause at 11:40 for his comment yet Dawkins gets a round of applause for his rebuttal. Poor audience who may aswell go watch boxing
At 48.15 priceless…..the cardinal gave an example where a boy said to him, there is no hell….and the Cardinal probably said…”is that so, well, take off your pants and I will give you hell from now on every day while you grow up” 😀
Richard dawkins isn't a physicist yet he's getting asked to explain the beginning of the universe. Ridiculous that people say "well if you aren't an expert on physics then you can't dispute our belief of a magic man". What a ridiculous burden of proof.
what was worse was when he said he didn't care.. he is not open to it.. The reasoning is that if he agreed he would be saying that there was evolution which completely unravels Religion and it beliefs and he would be out of the job
I am surprised by George Pell's combination of arrogance and stupidity. He makes trite pronouncements and speaks about science in a way that proves he does not understand many well understood concepts, including natural selection and evolution. At the same time, he uses non-sequiturs to prove his points in a tone that reveals a condescending certitude. He seems ignorant about his own ignorance!
“If you continue to read onto page 94, Darwin states “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”" Church man picks and chooses what parts to read and quote. Darwin was a theist and described himself as such when writing about himself at that time in his life. Continue reading and you will see how his sentiments changed. Why do religious people lie so much?
That priest dont know much about ancient Rome.The amphitheater of Vespasian(colossem) was buildt from 70 to 80 Ad,Rome had existed for more than 700 years by then. The circus maxismus was not used for gladiator combat but chariot racing.
Bottom line: Only when people stopped looking to iron age fairy tales as if there were any facts *at all* in it - as is the hallmark of Christianity, only when people started asking questions instead of praying, only when we left the demon haunted world, *then* we left the dark ages.
I saw a long lecture about it a couple of months ago and it seemed to make sense, whether it is accurate or not... According to my saved videos, the lecture was called "Something from Nothing" by Lawrence Kraus
I was there and know most of the people in the front of the audience clapping for everything Pell said, they're all ultra Catholics, and kept cat calling throughout the entire show (cant hear it all on the recording)
If only I had the confidence of this man to be repeatedly schooled by a properly educated man and still come out swinging ignorance in answer to the next question.
Fucking seals clapping as Pell stumbles around stepping on rakes.
12 лет назад+6
page 92 of darwin's autobiography, you can check for yourself, and I did -- google it and you'll find the book on project gutenberg's website (it's open domain). The Cardinal is plain out lying.
On the off chance that you still use this account from 11 years ago...not sure what you're on about. Darwin's autobiography, page 92:"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."
10 месяцев назад
@@forgottentrails2919Oh ye of little faith, read on, read on... you're on the right track. "This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt-can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake. I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
I think the ArchBishop is very brave getting on a stage with Dawkins. He is being forced to account for his evidently profound belief in a public forum in a way that scientists have always been required to account for their theories to their necessarily critical peers.
Rational thinking comes from a finite mind where there is a reduced capacity to understand and comprehend spiritual truth. Good News but not common knowledge Mr Josh Timonen helped Richard Dawkins with his website and he also helped him produce documentaries and sell merchandise. Josh Timonen had been Richard Dawkins right hand man for many years and for this loyalty, Richard gave special thanks to Josh in his book “God Delusion” published 2nd Oct 2006, another invention of Richard’s carrying no substance but his opinions, fancies and whims, he further dedicated another book to him called “The Greatest Show on Earth” published on the 3rd Sept 2009. Richard’s interpretation of life. Mr Josh Timonen has today become a born again believer in Jesus Christ, this must have really hurt Richard Dawkins and his crusade against the God he hates without a legitimate cause. How that his books could not capture the heart of Josh, but when he truly came under the sound of the gospel, he became broken in heart and spirit giving his heart to the Lord. The Bible is the book of life. In the parable of the wheat and tares the servant came to the land owner saying did you not sow good seed upon your land, how is it that there are tares among the wheat. The Master said an enemy hath done this. The servant said shall I pull up the tares from among the wheat. The Master said wisely, let both grow together until harvest, lest you pull up some of the wheat with the tares. Josh Timonen appeared to be a tare but turned out to be wheat. Let us continue to pray for Richard Dawkins, that he will repent, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! The Bible can seriously damage your health, so if you are an atheist or agnostic, don’t go near it as its truth is eternal in duration when it comes to spiritual truth manifested in the life of Jesus. Josh now believes in loving God and loving his neighbour as himself. What a wonderful change in his life has been wrought since Jesus came into his heart. The Bible is the book that the Chinese Communist Party fears more than any other book, because it tells the truth. The North Korean Communist Party fear the Bible, the Russian fear the Bible, in-fact all false religions fear the Bible and its content, because there is power in the loving words of Jesus to change lives. No other religion teaches thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. Jesus went further, if you want to be disciples of mine, then you must love your enemies, and as we abide in Jesus daily he enables us to love our enemies, something we could not do in the natural, but when the supernatural is allowed to be imposed on the natural then we are changed into new creatures in Christ. This is why Christians are persecuted and imprisoned for distributing Bibles and preaching the gospel of God’s love and wisdom through Jesus Christ. Fear paralyses communist countries and all false man- made religions. In short people are afraid of the Bible otherwise they would leave Christians alone. Many people read the Bible to find fault with it! A Pharisee named Ga-ma’liel a doctor of the law gave sound advice to the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem saying: Refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this council or work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God [Acts 5:38-39]. What sound advice but they didn’t take heed. It is still the same today. Satanists in their temples and those involved witchcraft burn Bibles on a regular basis because of its contents. The devil and demons are consumed by great fear because they know that their time is short. The prophetic word will be fulfilled despite all the sufferings of Christians who have taken up the cross and followed Jesus to eternal glory. Kind Regards
The Evolutionary Origin of Birds Evolution is a comedy of errors! This is a matter of deduction, it is all guess work. Pure fantasy and imagination based on the artificial geologic column. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. Impossible alterations needed in order to change a reptile into a bird: A “variety of feathers” covering the bird, growth of wings, strengthening of certain muscles, higher blood sugar levels and body temperate levels, this is a drastic change, total revision of respiratory, nervous and reproductive systems, lightening of bones in order for it to fly, new digestive system and instinctive behaviours, every specie is subject to irreducible complexity, this means all parts must be present at the same time for the organism to be alive, just as in the single cell. This is a problem for Darwinian Evolutionary Religion and a bridge too far for natural selection based on random mutations relative to the genome. It is not possible to have a build-up of genetic complexity. Irreducible complexity speaks for itself. They say it takes about 20 transitional forms [guesswork] to change one- specie into another. Charles Darwin said, “As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Good question Charlie! The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great! A note on Comparative anatomy taught in schools This not evidence for evolution. It just means that when you have a good design you use it to create a variety of species. For example: the foot, knee and ankle. Man invented the wheel, utilising it on carts, bicycles, cars, trams, steering wheels etc. Evolution is on trial here not Creation. If there were a number of evolutionists in a room with one creationist, who do you think would have the legitimate right to throw a stone? If the creationist said to the evolutionist show me fossil evidence of macro-evolution on a grand- scale. [This means fossil evidence of one specie changing into another]. All the evolutionists would have to leave the room one by one, beginning at the eldest to the youngest; he would be left alone in the room. The creationist would be the one that had the legitimate right to throw stones at all the evolutionists, but he could not do so. Being a Christian he would show love and have mercy upon the willingly ignorant, praying that they may come to their senses! Being caught up in evolution being your occupation, when suddenly the light comes on, is not an easy position to find yourself in. As one molecular biologist said to me anonymously, that he could see design in all living organisms but he could not say he didn’t believe in evolution or he would be out of a source of income, words to that effect. He would be sent to Coventry immediately for denying the faith of Darwinian Evolutionary Religion. Objectivity of Science “One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. To be forced to believe only one conclusion that everything in the universe happened by chance [my opinion doesn’t make sense] would violate the very objectivity of science itself. They [evolutionists] challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.” Dr. Wernher von Braun [Father of American rocket and space program] The problem today is communism and a lack of scientific honesty, because evolutionists are hostile towards belief in God. This teaching is all part of the globalist agenda which will end in tears.
This is a good example of the kind of thought that is fostered by religious fantasy. The lines of objectivity and subjectivity become so tragically skewed that the believer is unable to pin down why their beliefs are receiving of so much criticism. I can ask questions of a subjective nature, on an individual basis, and accept the answers given by those who respond. If I ask someone, "...what is the purpose is of listening to music?", they can give me their purpose for listening to music and it will be true, at least for them, and that's as far as it goes. But to expect an intelligent or relevant answer of the same sort for questions such as the following would be absurd... Why is the universe so abundant with forces that are waiting to kill us? What is the purpose of cancer? Why do tsunamis kill by the thousands? Why are there so many people who need food? Why do we require so many calories to survive? These are all questions that have answers in the sense of understanding causes and effects. But with regards to a subjective answer to questions to these kinds of questions, such a thing is completely absurd, and such answers would not lend to improving the impact of these questions in the slightest. I would invite them to ask the latter questions about the God they believe created the atrocities in the latter questions and they may soon realize that there can be no GOOD reason for those things, they have nothing to do with free will, and they are all natural parts of our universe that they believe to be the handy-work of their God. Ask a serial killer why he kills people and you're likely to get an answer that made sense to him, it doesn't make it right by a normal standard of morality. So...if you asked God why he created people only to create countless ways to have them suffer and be killed by the billions throughout existence, what answer would you accept? I imagine many will say that he just works in mysterious ways. Funny how that's the answer when they can't explain the misery and evil that their God seems to create, but they understand his will and plan all too perfectly when it comes time to explain what he wants Atheists to do...
Ok, If your christian and have a brain, people like this guy are the reason most people won't take us seriously. Its like he just makes this crap up off the top of his head. There are intelligent christians, but this guys isn't one of them. Also, many people say Dawkins was in a biased crowd. Thank you, Mr. Dawkins, for picking the thrid most evangelical country in the world to hold a counsel on atheism and saying their biased. Can't fight the demographics.
As Pell lectures on morality, remember: Pell was convicted of raping pre-teen boys, and of aiding other priests in raping pre-teen boys. After he was indicted for these crimes, he was elevated by the Pope to the second most powerful position in the Roman catholic church.
Pell’s inconsistency with regard to the Catholic doctrines is very clearly displayed. He ventures well outside of what the Catholic Church teaches & one can’t help but feel that he does it on order to appear more sympathetic to those who are not of his faith & to comport with reality over matters of science. It’s time to put away the mythical books & live on the real world
that question will be answered someday we just haven't scientifically discovered the meaning yet.. but like he said it won't be "why" it will be "how".. there doesn't have to be a reason "why" things just happen but we can work out and prove "how".... my 4 year old daughter asks me over and over again why why why... it can go on for ever. but if she asked me how.
21:30 Uhh, as far as I remember classical Big Bang theory didn't speak about what banged or how it banged. It was Alan Guth and his cosmic inflation theory, that came up with a possible explanation.
I don't understand your question, can you try again ? As far as "death was your lot if you were caught reading the bible"? Where on earth do you come up with this one from ? The Bible is a collection of books that comes from the Church. The Bible is a Catholic Book, ( well compilation of books actually), and it was put together by Catholics and promoted by the Church. I don't know where you are coming up with what you say ?
Secondly, speaking about generalization and misunderstanding, almost every theist that debates has this pig headed idea that atheists positively believe there is no god. If they'd heard Dawkins speak once or even read his book then they would have seen his seven point scale explaining that he knows you can't be certain about anything but given the lack of evidence or reason to believe, you can dismiss it as you would dismiss the truth of LOTR. This is so simple but constantly misrepresented.
Dawkins doesn't generally generalize except really for the purposes of brevity - I imagine you see generalization because this is the easiest way for you to dismiss everything he says in one fell swoop. Where does he do it here? The Catholic church is so top down that it should be easy for a Cardinal to answer questions of fact that Dawkins asks about and yet it seems to take an age without ever getting to a great answer.
I think he just decided they were all to stupid and brainwashed or weren't listening to him anyway, so why would he bother.. The audience had no idea.. and the bishop has been brainwashed for an entire life time he could never be converted
To that Cardinals comment on Genesis being a myth. If it is a myth then why would u take anything in the Bible as truth and not myth also? Jesus was very clear, He said, if u dont believe Moses then u wont believe Me. He seems to think that Genesis is true, and since His God and the one who created everything, I think He might know. I'm tired of Christians picking and choosing what they wish to believe in, either take the Bible as it is or be honest enough to leave it all behind.
Since nothing has Self Actuation, Nothing in a Void of Nothing else, can motivate the Universe to move toward beginning. But as Life Forms are Self Actuating and need not an outside force or object, but has internal powers to move on it's own, then a Life Form in all Else being a Void, can explain how to begin a Universe to move. So God as a "Life" that is Self Actuating, can explain the absence of anything else in the Void, that then suddenly causes the World to begin to move and change
You're right, and dawkins is slightly wrong here, as he says though he isn't a physicist. The something from nothing principle he is talking about naturally comes out of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle when applied to energy and time (rather than momentum and location) - and it doesn't violate the principle of conservation of energy. Look up Lawrence Krauss
don't understand all these differences. Setting ALL THAT aside, what you're saying is akin to a believer in Lord of the Rings saying that Dawkins' refutation is meaningless generalization because he doesn't go into whether Tom Bombadil could have worn the ring without effect or not - this is a very subtle and important point if you are going to debate the real life existence of Hobbits and Middle Earth...
I don't understand your question about Charlemagne. Empire by definition is an organization, where one country is dominant and others are being dominated. And what country would want to be dominated? No empire has quickly emerged in a place of the old one. There's no reason to conclude, that it was Christianity that halt the development of a new empire. And why do you endorse empire so much? Empires are bad. If Christianity halt creation of one, it did a good thing.
24min+ Dawkins suggests that the solution to 'something from nothing' can be likened to the reverse of matter+antimatter combining. But antimatter+matter does not result in nothing; rather, the energy invested in keeping the matter stable is released to 'pure energy', and no matter remains. E=mc2. So the reverse would require the energy to already exist prior to its becoming matter. The conservation of energy is an axiom from which much of physics has been deduced. When did it start applying?
Cardinal Pell … beauty, goodness, truth. His wisdom, fortitude, his loving patience dare me to valor. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.
I'm a Christian, and even I found it quite rude that the audience laughed at Richard Dawkins for no reason, and even if there were a 'good' reason, it's still rude. Open your minds a little! smh
That's seriously interesting, thanks. Not a physicist either; and only familiar with that form of uncertainty from one of the Einstein-Bohr debates & never seen it applied elsewhere. Will give it a think and will definitely check out Krauss. Don't think it will solve the philosophical problem (which is more to do with whether or not we can escape 'brute facts' in explanatory schemes than defining 'what nothing is'), but should probably do the reading first. Thank you :)
Apparently you get round it because of the indeterminacy relation between change in time and change in energy. The universe can apparently exist as 'a fluctuation' for so long because the gravity in the universe brings the total energy to approximately zero. This confuses the shit out of me, because I've never heard of negative energy prior to this. Plus you obviously needed the energy to make the matter to generate the gravity. Any idea where I can get a good explanation of this?
No matter how great is the Universe, it has no Judgment, it has no self actuation as a Judge over it's merits. Thus, the only evidence of God is in ourselves by our own condition. We suffer and experience as Judges, we assign merit, We cannot divide ourselves away from how we define God, God is a Quality that must correspond to the intelligent notion that we suffer to experience as made in God's Image and Likeness. God is then a Cause and then a Judge over Creation, we share in passion and pain
If you think I burrow through wikipedia to second-guess what evidence *you* are referring to, you are very mistaken. Make you point clearly, instead of hiding behind some "serious scientists"
Well, just tell me, how am I going to give you a lecture in medieval history in 500 characters? The term dark ages was coined in 17th century to describe 10th and 11th century. Then it was extended to entire medieval period. For more information read, say, "Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths" by Resine Pernoud, if you find a good translation.
The Materialist notion that the inanimate world evolved by no outside cause, is inexplicable in current Science. But in Current Science, we can accept that a Life Form is Self Actuating, moving by itself, without need of another object or force outside of itself. So, the most rational explanation of the Universe being Dynamic, is that before the Universe ever moved out of a Restive Eternal Steady State, something in that or besides that or creating that matter, had to have a Living Nature.
Finally, the Cardinal speaks about biology and physics when he isn't well versed in either. He speaks about vacuums and nothing interchangeably and doesn't seem to get that the universe IS space and time (simplistic). He latches on to a concept, willfully misunderstands and then uses it as a basis for saying god must exist. And I quote "If there are humans, there must have been a first one" - fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Misunderstand what 'random' means when it comes to selection.
A Votive Act is a Priori Act. The Universe began to exist with no Laws of Nature to explain a Process of it having begun . So Dawkins can say that in the process of the Universe already begun , there is now Laws and can explain movement within the Universe, by a Theory of Relativity. But he cannot explain the Universe by it's Votive and Elect Act of Creation, the First Act, was by definition , not a "Reaction" Chemistry is Reaction ,or secondary acts, but Creation is a Votive First Act
Pell looks like a child arguing to an adult about the universe. It's clear he is delusional. Also I hate when the audience laughs at Dawkins, just plain rude and shows how delusional they are as well.
![SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? [OFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss [HD] 02-04-12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YUe0_4rdj0U/mqdefault.jpg)
The difference between people like Richard Dawkins and George Pell is that when the former gets a question he can't answer, he goes "I don't know, but I'd love to find out" and the latter goes "I don't know, I'd rather not answer that"
You have to feel sorry for Dawkins. How frustrating it must be to possess his intellect and to find himself surrounded by muppets.
Its like playing chess with a pigeon, it knocks pieces over , shits on the board and the struts around like it won the match.
Hahaha!
And that obnoxious audience.
@@sanfrancisco89what a horrible audience. Thick idiots
@@tony7830haha that is my favourite comment i have read on youtube so far. Thank you, that made me laugh out loud.
Watching Pell is like watching a fish flap around on dry land.
That cardinal comes out as an outrageously unintelligent person. Baffling!
THANK GOD FOR RICHARD DAWKINS!
This could be very easily misunderstood by both sides of believers. There’s a humorous element there though.
Thank who?
@@abushanub dawkins
Rational thinking comes from a finite mind where there is a reduced capacity to understand and comprehend spiritual truth. Good News but not common knowledge
Mr Josh Timonen helped Richard Dawkins with his website and he also helped him produce documentaries and sell merchandise. Josh Timonen had been Richard Dawkins right hand man for many years and for this loyalty, Richard gave special thanks to Josh in his book “God Delusion” published 2nd Oct 2006, another invention of Richard’s carrying no substance but his opinions, fancies and whims, he further dedicated another book to him called “The Greatest Show on Earth” published on the 3rd Sept 2009. Richard’s interpretation of life.
Mr Josh Timonen has today become a born again believer in Jesus Christ, this must have really hurt Richard Dawkins and his crusade against the God he hates without a legitimate cause. How that his books could not capture the heart of Josh, but when he truly came under the sound of the gospel, he became broken in heart and spirit giving his heart to the Lord. The Bible is the book of life. In the parable of the wheat and tares the servant came to the land owner saying did you not sow good seed upon your land, how is it that there are tares among the wheat. The Master said an enemy hath done this. The servant said shall I pull up the tares from among the wheat. The Master said wisely, let both grow together until harvest, lest you pull up some of the wheat with the tares. Josh Timonen appeared to be a tare but turned out to be wheat. Let us continue to pray for Richard Dawkins, that he will repent, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!
The Bible can seriously damage your health, so if you are an atheist or agnostic, don’t go near it as its truth is eternal in duration when it comes to spiritual truth manifested in the life of Jesus. Josh now believes in loving God and loving his neighbour as himself. What a wonderful change in his life has been wrought since Jesus came into his heart.
The Bible is the book that the Chinese Communist Party fears more than any other book, because it tells the truth. The North Korean Communist Party fear the Bible, the Russian fear the Bible, in-fact all false religions fear the Bible and its content, because there is power in the loving words of Jesus to change lives. No other religion teaches thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. Jesus went further, if you want to be disciples of mine, then you must love your enemies, and as we abide in Jesus daily he enables us to love our enemies, something we could not do in the natural, but when the supernatural is allowed to be imposed on the natural then we are changed into new creatures in Christ. This is why Christians are persecuted and imprisoned for distributing Bibles and preaching the gospel of God’s love and wisdom through Jesus Christ. Fear paralyses communist countries and all false man- made religions.
In short people are afraid of the Bible otherwise they would leave Christians alone. Many people read the Bible to find fault with it! A Pharisee named Ga-ma’liel a doctor of the law gave sound advice to the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem saying: Refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this council or work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God [Acts 5:38-39]. What sound advice but they didn’t take heed. It is still the same today. Satanists in their temples and those involved witchcraft burn Bibles on a regular basis because of its contents. The devil and demons are consumed by great fear because they know that their time is short. The prophetic word will be fulfilled despite all the sufferings of Christians who have taken up the cross and followed Jesus to eternal glory. Kind Regards
Thank goodness for Richard Dawkins
Pell fails repeatedly ... takes cheap shots, lies, shifts the goalposts ... he is out of his depth & he knows it.
& what an audience.
Here's a good analogy to make the point of gradual evolution:
Italian language comes from latin. No latin-speaking woman ever gave birth to an italian-speaking child, unable to understand each other. It's absurd to think there was a "first one". It was gradual, each generation understanding the next one. But after hundreds of years, a lot of small changes resulted in a language distinct from latin.
I know I'm nine years late, but thank you so much for this metaphor. I'm gonna steal it and reuse it for as long as I live. It's an amazing way to explain this complicated concept in a simple way.
Dawkins is just far more intellectual than this cardinal. The cardinal is so confused.
48:11 tfw when the Archbishop was actually found guilty on five counts of child sexual abuse, however was acquitted by the High Court of Australia.
cant lie he doesn’t look very trustworthy
Not saying he's guilty but he did say that with a bit of pleasure
1. Biased audience.
2. Mediator kept cutting Dawkins off, but let Pell speak.
3. Dawkins showed remarkable self control throughout this hour long journey.
"Funny to be trying to define nothing". Cardinal Pell is a good example of that.
"I was preparing some boys..." (crowd moans in pain)
funny shit
The Catholic church has much to answer for covering up priests child abuse
I m watching it for 2nd time round.from UK
He said about preparing the boys and it sounded strange
What Pell doesn't get. We ARE animals.
Correct
Every time the question turns to the Cardinal he attacks Richard instead of answering the question.
Yep; typical response of an ignoramus, he did all but like his tongue out at Richard when his sheep in the audience cheered
21:20 WOW! You said “bang” but opened your hand and…..nothing there?! Well I’m convinced by this BRILLIANT argument---CLEARLY GOD EXISTS
The Big Bangers 😂
The Big Bangers 😂
This aged well
this crowd is shocking. Pell gets a round of applause at 11:40 for his comment yet Dawkins gets a round of applause for his rebuttal. Poor audience who may aswell go watch boxing
"Man who probably diddles kids tries to put physics in context in front of an uneducated and illiterate audience.". There, I fixed the title.
Exactly.
Precisely. He was convicted of doing so... So that "probably" is being used in very good faith.
I know his conviction was overturned. Why was it? A technical thing?
He was exonerated
It was child abuse right?
Not sexual child abuse?😅
At 48.15 priceless…..the cardinal gave an example where a boy said to him, there is no hell….and the Cardinal probably said…”is that so, well, take off your pants and I will give you hell from now on every day while you grow up” 😀
That was kind of painful to watch for Cardinal George Pell... lol
48:06
Aged perfectly
Richard dawkins isn't a physicist yet he's getting asked to explain the beginning of the universe. Ridiculous that people say "well if you aren't an expert on physics then you can't dispute our belief of a magic man". What a ridiculous burden of proof.
Dawkins's rationality was lost on most of this audience...
what was worse was when he said he didn't care.. he is not open to it.. The reasoning is that if he agreed he would be saying that there was evolution which completely unravels Religion and it beliefs and he would be out of the job
I am surprised by George Pell's combination of arrogance and stupidity. He makes trite pronouncements and speaks about science in a way that proves he does not understand many well understood concepts, including natural selection and evolution. At the same time, he uses non-sequiturs to prove his points in a tone that reveals a condescending certitude. He seems ignorant about his own ignorance!
That's a good summary
“If you continue to read onto page 94, Darwin states “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”"
Church man picks and chooses what parts to read and quote. Darwin was a theist and described himself as such when writing about himself at that time in his life. Continue reading and you will see how his sentiments changed. Why do religious people lie so much?
Their entire belief structure is built upon foundational lies, of course they have issues with honesty.
You can tell Pell doesn't know what he's talking about in many ways, but it is most clear when he starts talking about Neanderthals. 😂😂☠☠🤣🤣
That priest dont know much about ancient Rome.The amphitheater of Vespasian(colossem) was buildt from 70 to 80 Ad,Rome had existed for more than 700 years by then. The circus maxismus was not used for gladiator combat but chariot racing.
Bottom line: Only when people stopped looking to iron age fairy tales as if there were any facts *at all* in it - as is the hallmark of Christianity, only when people started asking questions instead of praying, only when we left the demon haunted world, *then* we left the dark ages.
48:15 Priceless!!!
If you only knew
🤣🤣🤣 even the extremely biased low IQ audience was forced to react accordingly to that response
48:15 (links didn't work back then)
Straight up dirty man,
I saw a long lecture about it a couple of months ago and it seemed to make sense, whether it is accurate or not...
According to my saved videos, the lecture was called "Something from Nothing" by Lawrence Kraus
What pell was really thinking** (why on earth did god have to make so many sexy kids?)
I was there and know most of the people in the front of the audience clapping for everything Pell said, they're all ultra Catholics, and kept cat calling throughout the entire show (cant hear it all on the recording)
I'm sorry...
You can tell, the host even mentions it at one point
If only I had the confidence of this man to be repeatedly schooled by a properly educated man and still come out swinging ignorance in answer to the next question.
Fucking seals clapping as Pell stumbles around stepping on rakes.
page 92 of darwin's autobiography, you can check for yourself, and I did -- google it and you'll find the book on project gutenberg's website (it's open domain). The Cardinal is plain out lying.
On the off chance that you still use this account from 11 years ago...not sure what you're on about. Darwin's autobiography, page 92:"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."
@@forgottentrails2919Oh ye of little faith, read on, read on... you're on the right track. "This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt-can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
10 points to Richard Dawkins for bringing up the placebo effect
I think the ArchBishop is very brave getting on a stage with Dawkins. He is being forced to account for his evidently profound belief in a public forum in a way that scientists have always been required to account for their theories to their necessarily critical peers.
Rational thinking comes from a finite mind where there is a reduced capacity to understand and comprehend spiritual truth. Good News but not common knowledge
Mr Josh Timonen helped Richard Dawkins with his website and he also helped him produce documentaries and sell merchandise. Josh Timonen had been Richard Dawkins right hand man for many years and for this loyalty, Richard gave special thanks to Josh in his book “God Delusion” published 2nd Oct 2006, another invention of Richard’s carrying no substance but his opinions, fancies and whims, he further dedicated another book to him called “The Greatest Show on Earth” published on the 3rd Sept 2009. Richard’s interpretation of life.
Mr Josh Timonen has today become a born again believer in Jesus Christ, this must have really hurt Richard Dawkins and his crusade against the God he hates without a legitimate cause. How that his books could not capture the heart of Josh, but when he truly came under the sound of the gospel, he became broken in heart and spirit giving his heart to the Lord. The Bible is the book of life. In the parable of the wheat and tares the servant came to the land owner saying did you not sow good seed upon your land, how is it that there are tares among the wheat. The Master said an enemy hath done this. The servant said shall I pull up the tares from among the wheat. The Master said wisely, let both grow together until harvest, lest you pull up some of the wheat with the tares. Josh Timonen appeared to be a tare but turned out to be wheat. Let us continue to pray for Richard Dawkins, that he will repent, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!
The Bible can seriously damage your health, so if you are an atheist or agnostic, don’t go near it as its truth is eternal in duration when it comes to spiritual truth manifested in the life of Jesus. Josh now believes in loving God and loving his neighbour as himself. What a wonderful change in his life has been wrought since Jesus came into his heart.
The Bible is the book that the Chinese Communist Party fears more than any other book, because it tells the truth. The North Korean Communist Party fear the Bible, the Russian fear the Bible, in-fact all false religions fear the Bible and its content, because there is power in the loving words of Jesus to change lives. No other religion teaches thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. Jesus went further, if you want to be disciples of mine, then you must love your enemies, and as we abide in Jesus daily he enables us to love our enemies, something we could not do in the natural, but when the supernatural is allowed to be imposed on the natural then we are changed into new creatures in Christ. This is why Christians are persecuted and imprisoned for distributing Bibles and preaching the gospel of God’s love and wisdom through Jesus Christ. Fear paralyses communist countries and all false man- made religions.
In short people are afraid of the Bible otherwise they would leave Christians alone. Many people read the Bible to find fault with it! A Pharisee named Ga-ma’liel a doctor of the law gave sound advice to the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem saying: Refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this council or work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God [Acts 5:38-39]. What sound advice but they didn’t take heed. It is still the same today. Satanists in their temples and those involved witchcraft burn Bibles on a regular basis because of its contents. The devil and demons are consumed by great fear because they know that their time is short. The prophetic word will be fulfilled despite all the sufferings of Christians who have taken up the cross and followed Jesus to eternal glory. Kind Regards
Pell is condemned by his own despicable abuse.
The Evolutionary Origin of Birds Evolution is a comedy of errors!
This is a matter of deduction, it is all guess work. Pure fantasy and imagination based on the artificial geologic column. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. Impossible alterations needed in order to change a reptile into a bird: A “variety of feathers” covering the bird, growth of wings, strengthening of certain muscles, higher blood sugar levels and body temperate levels, this is a drastic change, total revision of respiratory, nervous and reproductive systems, lightening of bones in order for it to fly, new digestive system and instinctive behaviours, every specie is subject to irreducible complexity, this means all parts must be present at the same time for the organism to be alive, just as in the single cell. This is a problem for Darwinian Evolutionary Religion and a bridge too far for natural selection based on random mutations relative to the genome. It is not possible to have a build-up of genetic complexity. Irreducible complexity speaks for itself. They say it takes about 20 transitional forms [guesswork] to change one- specie into another. Charles Darwin said, “As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Good question Charlie! The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!
A note on Comparative anatomy taught in schools
This not evidence for evolution. It just means that when you have a good design you use it to create a variety of species. For example: the foot, knee and ankle. Man invented the wheel, utilising it on carts, bicycles, cars, trams, steering wheels etc.
Evolution is on trial here not Creation.
If there were a number of evolutionists in a room with one creationist, who do you think would have the legitimate right to throw a stone? If the creationist said to the evolutionist show me fossil evidence of macro-evolution on a grand- scale. [This means fossil evidence of one specie changing into another]. All the evolutionists would have to leave the room one by one, beginning at the eldest to the youngest; he would be left alone in the room. The creationist would be the one that had the legitimate right to throw stones at all the evolutionists, but he could not do so. Being a Christian he would show love and have mercy upon the willingly ignorant, praying that they may come to their senses! Being caught up in evolution being your occupation, when suddenly the light comes on, is not an easy position to find yourself in. As one molecular biologist said to me anonymously, that he could see design in all living organisms but he could not say he didn’t believe in evolution or he would be out of a source of income, words to that effect. He would be sent to Coventry immediately for denying the faith of Darwinian Evolutionary Religion.
Objectivity of Science
“One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. To be forced to believe only one conclusion that everything in the universe happened by chance [my opinion doesn’t make sense] would violate the very objectivity of science itself. They [evolutionists] challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.”
Dr. Wernher von Braun [Father of American rocket and space program]
The problem today is communism and a lack of scientific honesty, because evolutionists are hostile towards belief in God. This teaching is all part of the globalist agenda which will end in tears.
we were preparing some young English Boys lol
getting charged for that now
Rewatching and Tony’s burn is delightful and give Dawkins a chance to enjoy a sip of water. Brilliant.
This argument is gold, Jerry! GOLD!
Keep it goin', fellas, I love the readin'.
This looks like a scene from the movie Idiocracy.
This is a good example of the kind of thought that is fostered by religious fantasy. The lines of objectivity and subjectivity become so tragically skewed that the believer is unable to pin down why their beliefs are receiving of so much criticism. I can ask questions of a subjective nature, on an individual basis, and accept the answers given by those who respond. If I ask someone, "...what is the purpose is of listening to music?", they can give me their purpose for listening to music and it will be true, at least for them, and that's as far as it goes. But to expect an intelligent or relevant answer of the same sort for questions such as the following would be absurd...
Why is the universe so abundant with forces that are waiting to kill us? What is the purpose of cancer? Why do tsunamis kill by the thousands? Why are there so many people who need food? Why do we require so many calories to survive?
These are all questions that have answers in the sense of understanding causes and effects. But with regards to a subjective answer to questions to these kinds of questions, such a thing is completely absurd, and such answers would not lend to improving the impact of these questions in the slightest. I would invite them to ask the latter questions about the God they believe created the atrocities in the latter questions and they may soon realize that there can be no GOOD reason for those things, they have nothing to do with free will, and they are all natural parts of our universe that they believe to be the handy-work of their God. Ask a serial killer why he kills people and you're likely to get an answer that made sense to him, it doesn't make it right by a normal standard of morality. So...if you asked God why he created people only to create countless ways to have them suffer and be killed by the billions throughout existence, what answer would you accept? I imagine many will say that he just works in mysterious ways. Funny how that's the answer when they can't explain the misery and evil that their God seems to create, but they understand his will and plan all too perfectly when it comes time to explain what he wants Atheists to do...
Ok, If your christian and have a brain, people like this guy are the reason most people won't take us seriously. Its like he just makes this crap up off the top of his head. There are intelligent christians, but this guys isn't one of them. Also, many people say Dawkins was in a biased crowd. Thank you, Mr. Dawkins, for picking the thrid most evangelical country in the world to hold a counsel on atheism and saying their biased. Can't fight the demographics.
Prof. Hawkins destroyed every point. Genius. Bias audience. Religion is based on "why"? Well then, "why" does there have to be purpose?
an old man shouldnt be tortured like this..
Could you cite that book again? Because I can't find it the comment, where you cited a book, if you cited any.
Pell was the wrong person for this debate. If religion was trying to win this debate, he FAILED MISERABLY 🤭🙄😮🙄🤭
As Pell lectures on morality, remember: Pell was convicted of raping pre-teen boys, and of aiding other priests in raping pre-teen boys. After he was indicted for these crimes, he was elevated by the Pope to the second most powerful position in the Roman catholic church.
Pell’s inconsistency with regard to the Catholic doctrines is very clearly displayed. He ventures well outside of what the Catholic Church teaches & one can’t help but feel that he does it on order to appear more sympathetic to those who are not of his faith & to comport with reality over matters of science. It’s time to put away the mythical books & live on the real world
that question will be answered someday we just haven't scientifically discovered the meaning yet.. but like he said it won't be "why" it will be "how".. there doesn't have to be a reason "why" things just happen but we can work out and prove "how".... my 4 year old daughter asks me over and over again why why why... it can go on for ever. but if she asked me how.
"You are a religious atheist." Making shit up is not an argument. Nor is an appeal to "serious scientists".
Everything the Archbishop described of pagan Rome continued through Christian Rome so idk wtf...
21:30 Uhh, as far as I remember classical Big Bang theory didn't speak about what banged or how it banged. It was Alan Guth and his cosmic inflation theory, that came up with a possible explanation.
Well dine Richard
Well, if you don't want to look up the evidence, what makes you better, then your opponents?
I don't understand your question, can you try again ? As far as "death was your lot if you were caught reading the bible"? Where on earth do you come up with this one from ? The Bible is a collection of books that comes from the Church. The Bible is a Catholic Book, ( well compilation of books actually), and it was put together by Catholics and promoted by the Church. I don't know where you are coming up with what you say ?
48:08 LMAO!!!!!!!!!
19:50 ...ups .....hahaha
21:19
Stumped!!
Guys. Jesus is made of tiny crackers and wine.
30:20 I think Richard just had a mini stroke.
0:48:16 lol preparing some young English boys ahah
Why is god always referred to as "he". I think that in itself shows that it is a human idea full of our own perceptions placed on it.
Men created god and crowned himself king of the world.
How convenient! lol
Secondly, speaking about generalization and misunderstanding, almost every theist that debates has this pig headed idea that atheists positively believe there is no god. If they'd heard Dawkins speak once or even read his book then they would have seen his seven point scale explaining that he knows you can't be certain about anything but given the lack of evidence or reason to believe, you can dismiss it as you would dismiss the truth of LOTR. This is so simple but constantly misrepresented.
Dawkins doesn't generally generalize except really for the purposes of brevity - I imagine you see generalization because this is the easiest way for you to dismiss everything he says in one fell swoop. Where does he do it here? The Catholic church is so top down that it should be easy for a Cardinal to answer questions of fact that Dawkins asks about and yet it seems to take an age without ever getting to a great answer.
27:30 life tends to go from simple to complex over time
I think he just decided they were all to stupid and brainwashed or weren't listening to him anyway, so why would he bother.. The audience had no idea.. and the bishop has been brainwashed for an entire life time he could never be converted
George Pell: “urhhb ummm arrrr well, ahhh urrerhhh well.”
To that Cardinals comment on Genesis being a myth. If it is a myth then why would u take anything in the Bible as truth and not myth also? Jesus was very clear, He said, if u dont believe Moses then u wont believe Me. He seems to think that Genesis is true, and since His God and the one who created everything, I think He might know. I'm tired of Christians picking and choosing what they wish to believe in, either take the Bible as it is or be honest enough to leave it all behind.
"how could Dawkins ever be wrong." Easy: Present evidence. But that never concerned relitards, now does it?
Wow what a great pov
My enemies is going to hell hahahah I'm so great
Awesome
science show homosexuality in most if not all species on earth.
Since nothing has Self Actuation, Nothing in a Void of Nothing else, can motivate the Universe to move toward beginning. But as Life Forms are Self Actuating and need not an outside force or object, but has internal powers to move on it's own, then a Life Form in all Else being a Void, can explain how to begin a Universe to move. So God as a "Life" that is Self Actuating, can explain the absence of anything else in the Void, that then suddenly causes the World to begin to move and change
You're right, and dawkins is slightly wrong here, as he says though he isn't a physicist. The something from nothing principle he is talking about naturally comes out of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle when applied to energy and time (rather than momentum and location) - and it doesn't violate the principle of conservation of energy. Look up Lawrence Krauss
don't understand all these differences. Setting ALL THAT aside, what you're saying is akin to a believer in Lord of the Rings saying that Dawkins' refutation is meaningless generalization because he doesn't go into whether Tom Bombadil could have worn the ring without effect or not - this is a very subtle and important point if you are going to debate the real life existence of Hobbits and Middle Earth...
I don't understand your question about Charlemagne. Empire by definition is an organization, where one country is dominant and others are being dominated. And what country would want to be dominated? No empire has quickly emerged in a place of the old one. There's no reason to conclude, that it was Christianity that halt the development of a new empire. And why do you endorse empire so much? Empires are bad. If Christianity halt creation of one, it did a good thing.
24min+ Dawkins suggests that the solution to 'something from nothing' can be likened to the reverse of matter+antimatter combining. But antimatter+matter does not result in nothing; rather, the energy invested in keeping the matter stable is released to 'pure energy', and no matter remains. E=mc2. So the reverse would require the energy to already exist prior to its becoming matter. The conservation of energy is an axiom from which much of physics has been deduced. When did it start applying?
Cardinal Pell … beauty, goodness, truth. His wisdom, fortitude, his loving patience dare me to valor. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.
Yeah, about that...
Those poor boys
Pell the pedophile. Where was this just god for those children Barbara?
he is a podophile, why would you praise this horrible man
I'm a Christian, and even I found it quite rude that the audience laughed at Richard Dawkins for no reason, and even if there were a 'good' reason, it's still rude. Open your minds a little! smh
48:15 😂😂😂
That's seriously interesting, thanks. Not a physicist either; and only familiar with that form of uncertainty from one of the Einstein-Bohr debates & never seen it applied elsewhere. Will give it a think and will definitely check out Krauss. Don't think it will solve the philosophical problem (which is more to do with whether or not we can escape 'brute facts' in explanatory schemes than defining 'what nothing is'), but should probably do the reading first. Thank you :)
Apparently you get round it because of the indeterminacy relation between change in time and change in energy. The universe can apparently exist as 'a fluctuation' for so long because the gravity in the universe brings the total energy to approximately zero. This confuses the shit out of me, because I've never heard of negative energy prior to this. Plus you obviously needed the energy to make the matter to generate the gravity. Any idea where I can get a good explanation of this?
No matter how great is the Universe, it has no Judgment, it has no self actuation as a Judge over it's merits. Thus, the only evidence of God is in ourselves by our own condition. We suffer and experience as Judges, we assign merit, We cannot divide ourselves away from how we define God, God is a Quality that must correspond to the intelligent notion that we suffer to experience as made in God's Image and Likeness. God is then a Cause and then a Judge over Creation, we share in passion and pain
I much rather think I'm the son of god that created the universe and loves me and not you, than to think I'm nothing not special
Wow how childish
If you think I burrow through wikipedia to second-guess what evidence *you* are referring to, you are very mistaken. Make you point clearly, instead of hiding behind some "serious scientists"
Well, just tell me, how am I going to give you a lecture in medieval history in 500 characters? The term dark ages was coined in 17th century to describe 10th and 11th century. Then it was extended to entire medieval period. For more information read, say, "Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths" by Resine Pernoud, if you find a good translation.
RIP Pell
The Materialist notion that the inanimate world evolved by no outside cause, is inexplicable in current Science. But in Current Science, we can accept that a Life Form is Self Actuating, moving by itself, without need of another object or force outside of itself. So, the most rational explanation of the Universe being Dynamic, is that before the Universe ever moved out of a Restive Eternal Steady State, something in that or besides that or creating that matter, had to have a Living Nature.
Finally, the Cardinal speaks about biology and physics when he isn't well versed in either. He speaks about vacuums and nothing interchangeably and doesn't seem to get that the universe IS space and time (simplistic). He latches on to a concept, willfully misunderstands and then uses it as a basis for saying god must exist. And I quote "If there are humans, there must have been a first one" - fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Misunderstand what 'random' means when it comes to selection.
You are right, but he did say it was a "very, very layman's explanation".
Christianity is the only religion that believes hell is for eternity
Everything Jesus said Buddha said before
Why aren't you Buddhist if you love what's written?
30:59
What a honker.
Going from what the cardinal was saying, adam and eve must have been black. you dont see that in the paintings!!
By his own account Pell is going to HELL.
There are these strange things in show business that are called prompters. They tell the audience when to clap, I know fascinating...
A Votive Act is a Priori Act. The Universe began to exist with no Laws of Nature to explain a Process of it having begun . So Dawkins can say that in the process of the Universe already begun , there is now Laws and can explain movement within the Universe, by a Theory of Relativity. But he cannot explain the Universe by it's Votive and Elect Act of Creation, the First Act, was by definition , not a "Reaction" Chemistry is Reaction ,or secondary acts, but Creation is a Votive First Act
Petitio principii fallacy.
Pell looks like a child arguing to an adult about the universe. It's clear he is delusional. Also I hate when the audience laughs at Dawkins, just plain rude and shows how delusional they are as well.