Daniel Dennett is the most underrated being right now. He is arguably the greatest thinker , philosopher with thorough Scientific knowledge in the last century. His take on many things will stand the absolute test of time. The religious spiritual folks hate him but that's okay.
I'll ask some questions of which, alas and alack, RLK seems to be unaware: 1. What exactly is one thanking when one thanks goodness? Why not thank evil if that just happens to produce an end that you want? 2. Is religion all about wanting someone to thank in any case? Who says so? 3. In any case, why should we regard our need to give thanks as being, in some way, misleading? What is to stop it from being a pointer (however inchoately) to its own answer? 4. Which theologians maintain that theology is the _only_ way other than science of knowing the world? (Most theologians I know and read are perfectly happy to accept that art, music, literature, history, philosophy and one's senses generally can deliver truth, even if not always.) 5. Why should science be the only discipline capable of asking, good, principled, sensible, and useful questions? 6. How can the issue of whether questions make any sense be settled by science? (Science, like other things, seem simply to _require_ its questions to have these qualities right from the off.) 7. Finally a happy observation. Dennett gives several definitions of 'God', all of which are pretty well deistic (law giver, law chooser, etc.), shows (or rather just presupposes) how each one has been defeated, then jumps to the conclusion that such a god is not really needed at all. Well done, Dan! At last, it's nice to find a point being expressed here with which most theologians would heartily agree. I cannot be selfish here, so I hope this fact makes Dan happy, too..
@@Bloozguy You are absolutely right! I will, though, offer a description that you say is missing because that is the easy bit. The god you mention is an Xman, Dumbledore writ large, a CEO of the angels, a Big Invisible Thing (or Ego or Entity). He is just one more thing among others and merely occupies the top-floor of the building as he yells down his orders, and hires and fires. Happily, there is no need to worry about his power source, because he simply doesn't exist. Glad to have been of service.
The problem with these discussions in the West is that when people say "religion" what they really mean is "Christianity" b/c that is their default and they do not or cannot think outside of a Christian framework for religion (and spirituality). If these people are serious about exploring the religion/spiritual question, they need to do a much better job inquiring into Eastern religion/spiritual traditions and trying to understand the universe from their perspective, which is meaningfully different than Christian theology.
@Robocrop Dude (or dudette), what the hell are you talking about? First off all stop the stupid name-calling. You don't know who I am or anything about me, so saying I'm a "hippie" just shows your ignorance. More to the point is that nothing I said has to do with religion per se, though I used the word "theology." I am talking about different ways of understanding reality. Don't see your point about everything religion being base don't astrology, and don't know what you're talking about re: the "double headed eagle." Relax.
Yes, and then maybe after exploring all the different types of religion they'll realize how arbitrary it is based on culture you grow up in and drop religion altogether
That's a belief (amongst many others, what 'god' shall be in the eye of the believer), but not an explanation or prove for anything. Your definition (god==goodness=='being itself') is just a playing with words.
Plotinus 'Enneads' and the Periphyseon are 2 books that must be read, studied and practiced. The latter book teaches how to think, ask question, dielectic, Reason; the former discusses what science cannot and is metaphysics.
To believe in nothing is an empty belief. But a belief is required. because nothing can be proven with our limited understanding. People hang on to words others say without fully analyzing it for themselves. Blinded we truly are and yet you think you can see. define words to be your bricks and what you build with them becomes your prison of your mind and soul.
You wrote "to believe in nothing is an empty belief" and then followed with "nothing can be proven." If one can prove "nothing" then believing in "nothing" seems like a rational position to take.
2:17-2:41 "Let's look at each side of this equation, the theology side and the science side … from the methodologies that are involved in each one: how can we define it simply … because the methodologies are so different therefore they are like two different dimensions and canpas equally?" Mr. Dennett comes up with the answer to a different question. He doesn't mention theology at all but suddenly the question is somehow about "emotional truth": 3:03-3:17 "There isn't the scientific truth and then emotional truth. No, there's truth. And the scientific method is the best method we've come up with yet for getting at the truth, and it can get at the truth of emotions." I don't doubt that for a second. But equalling theology to "emotions" is quite a bit of a stretch of course. From the Cambidge Dictionary: emotion -> a strong feeling such as love or anger, or strong feelings in general theology -> the study of religion and religious belief, or a set of beliefs about a particular religion The terms are not equal. Which disqualifies Mr. Dennett's reply. 7:22-7:30 "I want to know how theology aims at the truth without following in the footsteps of science." This summarizes the remainder of the video. The interviewer comes up with two approaches: "natural theology" which is quickly dismissed and rightly so, and "reveal technology" which Mr. Dennett calls "auto anthropology": "should we take it any more seriously than we take the river god of those people on that island?" Yes, I think we should, since there is actually much that hints at God's existence. I will only give one example, to keep this post relatively short. But if anyone is interested, I can provide more. Just state so in a reply. In their book _Memories of Heaven_ Wayne Dyer and Dee Garnes have compiled over 200 conversations with young children who say they remember heaven, where they were before they were born. "Over 200" is rather structural, and besides, there are plenty of examples of this phenomenon on the internet; these are clearly not a few cases where children have let their imaginations run wild. As they grow older, the memory fades and disappears, as we all have with what is no longer relevant to our daily lives. A few quotes: _Her Father asked what Jesus was like, and Lorna's face lit up. "He was pretty," she told her father. "He had shiny eyes and He made us all glad." April then responded, "I talked to Mr. Jesus." To which her father said, "When did you talk to Mr. Jesus?" What she said next amazed him. She said, "When I was in heaven." I cautiously asked, "Was he [Jesus] talking back?" "Yes" "What was he saying?" "He was saying he made the clouds." "Why do you look so unhappy?" "Because I used to be with him. Now he just talks to me."_
The strategy adopted by certain materialist thinkers to respond to legitimate objections to the conclusions of the materialist ideology seem to be to first construct for themselves a punching bag of an opponent epitomizing the silly literalism of religion and then to punch and mock and lampoon this opponent. In this manner they are able to cleverly escape from a thorough examination of their own (utterly fatuous) ideas and divert public attention. The anchor of the program also cannot, due to reasons of time etc., do the required counter questioning. What materialist thinkers and also the general public swayed by them must realize is that not all of the religious people in the ancient and mediaeval times were fools. All of the important questions of today were discussed in some form by the sharp and acute philosophers of the ancient period. Questions such as whether "prakrti" (matter / nature) could, by herself, evolve to meet the needs of the pure, conscious personality were meditated (thought hard) on and only then a super-intelligent mind of a transcendental personality was introduced. All this was done with the aid of logic rooted in the reality of the world. Similarly, the limitations of the brain in relation to subjective conscious experience were also realized, and the presence of a conscious, purely spiritual first principle known as "purusa" (conscious personality / soul) was inferred. The materialists and many of their followers who indulge in trollish behavior would not like to engage with this intelligent group of philosopher-scientists representing the creme de la creme of religion. The anchors too do not seem to bring up the thoughts of these intellectuals to foster serious discussion. As a result, what happens in these conversations is the materialists gleefully engage in punching at the lowest common denominator happy and content in the knowledge that all their own deficiencies, fatuous conclusions and enormous loopholes would now face no serious competition and their mocking, sneering tone would be ample entertainment for the impish followers who blindly support the "superstar" materialists without utilizing their own mental faculties. Had there been genuine and sincere engagement with an intelligent opponent, the materialists would surely have been left red-faced, given the Alice-in-wonderland nature of the explanations furnished by them with respect to such deep mysteries of existence as conscious experience. The brain which is a mass of unconscious material substance is supposed to give us consciousness! And they have the temerity to say it's the religious who believe in magic! Neurons whose Action Potential lasts for only a few milliseconds are supposed to store memories for years! The neuronal brain is supposed to be both subject and object, thinker and thought, feeler as well as felt and rememberer and remembered! All these fatuous conclusions of the materialist philosophy simply fly in the face of the logic of the real world. They are, in other words, illogical and impossible. It is in the context of these absurdities that the ancient philosophers argued for a fundamental category of existence that is separate from the material and this is the ontological category of "transcendental personality." Any rational man free from bias would be inclined to agree that this carries better explanatory power than the materialist model; and it is also in conformity with the logic of the real world because it affirms the intuitive notion of personality. And yet, in spite of such a nature of reality stacked up against their outlandish theories, the materialist thinkers indulge in troll-like behavior, sneering at any sort of spiritual conception, in full confidence, with the attitude of a know-it-all! Surely, this must represent arrogance of a kind that has no parallel anywhere else in this universe! [My comments are of a general nature and may not fit perfectly to this video.]
If this conversation took place 1000 years ago, people would argue that Wodan (fill in your favorite god of the time) was almighty and believers came with all the arguments we read in the reactions. Nobody believes in Wodan anymore, that basically debunks every theological claim.
Man has known for thousands of years .... that only an entity like Man ( ie an intelligence) ... makes rules & Laws and anything that has clear & obvious PURPOSE & FORM ( ie design). It doesn't matter whether you are from the Stone Age .... or ... today ..... Man knows what a FUNCTION is .... and who makes them. The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories .... prove .... the Universe & Life are Functions composed entirely of Functions and were made by an INTELLIGENCE with an unnatural & nonphysical mind. Man is an intelligence clearly with a physical mind (brain). But an intelligence must have an unnatural & nonphysical Mind ( ie soul) because the body of Man is a FUNCTION composed entirely of Functions made by an Intelligence. You are forgetting that Man is an intelligence ... whether he is from the Stone Age or Today. Anything that has clear & obvious PURPOSE & DESIGN can only be made by an INTELLIGENCE like Man. Everything in the Universe has clear purpose & design. And Man knows for a fact Man did not make the Universe or himself. Obviously a more powerful entity like Man .... made the Universe & Man..
@@abelincoln8885 These “obvious needed “ entities keep popping in and out of existence throughout history by the thousands. Sounds to me like a man made construct. You’re choice of religion is clearly defined by your place of birth or that of your parents . All and all not very convincing, to say the least. Maybe religion should figure out who where talking about before making any claims about whatsoever. Otherwise keep it for yourself.
@@hunchbackaudio A religions is simply a organized FIRM BELIEF in something or someone responsible for existence. There no needed "entities popping in & out of existences. Everything in the Universe is a Function made by an intelligence. This is why man has created religions ....with a firm believe that their religion has identified the intelligence that made every function. Either all of the religions are wrong( eg Abiogenesis & Evolution) or one has identified the intelligence that made every Function. Again. A Religion is simply an organized FIRM BELIEF in something or someone responsible for Existence. There is zero conflict between Science & Religion because most religions believe in a supernatural deity ... and the reason most human beings believe in "the gods" is because they have an intellect and know that only an intelligence like Man makes rules & Laws and anything that has clear & obvious purpose & design (ie FUNCTION ). Man knows only an intelligence makes Functions. Science ( a Function) relies completely on the Laws of Nature(functions) for Man ( a Function) to explain natural phenomena ( Functions). Science is all about explaining how Functions work. Religions is all about belief in a supernatural intelligence who must have made every Function in the Universe. This is all about Functions which can only be made by an intelligence.
As basically an atheist myself, I have to say that this is not a convincing argument. There are many theological arguments that are divorced from claims about any particular god(s) and aim to demonstrate that there must exist a perfect being that is the creator/ground of everything that exists. Noting the historical malleability of religious beliefs doesn't really have any effect on these arguments.
@@iMJBNi Well I'm the one to be convinced (I don't believe in god remember), so I'm not trying to convince anyone. But to say consciousness is complicated so it must be made by something even more complicated, without having a consensus about who that should be, of even what would be the cause of that perfect being? Doesn't do it. Most reactors here would argue it's the god of the christians, but he came very late to the party historically and seems like a pretty vicious guy, so that's why I made this remark. So if the argument states there must be perfect being, because we have know idea what else is the cause, I'm not impressed to say the least. Please figure out who to believe in, in the first place and then come back.
Science is barely in it's infancy and has a long way to go. How can you reconcile what we currently know, which is by no means the complete picture, with religion, which has been established for thousands of years?
If we are just material objects and our fellings and thoughts are just consequences of neural firings then why do we believe atheist's view afterall these view also the consequences of neural firings so we are determined to determine.Supreme lord is God Sri Krishna, He is absolute concious being and oue eternal father.
Existance already part of the vague notion of God. God being a vague notion is not properly true, only true to the preciever. If God is vague, to anyone, they need to change a few things.
@@A3Kr0n *"Replace one vague notion with another?"* ... Yep, science replaced an infinitely existing, ubiquitous God who constitutes everything in existence with an infinitely existing, ever-present Multiverse that constitutes everything in existence. What goes around, comes around.
Hugh Pickens writes … Is Science Just a Matter of Faith? The actual scientific answers to the questions of the origins of the universe, the evolution of man, and the fundamental nature of the cosmos involve things like wave equations and quantum electrodynamics and molecular biology that very few non-scientists can ever hope to understand and that if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that we accept the incredibly complex scientific phenomena in physics, astronomy, and biology through the process of belief, not through reason. When Richard Fenyman wrote, 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,' he was including himself which is disconcerting given how many books he wrote on that very subject. The fact is that it takes years of dedicated study before scientific truth in its truest, mathematical and symbolic forms can be understood. The rest of us rely on experts to explain it, someone who has seen and understood the truth and can dumb it down for us in a language we can understand. And therein lies the big problem for science and scientists. For most people, science is really a matter of trusting the expert who tells it to us and believing what they tell us. Trust and belief. Faith. Not understanding. How can we understand science, if we can't understand the language of science? 'We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history. Do you really know what an atom is, or that a Higgs boson is a rather important thing, or did you simply accept they were what someone told you they were?' .
Any layperson can see and understand the tangible outcomes of science; e.g., the devices we're communicating through, medicine, skyscrapers, etc. You could, of course, argue that those things are simply manifestations of some universal consciousness, and I can't disprove that position, but science and scientific method produces reliable results.
Accepting the scientific consensus is nothing like faith . They are entirely different . The former is based on evidence , the latter require the absence of it
@@tonyatkinson2210 you missed the point. We use our faith in quantum mechanics for example to make quantum computations, even though we have no idea how it works
The reason why people don't deny religion, regardless of whether or not it is "true", is mostly because imo religion/spirituality/transcendentalism offers a profound meaning to life that science cannot. Science also cannot answer normative questions especially in the realm of ethics, morality, and value
I disagree. I think you can find a "profoud" sense of meaning without having any type of religious or spiritual belief. Also, I think that science can answer questions about morality and ethics. After all, any of the ethical or moral systems that already exist really just came from the mind of man in the first place anyway. There was nothing transcendental about it.
@@A_Few_Thoughts What? That's stupid. '' After all, any of the ethical or moral systems that already exist really just came from the mind of man in the first place anyway.'' What does that even mean? Are you implying that science will somehow figure out what everyperson on the planet thinks and somehow will answer every ethical questions that we are currently faced with? Like, if we are talking about why kicking puppies is moral, you think science will somehow answer that? The meaning of life? Social pressure and the effect one's conscious? That's a weird scientism bro
@@toonyandfriends1915 I think you missed my point entirely, that it indeed comes from the mind of man alone (just like all of morality based on religion) that kicking puppies is immoral. However, I would add that some religions have advocated for the kicking of puppies.
Ironically, the very foundational core of ancient religion was that very notion of Truth (or Maat in ancient Egypt). They undertsood very well the difference between objective reality that is shared by all and subjective reality as a personal perspective and/or self delusion/lie. What links that objective reality and truth to God, was the search for and proof of intelligent design, within the process of creation. The archaic 5 stages of matter went from Aether > Fire (soul) > Air (mind) > Water (spirit) > Earth (body), which is no different to field > plasma > gas > liquid > solid. It is simply describing phases transitions as the universe cooled. That are also signs of octave or fractal boundaries, for those transitions. That is objective reality. Is there conclusive proof of intelligent design or conclusive proof against intelligent design ? The ancients believed that geometry was the language of the Gods, or those that were ignorant of it could not enter the temple as a consequence, as they were ignorant of the language of God. It is high level abstract geometry, inherent within nature, as an evolved expression of low level maths, that is the proof of that intelligent design as abstract thought. Their research was taken to its most advanced understanding through spherical trigonometry, rainbow physics, spherical sunrise and octaves of the wavelengths of light and sound, expressed through poles/rods/cylinders. The colour that the eye sees is not objective reality, neither is the sound that we hear. The colour that wee see is an abstract representation of the electromagnetic wavelengths and vibrations, that the s/m/l cones and rods receive and are harmonically tuned to pure blue (primary), green (Primary) and yellow (secondary). It is through unravelling the minds abstract representation of the objective reality of the colour spectrum, that is proof of intelligent design. As with any sensor, they all require function tables abstraction to convert physical measurement into internal representation. The design of such an abstract representation system, requires intelligence.
Which religion? Which science? If there is any group of people less qualified to define what religion (or spirituality) can be, or know what science actually is - that would be Skeptics like Dennett. The question itself leads to a strawman argument/discussion.
No, it's not awe of nature, nor is it gratitude. It's wanting to live forever; it's insisting that death is not final but a doorway to another existence. It's existential terror. Secondly it's the wish to be reunited with one's parents, one's spouse, siblings or children. And finally it's theodicy. It's wanting justice, so that the people who have transgressed will be punished in the end. All the rest, the scholastic and epistemological questions, are - as regards religious people - a superfluous indulgence. Why? Because faith fundamentally bypasses any theory of knowledge. You're not going to convince people of something they don't want to believe in the first place.
Excellent discussion. So aggravating watching religion and religious organizations, like Templeton, attempt to coopt science. "God, the master of ceremony." Stealing that!
Based on your comment, you must know what "the truth" is. Why not just state what that truth is along with your argument for how you know it to be true?
I see no conflict presented in this video between science and religion. I see only a conflict presented between one scientist's opinion about science and that same scientist's opinion about religion.
That opinion is the subject of this video so the first sentence of your post seems odd. His perceived conflict is exactly what is "presented in this video."
@@mikel5582 "His perceived conflict is exactly what is presented" ----- Rather, his perception of conflict based on a particularly poor articulation of theology is presented. And yet he continually make his appeal to "truth".
*"I see no conflict presented in this video between science and religion. I see only a conflict presented between one scientist's opinion about science and that same scientist's opinion about religion."* ... You are correct. Science cannot "scientifically evaluate" religion nor can religion offer any empirical evidence for the existence of an all-powerful God. I'm sure a Rabbi or a Priest might offer an equally bias opinion of science.
There is not conflict. This all has to do with "religious" beliefs. A religion is simply an organized FIRM BELIEF in something or someone responsible for existence. A religion doesn't have to involve a "god." Theological religions are actually a natural phenomena, which will always be observed of most people ... because Man has known for thousands of years that only an intelligence like Man makes rules & Laws and anything with clear purpose & form ( ie Functions). Everything in the Universe has clear & obvious purpose & form. Everything in the Universe are clearly Functions. And only an intelligence ( like Man) makes Functions. Man obviously did not make the Universe & Man. Something like Man but extremely powerful ( eg God) made the Universe & Man. And this is why we have had "theological" religions thousands of years before the scientific revolution. The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories ... prove Universe Functions .... which is the explanation for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. Newton was stating the obvious. Everything is a Function made only by an intelligence. Science (Function) relies on the Laws of nature (functions) for Man ( a Function) to explain natural phenomena (functions). Science is all about explaining FUNCTIONS. WTH?
Regarding the question of what is theology without following the footsteps of science , It’s true Theology says in the words of god in the Quran, He says , God is the the objective truth and , his book and it’s content as well ,,the existence is the subjective truth , and those which he called his wards that is beyond human consciousness ,, , and when he said ,, Walk through the earth and look how the existence and it’s design has started “” He was talking to you my dearest scientists ,in order to discover his occult in the Quran to become news and facts . And he says:- God fears from his free humans who are knowledgeable , And he means all kinds fields of science
The Quran was completely misunderstood since the seventh century,I will explain that later , but the Islam that we have today is the way life the prophet Mohammad lived and his attributed saying which completely falls. I had to study epistemology and strong Arabic in order for me to understand gods words and his verses it’s 20 years since I started and haven’t finished even 15% of the 623 verses No one on this planet can understand more than 100 subjects in his life time .my perceptions which fall under the frame of logic are considered sins in my world . I have a passion for knowledge in almost all scientific fields, But Iam a business man earning a living
A good discussion to have, thank you.^ Both religion and science are man made tools. Mostly they have a different purpose. One's primary purpose is about teaching societal values, a subjective realm of the mind, and the other is designed to objectively study the physical world. To the extent a religious person's comments or interpretations on the physical world contradict science, it is presumed that the tool designed to objectively study the physical world, science, rules the day. In that regard, science becomes a great friend to the religious person who seeks to understand "spiritual" (that is, of the mind) meaning associated with ancient scriptures that are mostly written in metaphoric style, because then the religious person can eliminate literal interpretations as possibilities for the intended meaning. Having done that, realizing that physically impossible interpretations are ruled out, the religious person can consider non-literal meaning as a preferred interpretation. As for scientists, during WW1 with the nations of Europe locked in trench warfare, several of the leading scientists of the day stepped forward to offer their scientific knowledge of chemistry to develop the first "weapons of mass destruction".
"Thermodynamics is the ONE theory of universal content which will NEVER be overthrown."-Albert Einstein NOTHING & NO ONE has EVER inflected thermodynamics in even the most minute. 1st LAW--Heat (energy) is NEVER originated or terminated 2nd LAW-- Heat goes ONLY to cold; "the principal placing constraints upon the direction of heat" This universe of E=MC2 CANNOT have begun...it cannot be eternal (it would have cooled...it hasn't...it will) NOTHING KNOWN TO HUMANS can reconcile the existence of this universe. It's not unknown, it's expressly, definitively in contradiction to the Laws of Thermodynamics. "Science is not things as we want them to be...it's things as they are"--Einstein "Things as they are", as reflected in our MOST proven by far physical law, is the impossibility of the existene of this universe. Agonize to your heart's content, atheists cannot get science argue for them
Release of chlorine gas was a despicable implementation of chemical warfare. The same scientist discovered a process for economical nitrogen fixation, thus providing farmers a practical means to fertilize their soil to grow crops and lessen widespread hunger. Fritz Haber used scientific knowledge for life and for death and later suffered at the hands of Nazi fanatics. What on earth does any of that have to do with the topic of this video?
@@mikel5582 Religion, a subject of the discussion, primarily relates to moral values. Science, also a subject of the discussion, relates to the study of, among other things, chemistry. I covered how silly it is for a religious person to not aver to science on matters relating to the study of the physical world and what is or is not physically possible. Then I touched on the moral failure of highly trained scientists relating to, just for example, the creation of the first weapons of mass destruction. Can you see how all of that directly relates to the subject of the discussion?
@@prestonbacchus4204 Sorry, my response wasn't intended to be confrontational but I reject the idea that human decency can only be found through religion when it's clearly ingrained in most people instinctively. I don't follow any religion (traditional definition of the word) but find Haber's implementation of chlorine gas for chemical warfare to be utterly deplorable. I don't need any religious philosophy to recognize that act as a being despicable. Edit to add that, given the atrocities conducted in the name of god(s), I don't think they're in any position to define moral doctrine.
i think its more about finding a purpose/reason to live for. Theists believe that there's no meaning in life without God, therefore the actions you'll take wont have any consequences. whether you do good or bad. at the end it doesnt matter, because there's no reward or punishment.
Fear of death is one reason people buy into religion, but not the reason it was invented. Life is an eating, screwing and murdering simulator, and religion is a tool that nerds invented to pause the simulator while they take some time to investigate why we want to eat, screw and murder so much. They found the answers they were looking for, but that only led to more questions, and so here we are working our lives away. Basically religion is what happens when intelligent lifeforms become too smart for their own good.
If the story says you have a eternal soul and a God that will judge you for what you did with your body ... then yeah, fear what will happen after death. Most people will always believe in a soul/spirit and a supernatural Creator ... because Man has an intellect and knows only an intelligence like Man makes rules & Laws and anything that has clear purpose & form ( ie Functions). Everything in the Universe is clearly a Function ..... made by a very very powerful intelligence. This is the reason why we have all the religions with their stories. Either all are wrong (eg Abiogenesis & evolution) or there is one religion that has correctly identified the intelligence that made every Function in the Universe, and fully explained why. There's a reason why the greatest and most influential religion of all time .... says there was a 6 day creation & the 7th Day will belong to God, 1 day is like 1000 years, and Jesus (Son of God) will return to rule the earth for 1000 years before Judgement Day with 144 000 male Jews who died in end times believing in the Christ. The current Jewish year is 5782. God had a reason for the 6 day creation & the 7th Day will belong to God. Yeah. Fear God .... because you do not know the day or hour ... you will die. There is no time in Heaven or Hell. You go straight to Judgement Day in 7000 Anno Mundi.
@Terre Schill Stop believing any of the bs from Rabbis. For crying out loud, for 2000 years Rabbis have doing all that they can stop the spread of Christianity and calling Yeshu (Rabbinic curse word) a false messiah and a Gentile god of an idolatrous Roman/Greek religion. And the clowns still same today even though the greatest & most influential Man in all of History ... is a Jews .... called Yeshua (Salvation) with over 2.6 billion followers. There are only 15 million Jews today and most do not believe in God and are taught to hate Jesus. God promised Abraham that he would be the Father of Nations. Christianity originates from Messianic Jews who accepted Yeshua as the promised Messiah & the Son of God, and were forced out of Judaism by the major sects of Pharisees & Sadducees. Judaism today originates from the Pharisee sect which aggressively rejected Yeshua & his Jewish followers. The Torah is clear that the Mesisah is the Son of God and will be a sin sacrifice to save souls of God's "Chosen People." To save God's Children. Abraham is the Father of the Faith. God fulfilled His promise to Abraham .... .through the Messianic Jews who had his Faith in God & His Messiah. God's Chosen People ... are the People of the Faith ... be they Jew or Gentile. Rabbis have hijacked Judaism and made the religion all about being a "good" Jew and God's Chosen People ... according to Rabbinic interpretation, opinions, teachings. If there is no life after death .... then why does God order the Jews to make Atonement sacrifice in the Temple? Rabbis are morons. There is nothing in the Torah .... saying only the five books of Moses are the Torah .... that there will be an Oral Torah and Rabbis are to be the righteous "interpreters" of God's word and are to compile the Talmud. The Hebrew Bible is the Torah ... all 24 books. Except for the Catholics & Greek orthodox .... the Old Testament is the Torah with a number Jewish books subdivided. Of course the Torah has been translated into greek & other languages ... but the only beef between Judaism & Christianity .... is the INTERPRETATION ...of God's word with respect to the nature of God, who the Messiah is and God's Chosen People. Genesis 1; 1 - 3 in the original Hebrew including word picture meanings which was the norm 3400 years ago ... states God is plural (Father, Son Spirit) and singular. Moses deliberately uses singular & plural pronouns ... because God is singluar and plural. Man was made in God's (plural) likeness and it is not good for Man (or God) to be alone so from Man came woman and together they are One ( unity) flesh. See. Rabbis are morons. They completely "misinterpreted" the first 3 chapters of God's word and have been teaching Jews lies about God. Abraham saw God in three Men ... standing next to God. This is Genesis 18. To understand this ... you have to have understood what Genesis 1 - 3 told us about God( singular & plural). All three Mean are God, not God and two Angels. Abraham worshiped all three Men as God ... and all three told Abraham to do as he said he would do for THEM. The three Mean are Father, Son & Spirit. So who is the God that was standing next to Abraham and the Three Men? C'mon. This is not difficult to figure out. We have a Father & a Son .... and .... a Spirit which is everywhere and can take multiple forms at the same time. And again God is singular & plural. The Father is the God head and has final say on everything the God thinks & does. But just like the Son, He only has a single form, and can only be at one place at a time. The Son & Spirit obey the Will of the Father which is why they can speak as God. God does no procreate. God is Spirit and always existed as the Trinity. It was the Father who decided He wanted to have Children, knowing they will sin, and planned to make His only begotten Son to become the Father of the Children of God because He knew Adam would sin. So from the Children of Man (Adam) would come the Children of God (Jesus). Jesus is now permanently a puny Human Being with a body & soul. He no longer has God's power. God's Children will now get God's power ... through the Holy Spirit and he Angels. If Adam & Eve and their descendants were to never sin ... God would have made Man as a powerful spirt that can procreate. But God knew both puny Man & the powerful Angles will fall. Everything you need to know about life & death and existence is in Genesis. Ignore those moron Rabbis. God is a Trinity & Jesus is His only begotten Son. Genesis 22 is a Messianic Prophecy. Remember. Abraham knows God is a Father, Son & Spirit. Issac is not Abraham's "only begotten Son" which is said three times in the chapter. God will provide the sacrifice that will satisfy God. And God provide a Ram representing Israel. Christ is the English for the greek word for Messiah in Hebrew. Christianity is a religion for God & His Messiah. Rabbinic Judaism is a religion for Jews and their God. See the difference? God fulfilled His promise to Abraham through Christianity and the Messianic Jews who accepted Jesus as Lord & Savior. The Torah states the Jews will reject the Messiah, be cursed by God .... but ... will eventually repent their sins & accept the Son of God in end times. 6 x 1000 years Man will rule the Earth 1 x 1000 years God will rule the Earth. Judgement Day. The Jewish year is 5782 with many religious Jews believing they are living in end times and their Messiah will soon appear to save .... them. Jesus did die before the Temple was destroyed ( Daniel 9: 26) exactly 40 years (days) before, for the people of Jerusalem to repent their sins otherwise God will destroy the city ( Book of Jonah). Jesus will be returning in the year 6 000 to rule the Earth .... with 144 000 Jewish men from the 12 tribes who died believing in the "Christ" during the 7 year tribulation (Revelations). The New Testament is the continuation of the Torah. And this is not debatable because God has blessed Christianity and cursed Judaism. Rabbis can say whatever they want. God has made it clear what He thinks of the Trinity, Jesus & the New Testament.
Science is a religion. Religion was the source of science. Religion as a philosophy and science as a philosophy of nature. . Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason. There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
A good start for you is a dictionary and look up the term religion. This is will help you to stop making up your own definition, because that is not how English or any formal language works.
Intellectuals seek desperately for Truth but unfortunately their efforts are thwarted due to polarization in their respective fields. If they would accept that ABSOLUTE TRUTH does exist, and take an interdisciplinary approach, they would most certainly find it. I was a hardcore scientifically minded individual only interested in facts. Reading dozens upon dozens of books on Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, and understanding both subjects very well. My quest in this search for Truth was fueled by the abject terror I had for death. I desperately needed to know the Truth about life because once you’re dead, all bets are off. At one point I made a conscious decision to abandon my well trained logically thinking mind and dive into a field I had always assumed was completely illogical; the Holy Scriptures. I joined a small non-denominational church and walked down the isle receiving Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I was “told” by the pastor that I was now saved and going to Heaven; really? I didn’t feel any different and my sinful desires remained unchanged. Being the scientifically minded individual that I was, I wasn’t about to accept being told I’m saved; I needed CERTAINTY! I thought to myself, if the religious community is using the Holy Bible to teach and gain this knowledge and dogma, why not investigate it on my own? It seemed a very logical way to proceed. I purchased the King James Bible on CD, and listened to it constantly while stuck in rush hour traffic commuting back and forth to work. This was a total of 3 hours a day 5 times a week; 15 hours of Word a week is a lot of scripture feeding! This went on for over 3 years where it came to the point that not only did I have scores and scores of scriptures memorized, but also entire CHAPTERS memorized verbatim word for word! I had a lot of word in my head, but the software hadn’t downloaded to my heart! One day on Saturday March 25,1995 I was alone at the beach in my car listening to worship music, reading God’s Word, and loving God with all my mind, heart, soul, and strength. I remember reading to “love your enemies”, something I could never understand. I looked up to the sky with nothing but overwhelming love for Jesus; I thought to myself, “how beautiful it would be to just like Jesus”! No sooner had I thought this when suddenly it happened, it really happened! I saw something “open” inside my mind and all those scriptures that had been “buffering” for the past 3 years suddenly downloaded, opening my blind eyes, and skyrocketing my brain processes to unimaginable levels! I was in utter TERROR and thought to myself, “how is this possible Lord, how can a mere man understand GOD?” Several scriptures came rushing to the forefront but I will only mention 2 here: “Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.” (Proverbs 2:5) “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY IS UNDERSTANDING.” (Proverbs 9:10) The best way to describe what I felt that morning was HOLINESS had entered me, and in the process of this the demons that had been with me my entire life and I didn’t even know were there, had jumped out of me with a hideous screech! I also noticed an amazing phenomena when I began reading the Bible. I had always read and listened to the Bible as a 3rd person, this apostle is writing to this other apostle, this scripture doesn’t apply to me; for the very first time those same words were now HOLOGRAPHIC jumping out of the pages and speaking directly to me! I was as blind as a bat and only picked the nice soothing scriptures for me while mentally deflecting the harsh severe scriptures for the apostle who I thought the scriptures were being written to. I also knew that God had planned this all out from the beginning when I read: “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for YOU, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen YOU to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the TRUTH: Whereunto he called YOU by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14) I can’t express enough how addicted I became to the Word after that day! It’s no wonder scholars claim the Bible to be filled with contradictions; only after receiving the Spirit does everything make perfect sense! The Bible’s LOGIC is SUPERNATURAL and incalculably PERFECT! Humans can’t see this by casual reading and observation but only by the revelation of God himself. It’s no wonder when you read the following scripture, I came to the clear understanding the scripture is speaking of ITSELF, as Jesus is himself the Word made Flesh! “I AM the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by ME.” (John 14:6) That is why the scripture the follows says: “If ye had known ME, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have SEEN him.” (John 14:7) I hope and pray that through my ordeal and quest for Absolute Truth, people my come to the unmistakable conclusion that there is ONLY ONE WAY to God, and that is through his Word! “Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23)
I don't mean this as a slight upon Dennett or any other scientist who has had a proclivity to explore religious concepts, but what I regularly find to be marveling as someone who comes out of Religious Studies, is how little is understood between fundamental concepts that come out of this area of research and how little others who enjoy playing with these concepts have a basic conception of. Take as simple example the extent to which this dialogue practically exclusively revolves around the concepts within "theology" and the specific notion that there is only one overarching God and in turn effectively suggest this is how a proper framing of religion should be approached. While I highly appreciate the CtT series, the more I've watched it, the more it has proven a bias toward ignoring basic conceptions of religio that other fields of study have taken great care to consider as part of the totality of the claimed argument that science and religion aren't so different and that what scientists have for so long failed to take into consideration of just how complex and diverse human interaction with the numinous has been throughout its existence.
@@Bloozguy Thank you for providing the most simple-minded, unlearned, modern pro-science/anti-religion belief of what constitutes the vast totality of religio, and thus further adding to the validity of my point.
@@Bloozguy You're continuing to prove a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes the breadth of religio and deeper point I made with regard to Dennett and Kuhn only considering the typically Western-centrist, almost exclusively Judeo-Christian notion of theology. If you're so certain you know the "truth", maybe you should be contacting Kuhn instead of trying to prosletyze me into what keeps sounding like a personal axe to grind with God.
Your criticism isn't without merit but how many religious philosophies do you think need to be represented to provide a fair survey? Since most of the CtT's scientist and philosopher guests are from Western cultures, they can only respond to the concepts of god that they're familiar with. CtT is also limited to guests who speak the same language as Kuhn. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing guests who offer allegorical lessons for life, like, for example, scholars of Laozi or Gautama Buddha.
@Body By Stardust You haven't proven anything other than your religious fervor to attempt to proselytize your religion of science, which has yet to prove how and why consciousness attuned to the numinous. I never said you need a degree in RS or philosophy, but it certainly appears had you some general awareness of these concepts, you'd likely not be trying so hard to convince me you know the "truth" about something you keep proving to have little understanding of.
@Mike L It seems to me it would only take one. Certainly, in the case of Buddhism this challenges the entire notion when considering there is no conception of God. But there are a number of scholars who have argued Hinduism's Vedantic heritage as well as Daoism's deeper claims ultimately remove the Western concept of God altogether once you dig far enough. Kuhn has had a number of guests on whose philosophies are aware of but don't match with the standard Western theological or even philosophical framing that so much of science throughout its 500 year, give or take, history has aligned with. And to be clear, I'm very appreciative of Kuhn interviewing these thinkers. But my gripe remains, theology is but one, highly challengable notion of what constitutes Kant's conception of the noumenon and Otto's conception of the numinous. I found this to be a particularly good example of the challenges at hand when removing the strictly theological framing. ruclips.net/video/9zxqS7TzRUU/видео.html PS Kuhn just uploaded this episode which I can't help but to wonder if he read my comment and thought, "You obviously missed the episode I did in addressing this." Of course, while I side with Kuhn when considering how much analytic theology appears to complicate the nature of God even more, it doesn't resolve the fact that the Eastern traditions as well as some notable indigenous traditions bypassed this altogether and leaves open the possibility that sentience evolves out of the numinous. ruclips.net/video/yJhe-KBKNS8/видео.html
I can't watch any Dennett interviews anymore, because he's told an observation on CTT once before I'd rather not know.. unfortunately I cannot "un know" it. He informed that our full vision spectrum only captures an are about the size of a quarter, EVERYTHING else is peripheral. Indoor, outdoor, close, far... it doesn't matter. Upon simply looking he is right. I wish I never heard that.. ignorance was bliss. So I'm scared to listen to him speak lol. Seems silly huh? In my 50s and he's managed to take some innocence away from me lol. I kinda think he told that one on purpose too 😡. Gonna like.. but that's it lol.
Faith and fact cannot be reconciled. Believing something to be true is categorically different from knowing something to be true. One can believe 2+2=5, but that doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4.
@@dongshengdi773 ??? You're going to have to explain yourself. Science is not a religion, and my statement does not support that view. So how did you end up parsing it that way?
In 1931, mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel proved that any effectively generated theory capable of proving basic arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In other words, a mathematically sound theory lacks the means to prove itself. An analogous statement has been used to show that humans are subject to the same limits as machines. : 3x+1 Collatz Conjecture The Simplest Math Problem No One Can Solve The Collatz Conjecture is the simplest math problem no one can solve - it is easy enough for almost anyone to understand but notoriously difficult to solve. : a.x³ + bx? + cx + d = 0 Cubic Equation How Imaginary Numbers Were Invented (ie. negative numbers and infinite numbers) A general solution to the cubic equation was long considered impossible, until we gave up the requirement that math reflect reality. : Banach-Tarski and the Paradox of Infinite Cloning By MAX G. LEVY August 26, 2021 One of the strangest results in mathematics explains how it’s possible to turn one sphere into two identical spheres . . Why 1 = 2 ? WHY CAN'T YOU DIVIDE BY ZERO? In the world of math, many strange results are possible when we change the rules. But there's one rule that most of us have been warned not to break: don't divide by zero. How can the simple combination of an everyday number and a basic operation cause such problems?
@@thereligionofrationality8257 Misconceptions about Science if you truly understand SCIENCE... Science has Not Proven anything ... they are all theories only. Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof” Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Proofs are not the currency of science. all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven. by Satoshi Kanazawa - an evolutionary psychologist at LSE The Scientific Fundamentalist
@@dongshengdi773 Science is not about proofs. It's about observing reality and trying to create simple and rational models that best explain it. And please stop upvoting yourself.
Daniel Dennett's expression on his face as he asserts his materialistic view of reality, is the epitome of what it means to be "smug" and "condescending" about metaphysical ideas that he, in an alternate display of the "Dunning-Kruger Effect," is simply not conscious enough to realize that he is not conscious enough to comprehend.
God is an ocean of universal consciousness and this consciousness is pure and not tainted by qualities of matter. We derive our personal consciousness from this source. This primordial awareness has always existed or so they say, the ancient sages and seers of ancient India who came up with Advaita Vedanta, one of the main school of thoughts in Hinduism. What we call matter is consciousness itself. This may explain the growing near death experience literature and other paranormal phenomena like ghosts, hauntings, ESP, premonition, psychic medium readings (the genuine ones), and even dreams. The brain is seen here as an instrument. Now this may very well be true and science cannot do nothing about it. After all, science is based on pre-existing matter and material laws. It didn't create or dictate those laws. Similarly, the existence of consciousness (God) preceding space and time may very well be true. The near death experiences are very interesting and Advaita Vedanta was talking about the hard problem of consciousness in 7th century AD. The human nervous system is the most sophisticated machinary ever created to link to and explore levels of consciousness. Advaita says we have the waking state, dreams, and dreamless deep sleep. We are even aware of the darkness of dreamless sleep. It mentions a fourth state of 'turiya' which transcends the three normal states of consciousness and is bright like the sun. It's the universal consciousness or always existing source of sentience. It lits up matter with consciousness.
@@JungleJargon So the definition of god is "the source of all power"? That's not a definition I'd heard before but, if true, why not just call it "power" and avoid the unnecessary extra layer?
I so agree with Dennett at 2:46 - "I don't buy it. There's truth and then there's everything else." HOWEVER... With their common objective being Truth, good science & good religion belong together. How might we arrive at a satisfactory synthesis of science with religion? There's Truth, and then there's the question of what we do with that Truth. Good religion incorporates good science, to arrive at how that Truth should be interpreted and adjudicated. In a sense, good religion should be doing the task of philosophy, where Dennett himself said (if I remember correctly) that the role of philosophy is about asking the right questions.
Yes. That's the whole reason entanglement is so 'spooky'. It ignores the existence of light cones, and the wavefunction collapse forces entangled particles into displaying paired properties instantaneously. Ie. faster than the speed of light.
I don't think you understand light cones. "their separation is greater than their light cones" is a little like saying "I live farther away from my friend than his next doctor's appointment."
@@fluffysheap It was maybe my poor attempt at mimicking a profound observation coming from a simpleton, similar to Forrest Gump. At about 4 minutes in the video, they talk about things we can't ascertain that are outside the light cone. Because of cosmic inflation, the farthest observable objects are becoming unobservable (outside the light cone), yet they may still be entangled with objects that we can still see. That is the more precise version of my thinking and maybe it is flawed.
Faith in science doesn’t mean we will send prisoners to test drug to find cure. Faith in religions may blind ignorance but improve ethical that we accept like anti-war
There’s only one absolute truth. Emotions aren’t truth. Emotions are how you feel based on what you believe. The absolute truth is that no physical thing can ever make or direct itself. Only your Maker can remake you again.
The absolute truth that no physical thing can make or direct itself is a claim of absolute truth that should not be taken seriously. Only your Maker can remake you again assumes there is a maker. This is only a truth claim aimed at convincing people that are already bought in. Not everyone assumes there has to be a Maker. In the earlier creation stories the deity come later on in the history of the Cosmos. The earliest creation stories start with the primeval undifferentiated chaotic state that filled the Cosmos with the birth of God from the swirling abyss.
I am currently reading one of his books. He really does go into the details of a subject. You can say the devil is in the detail, when looked at closely its just nature not god.
what is life? what is consciousness? what is a Beethoven symphony? what is a flower? what is a tree? science describes processes and patterns, not what things are. Newton said it himself, there's no way to say what gravity actually is, science just tells us how it behaves. You can say how things act through science, but not what they are. Neils Bohr said science shows us what we can measure, and allows us to make predictions with high probability based on those measurement, but its not telling us what particles or the universe actually is, that is not what science does. science doesn't describe what anything actually is. science isn't philosophy.
Then you never heard of the philosophy of science. Science is an developing process, it does not matter, what Newton or Bohr said, what matters is, which of their ideas/statements were right in the long run. It's a fallacy to appeal to (scientific) authorities. They were great minds and helped develop the sciences tremendously (esp. Newton), but not everything they said was right. It's a wild assumption, that there is more than these processes and patterns (your so called 'what things are'). We as humans make chunks (a "tree", a "symphony", "life") by clustering the patterns we observe/invent. We define, make taxonomies, try to order patterns, give these 'things' names. There's nothing mystical. There is no other 'real thing' behind it. A thing is, what we define a certain thing shall be/represent. The real question is, how elaborate can science become, to get deeper and deeper to the fundamentals.
@@jonathanwalther of course i've read the philosophy of science. it goes back to aristotle and particularly bacon. so tell me what is consciousness? what is a tree? not what category you put it in based on the structure of our seeing, feeling, and cultural apparatuses, that have nothing to do with trees themselves. you can give me a symbol. you can play a "word game." that's it. in terms of the cosmos, you can also signify a pattern that will predict outcomes of processes with incredible probability, but that is it. what is gravity? what is any force? what is any law? what is any organism? what is it? what is time? we have no idea what it is. we can describe how the process works somewhat on a very elementary level, through science. the closest we can come to describing what things are on a purely rational basis, was probably attempted by Heidegger, and he couldn't pull it off (or at least he ended up writing so abstractly that what he means ends up being pretty subjective, and i'm uncertain if he totally defined what is to be a living being). is what i do, what i am on a cosmic existential level? a chimpanzee is a banana eater that climbs trees? is that what it is? it is what it does? i dont think so, because i look at it and see this living organism that isn't just what it does. it's this living being. it's species is just an abstract name we threw on it to categorize it with other beings we see as similar, but that is just our construct. we can deconstruct it down to smaller bits to see what it is made of, but what its made of, isn't what it is. it is a chimpanzee. i am a person. a living orgainism in time, that isnt just a coffee drinker that writes and shoots photos. i'm this thing. but what am i? yes there are particles that make up proteins and chemicals that make up my body. but a car isn't its axle. it isnt its steering wheel or its metal, it isn't oil and gas. a car is a car. but what is a car? again what is consciousness?
It's annoying to hear someone slander natural theology (or just theology in general) when it's obvious that they don't know very much about it at all. Everything Dennett says about God doesn't actually apply to God as understood in classical theism. Maybe he's reacting more to God as described by contemporary analytic philosophy of religion?
Guys Not put his finger in fundamental questions in phich and religious show his discern them are nill. In this sense guys are talking has no sense rethoric
Until we stop looking for God with a scientific framework we will never end this disagreement. Of course we won’t find him through science, God is not a being, He is not a supreme being, God is the pure act of Being, from which and by which all contingent particular things have their existence. God is Love as well as Creator. This is why we say he has personhood. Not that he is a bearded old man on a throne. If you can believe in the Big Bang, which I do, that the universe came forth from a very dense particle of singularity, that at the speed of light time ends, and some of the concepts of space time…how can we not grasp the philosophical constructs of God?
Until we stop looking for werewolves with a scientific framework we will never end this disagreement. Of course we won’t find leprechauns through science,. Yahweh, werewolves, and leprechauns are not beings that can be detected and thus we can infer that they likely don't exist at all. At best, we could conjecture that they have an inconsequential irrelevant existence.
How many times have religious theologies had to accept that their view of reality was wrong ? That anyone can believe that they have the real answers is obviously ridiculous. They don't.
@@JD-HatCreekCattleCo Science evolves as more information becomes available. Just the way it should be. Religion has always had to evolve in an attempt to stay relevant to a changing society. Just look at how much of the bible has been discarded as no longer relevant ? I would say that a vast majority of their gods commandments are being simply ignored as no longer socially acceptable or simply inconvenient at this point. Why should we accept their god when they can't even agree on it ? All trying too push their particular reality on a public that's no longer as simpleminded as they would like us too be. I love how all the other theologies are absolutely wrong. But, the one they follow is somehow the exemption. But, of course every religion has too believe that they have the right interpretation of reality. No matter how much of reality has to be ignored too make it fit.
@@thomasridley8675 Every word in the Bible is as true as it ever was. Some of it is mythology and not really meant to be taken literally, some is in coded language, and some of it was never intended to apply to Christians, only Jews. Some is hard to interpret because the cultural context has changed, or because the language itself is hard to understand. None of that is the same as "discarded because it's inconvenient."
Daniel acknowledge he doesn't know about a huge amount of things and even agree he or science will never know everything, obviously he cant explain why he's able to have those believes (aka consciousness) BUT he 'thinks" he knows enough to exclude GOD from his believes. Why science has to exclude GOD from their field of study Daniel?
Physicist Sir John Polkinghorne. He was knighted in 1997 and in 2002 received the £1-million Templeton Prize, awarded for exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension. A famous theoretical physicist who became an Anglican priest . author of five books on physics and twenty-six on the relationship between science and religion;[9] his publications include The Quantum World (1989), Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship (2005), Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion (2007), and Questions of Truth (2009). . He is just one of hundreds of Scientists who are also priests .
Isn't the Templeton foundation biased toward religion/spiritually? Hundreds of scientists out of the total of hundreds of thousands to millions of non deity believing scientists.
Great question. My theory: Jesus says it's God pleasure to give the kingdom to those who believe in him. We also learn from Genesis that we're made in his image. Perhaps God views us as a Father views his child/children. Best answer I can give I'm afraid.
Nobody as far as I'm aware has made contact with a God, has evidence for it or even knows what it wants (if anything). I've searched all my life and have come up with nothing. Dan and I are in agreement in this regard.
@@edcarew4971 let us note, ed the states sitting 'president' creature-thing is also world renowned so much for dragging out notoriety a thorough thinker with thinking a notably far- lesser faculty than intuition (heart) and direct apprehension (gut) thought hard, got nowhere (even a little smugly)? maybe try something else?
Glory? What about all of the pain, suffering, agony, loneliness, hate, etc. Oh, those came about by mindless accident but the good stuff came about by .
@@mikel5582 All things are judgments of God. There is no power that is not of God. You need to question your intentions. Your Creator has greater judgments than you.
@@JungleJargon By extension, because you "know" this god to be true while I doubt its existence, you believe your judgement to be superior to mine... and the billions of people who don't share your specific conviction.
Draw the two Venn Diagrams of Science and Religion. Then draw the circle around both of human thought. Those neurons in the 21st Century Scientist's brain are the same neurons in the ancient thinker's brain. Until we fully understand the cognitive science down to the simplest physical level inside the neurons.....The present Identity and Computational Theories are circling the target but have not gotten in.
The reductionist attitude built over time of a scientist's career makes its way into his real life also. This reduces to the basic requirement of having food to survive in his/her life and therefore he/s shuns materialism and stick with just food as a 'reduced' basic need.
Daniel Dennett reminds me of a religious fundamentalist. They know that they know. Lawrence Kuhn knows that he doesn't know. I am more on the latter side.
I cnt except god as an answer.its a cop out..we all can be good human beings .i don't need religion for that..yes some religion can do good just like the salvation army does..but we are now of modern day human brains with all the information we have over eons..but people still makebelieve a god....why?no evidemce and science deals on proof and evidence .that gets reasoned by peers.To show its real..but religion to me is just a fairy tale to keep u down xx😍 love to all❤❤
There is friction between science and religion because people fail to see their common denominator. Science and religion complement each other and they are on both sides of the same coin. Science is a religion and it requires faith as much as religion does. Even atheism is a religion that requires faith that no deity exists. Proponents of science rely their faith on an institution called the scientific community. In fact there was a study made that "Faith in Science" has significantly declined in numbers as reported by the New York Post in 2012. … Many sciences require faith; in Physics, the singularity gave birth to the universe from nothing to everything, in Biology, abiogenesis claims precursors of DNA gathered together and communicated to form life, even though we can't create life even by mixing the ingredients together in a lab, and no one knows who wrote the instructions imbedded in a DNA, nor the instructions of an atom, nor the laws of physics, in Psychology or Medicine, we rely on faith in our doctors. Faith is the psychological force which motivates a man to act upon his beliefs and hopes. It transcends belief in that it is the force which puts belief into action. Example, astronomers from SETI have faith that they will eventually discover aliens.
Science does not require faith. Science is methodology to understanding how do we know what we know. Religion assumes the conclusion and then filters all their data through the conclusion that God exists and created the universe. Science start with observation then come up with a hypothesis to explain the behavior there observing. Then they come up with predictions that they can test their hypothesis against. This is the exact opposite of what religion does. Physics does not say the singularity gave birth to the universe from nothing that is what pastors and theologians say. Singularities in physics means that the equation broke down and no longer is describing what is happening. The idea that the Universe arose from a singularity has been shown to be wrong based on observation of the CMB. The CMB shows that the Cosmos was smooth and uniform with quantum jitters. Applying General Theory of Relativity which says a uniform gravitational field causes the Cosmos to expand over itself. The Cosmos does not have a beginning in the normal sense of the word beginning. The initial expansion of the Cosmos is the beginning of time itself making the Cosmos The Beginning. The end of the expansion of the Cosmos is the end of time making the Cosmos The End. Whether or not you want to call that God it does not matter because there is no point in praying to the Cosmos because it is so far removed from humanity that the Cosmos is unable to care about the human condition. Are their people that pray to the Cosmos? yes and they have similar transcendental life changing experiences that traditional theist have.
There is no difference in them, they are both derived from the human brain, which is the same as everything in the universe, there is no difference between you, me, the trees, water, fire, planets, galaxies, math, physics, thermodynamics ECT...we are the universe experiencing itself and that's my final answer...
Dont believe in anything you cant SEE or see the EFFECT'S of. A man that believes will never learn anything new. Beliefs are chains. We must look at life with a skeptical open mind.
Anything that has clear & obvious ... purpose, form, structure ... is a Function. All Functions ... are systems that PROCESS inputs into outputs ... and have purpose, forms( design) & properties which are all INFORMATION. All Functions ... possess & require ... INFORMATION to exist & to function. Information ... can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence. Purpose & Design ... can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence. And everything in the Universe .... has clear & obvious ... PURPOSE & DESIGN. Universe, galaxy, Solar system, Sun, Earth, Moon, Atmosphere, Air, water, soil, minerals, and life .... have clear & obvious purpose & design .... and are FUNCTIONS that possess & require INFORMATION to exist & to funciton. We have religions ... because Man is an intelligence ... and knows what a Function is and who makes them. Man did not make the Universe & himself .... but a supernatural intelligence like Man did.
Quick question: Why should i “believe” this? According to you, that which can’t be seen or its effects isn’t worthy of belief. That very principle itself doesn’t fulfill its own criteria for belief.
Transgender Is A Malfunction Of Creation It is not a Choice as the God worshipers claim. For those who hate Truth just point out what is not true in this post. That would be Honest and Wise. Truth Is Existence No Man Is Truth. Truth is All That Truly Exists. Other Than Truth there is Just The understood Concept of An Absence. Lies with intent to deceive or not is fantasy. Lies remain in the nonexistent realm. Truth only frees you from Lies and deceit Creation is only the Rearrangement of Matter. As, Matter does not evolve from nothing. The Great intelligent Designer and Creator, Matter, Knowledge, Energy, Time, Space, and The Spirit Energy Source, Has Always Existed. All are Without Beginning or end. Beginning and the End only reveals an absence. Spirit Energy Source Is True Science. It is not Religion. knowledge and understanding is of the Spirit Energy Source The Great Creator Is Spirits The Great Creator is not a Father or a lord those both are just a man, just humans. The Great Creator is far more Massive and complex than the God worshipers realize and understand. The Great Creator is not a being somewhere in space. The Great Creator is a huge mass of spirits in perfect unity. And with the same care and respect for each another. Truth is not free. Truth has absolute boundaries'. Justice comes only by the truth. Free has absolutely no boundaries', free is chaos. The Basic Of Justice is do unto others as you would like to be done unto you. The Basic principle of Christianity, It is far from Justice. To sentence and executing an innocent man for the crime of all humanity. What Honest person would let your neighbor be executed for your own crime? Evidently a Christian would. However, you all will face your own consequences, for your corruption and crime. You will not pin it on an innocent man. You all will harvest what you plant. And Christianity also promote Cannibalism by a ritual that they pretend they are eating Jesse's flesh and drinking his blood. The Great Creator performs Justice. You all will face your own consequences for your corruption and crimes. You will not pin them on an innocent man. Christian's : How is it that you successfully deceive those in other nations to worship your Imaginary Mythical Gods and then go to war for the nation you worship and kill those members of your own churches. Words to the honest and wise: honesty and understanding is the only true belief. Without honesty and understanding we do not know what to believe. To accept other’s opinion of the truth without proving it to yourself; it is being deceived it is not believing. We must understand to believe. Until Next time: Sweet Dreams: Truth will solve all our problems before we create them; and ignore or reject the truth; problems will multiply all by themselves; those problems will need no help. Have a great and a meaningful life if it is at all possible. Just whispers, of the Ghost of Reality.
At this point, both terms are too general for the question. The root of the word religion is along the lines of, 'that which connects a person to something greater'. To generalize so broadly is unfortunate when it sure seems this argument is about mashing all the denominalizations of all religions into one thing. That's the same as mashing together scientism with scientific thinking. True science oughta be at odds with scientism, but that's barely on most people's radar with the mass trance and trauma over the past 2.5 years. It seems to me there isn't a single person on the planet that doesn't operate through faith - it's impossible not to have faith.(*Not some trite definition whereby it's blind belief). Consider that faith is a practice of how a person co-creates their experience of reality - in part that which a person continually thinks about, generates emotions from, and validates their existence by - it's what every person practices whether they're aware of it, make beleiving they're beyond it, or playing victim to the practice of their faith.
Your clearly not happy that science has definitions that actually reflect how it has changed and developed as a method . You prefer root definitions so that you can mischaracterise what it actually is . Nothing is science is based on faith .
We are creatures of exploration. Science has been for the greater part of our history the quintessential vehicle we have used in this search of what makes and is reality. Today I like to announce we have a new and definite answer to that question. GOD IS THE FOUNDATION OF REALITY AND HE HAS GIVEN US THE MATH TO KNOWN AND PROVE HIM TO BE SO. God is the "FINE TUNER" of our universe, and He is eternal. The truth is in the math. What is a number? A Mathematical Proof Here is that proof: Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1. This equation says a number, any number is a set-in space that change with space. In physics this equation reads: Gravity is matter changing with space. It combines Relativity or fractured space with Quantum mechanics or spatial expansion. How dose God fit into this equation? This equation is God's mathematical name. God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God. Breakdown: God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore, man is a fraction of God Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind. Plus (+) in math means: “with” the addition of There is only one God. In mathematics the number “1” represents a single entity. Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed (delta) With (+) God (1).
Scientific Method Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4 Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist, He should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set-in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1)) Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of 3 domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion a.k.a time and energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exists otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number.
Cantor's Mistake George Cantor known as the father of set theory was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. Example. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! A correct set correspondence method Here is a better way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say 2. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of 100 divided by the square root of 25. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality, but they also describe our existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Numbers like truths don't lie. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is in many ways our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discovery comes about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based in math or science but in faith. We have been blessed. I believe we are at a point in our evolution where we can come to know God in the science we study. We should not be afraid of knowing God's working regardless as to how He choose to do those works. Whether it be evolution or any other method in His works we get to know the truth is we are here to learn and practice those learnings. If doubt remain then please answer this question. What is a number? Google it if you need help. Infinity says a number is both qualitatively and quantitatively a set-in space that change with space. Isn't this what we do when we count or measure anything at all. Yes, this is exactly what we do when we measure or count anything. In counting we take a memory or a something we name and put that something into an order of some kind in the space of our mind. We can arrange that something into least to greatest or whatever meets our satisfaction but the fact that we put anything into an ordered sequence is in effect making a change happen. So, there we have it. A set in the space of our mind changes with the mind. At one moment the set is 1 and at the next moment it is 2 then 3, 4, 5 and so on. In conclusion. Fighting over whether Creationism or Evolution is the right answer as to why we are here is the wrong picture both have a place with God. william.mabon@yahoo.com
Again it’s a belief. You believe in big bang theory because it’s theoretically possible. But none of us witnessed big bang. why theory is better than religion beliefs?
I expect you To be and you will be the High of all civilisation ever be with spiritual and science and tecnology all mix with love inconditionnel love. That is my response to your question. You have To belive I AM human because you will not see me. So,now I decide To change this prophecy the new name of all this. Is The New Chance. So I deasaper for a bit. You should see me all over the planet so be good to all I love and care of each
At the ROOT of the God's matter there is a LOGICAL ISSUE, monotheism is not acceptable. The almighty God knows the future, more particularly the ACTUAL future: EXACTLY what it will really happen! But that ACTUAL future also includes many God's actions. Well, God has no intention to be OBLIGED to EXACTLY carry out all the God's actions LISTED in that future. It's not necessary: as far as He is concerned God simply states "so be it", that's all and He is free. Indeed "being almighty" also means "NEVER carry out REDUNDANT ACTIONS". This is what happened, this is why you have christianity: God does not dwell here among us now, God is thus like a spirit here. God manifests himself in three different ways: Father, Son and Spirit of God (AKA Holy Spirit). However, they are NOT three different Persons, no triune God exists.
Bob please check this verse. Quran 17/85 SAHIH INTERNATIONAL And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, “The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little.”
@@friendoengus They make some obvious statements that underscore this. Dennett and the other New Atheists bone to pick is not with the modern Catholic Scholars but Fundamentalists. But being an institutional academic always puts him at odds with religion.
Science has not answered most of the Big questions in nature because Science has limitations to what it can do. Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, mathematician, broadcaster and author Marcus du Sautoy in his book, . He took over this position from atheist Richard Dawkins in 2008. There are still a lot of things we do not know. It’s important that people realize there are limitations to science. “Perhaps we need to think about more positive dialogue perhaps with science and society and issues of religion, for example, and we look for ways can share the different ways we look at the world rather than polarizing it,” du Sautoy said. "I wonder, whether as I come to the end of my exploration at the limits of knowledge, I have changed my mind about declaring myself an atheist. With my definition of a God as the existence of things we cannot know, to declare myself an atheist would mean that I believe there is nothing that we cannot know. I don’t believe that anymore. In some sense I think I have proved that this God does exist. It’s now about exploring what quality this God has." From atheist to agnostic believer after more than a decade of holding the position as Professor of Public Understanding of Science.
thank you, dongsheng notable that sincere scientists devoted to inquiry generally make enough progress to engage theism (having got more than they bargained for and thereby needing it)
The "big" questions for science evolve with new knowledge. When we solve one question other new questions often emerge. That's the nature of inquiry and I don't know of a single scientist who doesn't understand this. Which specific big questions do you think remain to be solved? If these are solved, will you agree that we don't need to invent supernatural explanations or will you complain that there are still more unanswered questions that continue to emerge.
Actually science has answered all the big questions. Scientist are constantly enquiring and refining their knowledge, because science requires evidence to overcome scrutiny which is part of the method. Religion doesn’t answer anything because all it requires is nothing but belief, and people who want to believe regardless of evidence.
It would say "Whether real or fiction, God is sentient intelligence with a mind, free will, nature and can make maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes abstract or physical FUNCTIONS." Hmmmm? Clever AI.
Trying to use our minds basically .. Everything in the world, even the whole universe itself starts and ends ..Is born and dies . So, No other solution .. rather than; ..there must be a creator that is not born and never dies ..has no start and no end . If you want another solution try to find another thing that has no start and no end ..even if you thinck it is mother nature or any other thing or parrell universes..try to fitch and find out non born non dying anything any constitution..try to reason up .
Alexander Pruss formulates the argument as follows: 1. Every contingent fact has an explanation. 2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. 3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. 4. This explanation must involve a necessary being. 5. This necessary being is God. (Creator, Designer, Programmer, Initiator, First Cause, Unmoved Mover)
@@dongshengdi773 *"4. This explanation must involve a necessary being."* ... That's where you run into some logical problems. That's a quite a _quantum leap_ from simple "facts" to the necessity for an "omnipotent being." Item (4) could have just as easily been, _"This explanation only requires the presence of all contingent facts and nothing more."_
The problem with using our minds to come up with solutions of what is true is we operate with different information and points of view. The Universe has a start or end is an assumption that has not been demonstrated. The mathematics of beginning break down at a singularity. In calculus a singularity means the equation that is being used is no longer valid. According to the General Theory of Relativity an empty Cosmos has accelerated expansion due to having zero spatial curvature and zero gravity. This means that we can never arrive a true beginning or get to a true end. This means if we could remove all matter, energy, space and time from the Cosmos we still would not have nothing according to physicist. We have not yet reasoned that the Universe has a beginning we only show that we have limits to how far we can trace back cosmic time.
@@kos-mos1127 In addition to start and end concept, the whole universe is obviously .. matter with no mind , So it is not capable of creating neither itself nor others . If you assume it has limitless great great intelligence and highly sophisticated mind capable of designing, engineering & implementing rather than and above all creating ..life/ nature/laws and stunning live beings holding altogether the whole nuclear explosive 13.7 milliard year non-vanishing steady precise path universe including milliards& milliards of galaxies which.. all is far far beyond all humans mind capabilities...if so; please note your talking about GOD . Another proof; Absolute nothingness is just like zero ..it is merely a hypothesis it is the opposite of existence...so, absolute nothingness, zero .. absolute void can never exist ..so it was not there before the existence of the universe as assumed by most of people.. specially..atheists. If there is anything that exists now .. directly it means there is some original existence who extends in all direction and dimensions leaving no space to any other thing.nothing before him nothing after him no other existence with him because he is the absolute inclusive existence..all other matter are s.th. like drawings..not true original existence . Force/ energies draw the whole universe...matter is s.th. we feel.due to energies. majority / more than 99% of any matter is space except for tiny under-atom particles which I do thinck they are going to prove they are mere energy ..so space and matter are not true existence ..just 3d drawings-like far far marvelous precisely world synchronized creatures.
@@zeigbert1743 i get you, and do not entirely concur, because what is represented as science popularly these days is so often bald scientism (especially claims without legitimate evidence), amounting to just another deluded religion
@@friendoengus I wouldn't argue with that. A lot of what's called science nowadays is really just postmodernist activism. Postmodernism is a secular religion.
He thanks goodness. Without God, there’s no good no bad, just a universe that came to be by accident and the resulting materials reacting to one another. Lord in Heaven, smart people say the dumbest things
I somewhat agree with your argument. Good and bad are relative. A lion eating a gazelle is good for the lion but bad for the gazelle. If the skills that the lion used to catch the gazelle are manifested from genomic information that benefits its offspring, then it's good for lions as a species. If the gazelle lacked traits that enable it to evade being eaten then it's removal from the gene pool might be good for gazelles as a species. Objecrive good and bad for humans can be thought of in the same manner. Traits that benefit the species can be considered good while traits that are detrimental to the species can be considered bad. That assumes that we consider the continuation of the human species as being good. I think the jury is still out on that. 😉
@@mikel5582 The jury isn't even consulted whether you believe in the God of the Bible or not. If you don't believe in the God of the Bible then all of this is an accident that ends in destruction and again there's no good nor evil, just what is and its all temporary.. If you accept the Bible then God is the ultimate good and life transcends the material universe with eternal implications for humans. It's very black and white.
God is an ocean of universal consciousness and this consciousness is pure and not tainted by qualities of matter. We derive our personal consciousness from this source. This primordial awareness has always existed or so they say, the ancient sages and seers of ancient India who came up with Advaita Vedanta, one of the main school of thoughts in Hinduism. What we call matter is consciousness itself. This may explain the growing near death experience literature and other paranormal phenomena like ghosts, hauntings, ESP, premonition, psychic medium readings (the genuine ones), and even dreams. The brain is seen here as an instrument. Now this may very well be true and science cannot do nothing about it. After all, science is based on pre-existing matter and material laws. It didn't create or dictate those laws. Similarly, the existence of universal consciousness (God) preceding space and time may very well be true. The near death experiences are very interesting and Advaita Vedanta was talking about the hard problem of consciousness in 7th century AD. The human nervous system is the most sophisticated machinary ever created to link to and explore levels of consciousness. Advaita says we have the waking state, dreams, and dreamless deep sleep. We are even aware of the darkness of dreamless sleep. It mentions a fourth state of 'turiya' which transcends the three normal states of consciousness and is bright like the sun. It's the universal consciousness or always existing source of sentience. It lits up matter with consciousness. This is an endless debate. Check Dr. Mary Neal talk about her NDE on Ted talks. Such first person subjective experience is the ultimate proof of where consciousness comes from. Science can only be objective and consciousness is a phenomena of subjectivity. How do we reconcile the two? As Advaita Vedanta suggests, the objects arise with the subject and reality rests on this foundation of primordial awareness. It just is. The 'I' sense in us is a pale reflection of this reality.
@@friendoengus @friend agni Aloha. To go into the depth of Advaita Vedanta I suggest looking up Sarvapriyananda on RUclips. He's so clear and coherent in his explanation of the core truths of Vedanta. This entire philosophy is based on our everyday experience of the waking state, dreams, and the blankness of deep sleep. It then discerns what is real, that which never changes, and the changeless background of being or awareness against which all changes are perceived. Religious concepts and scriptures are just hearsays. The truth is experiencable because it is your very being. You must yourself be the truth. Check him out. Search: Sarvapriyananda
@@friendoengus Here are some excerpts from I AM THAT: "All questions arise from your believing yourself to be a person." "How little does man know of his Self [the one, immortal, formless substratum of all that exists], how he takes the most absurd statements about himself for holy Truth. He is told that he is the body, was born, will die, has parents, duties; learns to like what others like and fear what others fear." " To you, you get born and die, while to me the world appears and disappears. You see yourself in the world, while I see the world in myself. You cling to the idea that you were born into a world of pain and sorrow; I know that the world is a child of love." "Why don't you enquire how real are the world and the person?" "To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. And to know what you are not you must watch yourself carefully, rejecting all that does not necessarily go with the basic fact: "I am". The ideas: I am born at a given place, at a given time, from my parents and now I am so-and-so, living at, married to, father of, employed by, and so on, are not inherent in the sense "I am". Our usual attitude is of "I am this". Separate consistently and perseveringly the "I am" from "this" or "that", and try to feel what it means to be, just to be, without being "this" or "that". All our habits go against it and the task of fighting them is long and hard sometimes, but clear understanding helps a lot. The clearer you understand that on the level of the mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker you will come to the end of your search and realize your limitless being." Nisargadatta, I AM THAT
@@friendoengus A far-fetched proposition for science but not for reality. It is unaffected by our interpretations of it. This light makes everything possible and loveworthy!! It is consciousness that loves science and mathematics, and art, and literature, and so on. It discovers the laws of nature in science, and refutes them too in religion. Therefore anything we can observe cannot be reality. Hint: Who is doing the observing?
How arrogant! Accually he is anthrpolitan himself, because he does not acknowledge the limitation of human senses and intellectual power - how sad, but typical western thinking indeed; indian knowledge took the limitation of human mankind into account from the beginning of thinking about reality!...
How seriously should one take a person who thinks that God, who is supposedly the architect of the entire cosmos, could become so idle as to be playing, pardon me, did he say "air guitar"? What do humans really know? Most of humans' major discoveries and inventions are purely accidental and we like to parade ourselves as the geniuses there ever can be.
The cultural origins of the different religious theologies can't be overlooked. The gods are always an extension of the culture it came from. The main purpose of spiritual theologies are too imprint their reality on the population as a means of social control. Where individually is seen as a threat and must suppressed at all costs. Using lethal force if necessary. Creating their laws to enforce whatever reality they believe in. And their interpretation of scripture is used as justification for their position of authority. Even if you have to totally corrupt the foundational theology in the process. There isn't a spiritual based theology out there that can stand up too even a basic reality check. Of course, if you lose your religion, you also lose your special position in the reality they have built for you. The few to be saved, the proud of their hypocrisy and delusional faith in all too convenient gods.
Daniel Dennett is the most underrated being right now.
He is arguably the greatest thinker , philosopher with thorough Scientific knowledge in the last century.
His take on many things will stand the absolute test of time. The religious spiritual folks hate him but that's okay.
I TOTALLY agree with your assessment of Dennett (apart from the fact that he is a TOTALLY deluded criminal). ;)
He really fell short in a different CtT video discussing free will (in my opinion) but this video was a thoughtful discussion.
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda May jug and guru Swami Vegan egg bless you.
I totally agree.
Coincidentally I am reading one of his books. I didn’t realised how technical and insightful he is about a subject matter. Brilliant.
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda Oh dear, did someone take you comfort blanket away from you?
I'll ask some questions of which, alas and alack, RLK seems to be unaware:
1. What exactly is one thanking when one thanks goodness? Why not thank evil if that just happens to produce an end that you want?
2. Is religion all about wanting someone to thank in any case? Who says so?
3. In any case, why should we regard our need to give thanks as being, in some way, misleading? What is to stop it from being a pointer (however inchoately) to its own answer?
4. Which theologians maintain that theology is the _only_ way other than science of knowing the world? (Most theologians I know and read are perfectly happy to accept that art, music, literature, history, philosophy and one's senses generally can deliver truth, even if not always.)
5. Why should science be the only discipline capable of asking, good, principled, sensible, and useful questions?
6. How can the issue of whether questions make any sense be settled by science? (Science, like other things, seem simply to _require_ its questions to have these qualities right from the off.)
7. Finally a happy observation. Dennett gives several definitions of 'God', all of which are pretty well deistic (law giver, law chooser, etc.), shows (or rather just presupposes) how each one has been defeated, then jumps to the conclusion that such a god is not really needed at all. Well done, Dan! At last, it's nice to find a point being expressed here with which most theologians would heartily agree. I cannot be selfish here, so I hope this fact makes Dan happy, too..
People say "thank goodness" so they don't have to say "God" and take the name of the Lord in vain.
@@Bloozguy You are absolutely right! I will, though, offer a description that you say is missing because that is the easy bit. The god you mention is an Xman, Dumbledore writ large, a CEO of the angels, a Big Invisible Thing (or Ego or Entity). He is just one more thing among others and merely occupies the top-floor of the building as he yells down his orders, and hires and fires. Happily, there is no need to worry about his power source, because he simply doesn't exist.
Glad to have been of service.
The problem with these discussions in the West is that when people say "religion" what they really mean is "Christianity" b/c that is their default and they do not or cannot think outside of a Christian framework for religion (and spirituality). If these people are serious about exploring the religion/spiritual question, they need to do a much better job inquiring into Eastern religion/spiritual traditions and trying to understand the universe from their perspective, which is meaningfully different than Christian theology.
@Robocrop Dude (or dudette), what the hell are you talking about? First off all stop the stupid name-calling. You don't know who I am or anything about me, so saying I'm a "hippie" just shows your ignorance.
More to the point is that nothing I said has to do with religion per se, though I used the word "theology." I am talking about different ways of understanding reality.
Don't see your point about everything religion being base don't astrology, and don't know what you're talking about re: the "double headed eagle."
Relax.
Idk I dont think shinto or daoism is supported by empirical evidence
@@paulcallahan7727 I never said it was.
Yes, and then maybe after exploring all the different types of religion they'll realize how arbitrary it is based on culture you grow up in and drop religion altogether
@@aaronp8874 Maybe, maybe not. I think there could be more nuance, though I have thought similarly to you in the past.
I love you Dr. Dennett!!
I love it! Dennett puts religion on par with cuisine! I put cuisine above religion.
Where does finger-painting rank?
I don't need religion but life without cuisine would be wretched.
Well that’s exactly what God is, Goodness itself. Not a being among beings , but being itself.
That's a belief (amongst many others, what 'god' shall be in the eye of the believer), but not an explanation or prove for anything. Your definition (god==goodness=='being itself') is just a playing with words.
And thus completely invisible
Will defining god get us closer to truth?
Plotinus 'Enneads' and the Periphyseon are 2 books that must be read, studied and practiced.
The latter book teaches how to think, ask question, dielectic, Reason; the former discusses what science cannot and is metaphysics.
thank you
suspect you are correct, and look forward to chewing on these books
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.
To believe in nothing is an empty belief. But a belief is required. because nothing can be proven with our limited understanding. People hang on to words others say without fully analyzing it for themselves. Blinded we truly are and yet you think you can see. define words to be your bricks and what you build with them becomes your prison of your mind and soul.
You wrote "to believe in nothing is an empty belief" and then followed with "nothing can be proven." If one can prove "nothing" then believing in "nothing" seems like a rational position to take.
2:17-2:41 "Let's look at each side of this equation, the theology side and the science side … from the methodologies that are involved in each one: how can we define it simply … because the methodologies are so different therefore they are like two different dimensions and canpas equally?"
Mr. Dennett comes up with the answer to a different question. He doesn't mention theology at all but suddenly the question is somehow about "emotional truth":
3:03-3:17 "There isn't the scientific truth and then emotional truth. No, there's truth. And the scientific method is the best method we've come up with yet for getting at the truth, and it can get at the truth of emotions."
I don't doubt that for a second. But equalling theology to "emotions" is quite a bit of a stretch of course. From the Cambidge Dictionary:
emotion -> a strong feeling such as love or anger, or strong feelings in general
theology -> the study of religion and religious belief, or a set of beliefs about a particular religion
The terms are not equal. Which disqualifies Mr. Dennett's reply.
7:22-7:30 "I want to know how theology aims at the truth without following in the footsteps of science."
This summarizes the remainder of the video. The interviewer comes up with two approaches: "natural theology" which is quickly dismissed and rightly so, and "reveal technology" which Mr. Dennett calls "auto anthropology": "should we take it any more seriously than we take the river god of those people on that island?"
Yes, I think we should, since there is actually much that hints at God's existence. I will only give one example, to keep this post relatively short. But if anyone is interested, I can provide more. Just state so in a reply.
In their book _Memories of Heaven_ Wayne Dyer and Dee Garnes have compiled over 200 conversations with young children who say they remember heaven, where they were before they were born. "Over 200" is rather structural, and besides, there are plenty of examples of this phenomenon on the internet; these are clearly not a few cases where children have let their imaginations run wild. As they grow older, the memory fades and disappears, as we all have with what is no longer relevant to our daily lives. A few quotes:
_Her Father asked what Jesus was like, and Lorna's face lit up. "He was pretty," she told her father. "He had shiny eyes and He made us all glad."
April then responded, "I talked to Mr. Jesus." To which her father said, "When did you talk to Mr. Jesus?" What she said next amazed him. She said, "When I was in heaven."
I cautiously asked, "Was he [Jesus] talking back?"
"Yes"
"What was he saying?"
"He was saying he made the clouds."
"Why do you look so unhappy?"
"Because I used to be with him. Now he just talks to me."_
Science and religion have something in common...the search for the truth...god bless everyone
The strategy adopted by certain materialist thinkers to respond to legitimate objections to the conclusions of the materialist ideology seem to be to first construct for themselves a punching bag of an opponent epitomizing the silly literalism of religion and then to punch and mock and lampoon this opponent. In this manner they are able to cleverly escape from a thorough examination of their own (utterly fatuous) ideas and divert public attention. The anchor of the program also cannot, due to reasons of time etc., do the required counter questioning.
What materialist thinkers and also the general public swayed by them must realize is that not all of the religious people in the ancient and mediaeval times were fools. All of the important questions of today were discussed in some form by the sharp and acute philosophers of the ancient period. Questions such as whether "prakrti" (matter / nature) could, by herself, evolve to meet the needs of the pure, conscious personality were meditated (thought hard) on and only then a super-intelligent mind of a transcendental personality was introduced. All this was done with the aid of logic rooted in the reality of the world. Similarly, the limitations of the brain in relation to subjective conscious experience were also realized, and the presence of a conscious, purely spiritual first principle known as "purusa" (conscious personality / soul) was inferred.
The materialists and many of their followers who indulge in trollish behavior would not like to engage with this intelligent group of philosopher-scientists representing the creme de la creme of religion. The anchors too do not seem to bring up the thoughts of these intellectuals to foster serious discussion. As a result, what happens in these conversations is the materialists gleefully engage in punching at the lowest common denominator happy and content in the knowledge that all their own deficiencies, fatuous conclusions and enormous loopholes would now face no serious competition and their mocking, sneering tone would be ample entertainment for the impish followers who blindly support the "superstar" materialists without utilizing their own mental faculties.
Had there been genuine and sincere engagement with an intelligent opponent, the materialists would surely have been left red-faced, given the Alice-in-wonderland nature of the explanations furnished by them with respect to such deep mysteries of existence as conscious experience. The brain which is a mass of unconscious material substance is supposed to give us consciousness! And they have the temerity to say it's the religious who believe in magic! Neurons whose Action Potential lasts for only a few milliseconds are supposed to store memories for years! The neuronal brain is supposed to be both subject and object, thinker and thought, feeler as well as felt and rememberer and remembered! All these fatuous conclusions of the materialist philosophy simply fly in the face of the logic of the real world. They are, in other words, illogical and impossible. It is in the context of these absurdities that the ancient philosophers argued for a fundamental category of existence that is separate from the material and this is the ontological category of "transcendental personality." Any rational man free from bias would be inclined to agree that this carries better explanatory power than the materialist model; and it is also in conformity with the logic of the real world because it affirms the intuitive notion of personality.
And yet, in spite of such a nature of reality stacked up against their outlandish theories, the materialist thinkers indulge in troll-like behavior, sneering at any sort of spiritual conception, in full confidence, with the attitude of a know-it-all! Surely, this must represent arrogance of a kind that has no parallel anywhere else in this universe!
[My comments are of a general nature and may not fit perfectly to this video.]
If this conversation took place 1000 years ago, people would argue that Wodan (fill in your favorite god of the time) was almighty and believers came with all the arguments we read in the reactions. Nobody believes in Wodan anymore, that basically debunks every theological claim.
Man has known for thousands of years .... that only an entity like Man ( ie an intelligence) ... makes rules & Laws and anything that has clear & obvious PURPOSE & FORM ( ie design).
It doesn't matter whether you are from the Stone Age .... or ... today ..... Man knows what a FUNCTION is .... and who makes them.
The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories .... prove .... the Universe & Life are Functions composed entirely of Functions and were made by an INTELLIGENCE with an unnatural & nonphysical mind.
Man is an intelligence clearly with a physical mind (brain). But an intelligence must have an unnatural & nonphysical Mind ( ie soul) because the body of Man is a FUNCTION composed entirely of Functions made by an Intelligence.
You are forgetting that Man is an intelligence ... whether he is from the Stone Age or Today. Anything that has clear & obvious PURPOSE & DESIGN can only be made by an INTELLIGENCE like Man. Everything in the Universe has clear purpose & design. And Man knows for a fact Man did not make the Universe or himself. Obviously a more powerful entity like Man .... made the Universe & Man..
@@abelincoln8885 These “obvious needed “ entities keep popping in and out of existence throughout history by the thousands. Sounds to me like a man made construct. You’re choice of religion is clearly defined by your place of birth or that of your parents . All and all not very convincing, to say the least. Maybe religion should figure out who where talking about before making any claims about whatsoever. Otherwise keep it for yourself.
@@hunchbackaudio A religions is simply a organized FIRM BELIEF in something or someone responsible for existence.
There no needed "entities popping in & out of existences.
Everything in the Universe is a Function made by an intelligence. This is why man has created religions ....with a firm believe that their religion has identified the intelligence that made every function.
Either all of the religions are wrong( eg Abiogenesis & Evolution) or one has identified the intelligence that made every Function.
Again. A Religion is simply an organized FIRM BELIEF in something or someone responsible for Existence.
There is zero conflict between Science & Religion because most religions believe in a supernatural deity ... and the reason most human beings believe in "the gods" is because they have an intellect and know that only an intelligence like Man makes rules & Laws and anything that has clear & obvious purpose & design (ie FUNCTION ).
Man knows only an intelligence makes Functions.
Science ( a Function) relies completely on the Laws of Nature(functions) for Man ( a Function) to explain natural phenomena ( Functions).
Science is all about explaining how Functions work.
Religions is all about belief in a supernatural intelligence who must have made every Function in the Universe.
This is all about Functions which can only be made by an intelligence.
As basically an atheist myself, I have to say that this is not a convincing argument. There are many theological arguments that are divorced from claims about any particular god(s) and aim to demonstrate that there must exist a perfect being that is the creator/ground of everything that exists. Noting the historical malleability of religious beliefs doesn't really have any effect on these arguments.
@@iMJBNi Well I'm the one to be convinced (I don't believe in god remember), so I'm not trying to convince anyone. But to say consciousness is complicated so it must be made by something even more complicated, without having a consensus about who that should be, of even what would be the cause of that perfect being? Doesn't do it. Most reactors here would argue it's the god of the christians, but he came very late to the party historically and seems like a pretty vicious guy, so that's why I made this remark. So if the argument states there must be perfect being, because we have know idea what else is the cause, I'm not impressed to say the least. Please figure out who to believe in, in the first place and then come back.
meditate & some day you will know the truth
Science is barely in it's infancy and has a long way to go. How can you reconcile what we currently know, which is by no means the complete picture, with religion, which has been established for thousands of years?
Geocentrism was a dominant doctrine for millenia. Does the fact that it's been around a long time pay credence to its veracity?
I really REALLY wish you would bring in Robert Barron.
There is a correlation between us and our own micro-biome and us and our planet. Do you communicate with your bodily flora and fauna?
If we are just material objects and our fellings and thoughts are just consequences of neural firings then why do we believe atheist's view afterall these view also the consequences of neural firings so we are determined to determine.Supreme lord is God Sri Krishna, He is absolute concious being and oue eternal father.
No, they should not conflict.
I enjoyed this discussion more than most. Thank you.
We need to replace the vague notion of God with the concept of Existence.
Existance already part of the vague notion of God. God being a vague notion is not properly true, only true to the preciever. If God is vague, to anyone, they need to change a few things.
@@A3Kr0n
Look in the mirror and then say existence is a vague notion.
@@S3RAVA3LM
God is a horribly vague notion. But we do know that something exists. From that all else must proceed.
@@A3Kr0n *"Replace one vague notion with another?"*
... Yep, science replaced an infinitely existing, ubiquitous God who constitutes everything in existence with an infinitely existing, ever-present Multiverse that constitutes everything in existence. What goes around, comes around.
*"We need to replace the vague notion of God with the concept of Existence."*
... You have no idea how much I agree with you!
Hugh Pickens writes …
Is Science Just a Matter of Faith?
The actual scientific answers to the questions of the origins of the universe, the evolution of man, and the fundamental nature of the cosmos involve things like wave equations and quantum electrodynamics and molecular biology that very few non-scientists can ever hope to understand and that if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that we accept the incredibly complex scientific phenomena in physics, astronomy, and biology through the process of belief, not through reason. When Richard Fenyman wrote, 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,' he was including himself which is disconcerting given how many books he wrote on that very subject. The fact is that it takes years of dedicated study before scientific truth in its truest, mathematical and symbolic forms can be understood. The rest of us rely on experts to explain it, someone who has seen and understood the truth and can dumb it down for us in a language we can understand. And therein lies the big problem for science and scientists. For most people, science is really a matter of trusting the expert who tells it to us and believing what they tell us. Trust and belief. Faith. Not understanding. How can we understand science, if we can't understand the language of science? 'We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history. Do you really know what an atom is, or that a Higgs boson is a rather important thing, or did you simply accept they were what someone told you they were?'
.
Any layperson can see and understand the tangible outcomes of science; e.g., the devices we're communicating through, medicine, skyscrapers, etc. You could, of course, argue that those things are simply manifestations of some universal consciousness, and I can't disprove that position, but science and scientific method produces reliable results.
Accepting the scientific consensus is nothing like faith . They are entirely different . The former is based on evidence , the latter require the absence of it
@@tonyatkinson2210 you missed the point. We use our faith in quantum mechanics for example to make quantum computations, even though we have no idea how it works
@@ojasa88 are are quantum computations faith based?
There is no definition of faith I can find that fits
@@ojasa88
In what way do we use faith in quantum mechanics ? There is nothing about quantum mechanics that invokes faith
The reason why people don't deny religion, regardless of whether or not it is "true", is mostly because imo religion/spirituality/transcendentalism offers a profound meaning to life that science cannot. Science also cannot answer normative questions especially in the realm of ethics, morality, and value
I disagree. I think you can find a "profoud" sense of meaning without having any type of religious or spiritual belief. Also, I think that science can answer questions about morality and ethics. After all, any of the ethical or moral systems that already exist really just came from the mind of man in the first place anyway. There was nothing transcendental about it.
@@A_Few_Thoughts What? That's stupid. '' After all, any of the ethical or moral systems that already exist really just came from the mind of man in the first place anyway.'' What does that even mean? Are you implying that science will somehow figure out what everyperson on the planet thinks and somehow will answer every ethical questions that we are currently faced with? Like, if we are talking about why kicking puppies is moral, you think science will somehow answer that? The meaning of life? Social pressure and the effect one's conscious?
That's a weird scientism bro
@@toonyandfriends1915 I think you missed my point entirely, that it indeed comes from the mind of man alone (just like all of morality based on religion) that kicking puppies is immoral. However, I would add that some religions have advocated for the kicking of puppies.
Ironically, the very foundational core of ancient religion was that very notion of Truth (or Maat in ancient Egypt).
They undertsood very well the difference between objective reality that is shared by all and subjective reality as a personal perspective and/or self delusion/lie.
What links that objective reality and truth to God, was the search for and proof of intelligent design, within the process of creation.
The archaic 5 stages of matter went from Aether > Fire (soul) > Air (mind) > Water (spirit) > Earth (body), which is no different to field > plasma > gas > liquid > solid.
It is simply describing phases transitions as the universe cooled. That are also signs of octave or fractal boundaries, for those transitions. That is objective reality.
Is there conclusive proof of intelligent design or conclusive proof against intelligent design ?
The ancients believed that geometry was the language of the Gods, or those that were ignorant of it could not enter the temple as a consequence, as they were ignorant of the language of God.
It is high level abstract geometry, inherent within nature, as an evolved expression of low level maths, that is the proof of that intelligent design as abstract thought.
Their research was taken to its most advanced understanding through spherical trigonometry, rainbow physics, spherical sunrise and octaves of the wavelengths of light and sound, expressed through poles/rods/cylinders.
The colour that the eye sees is not objective reality, neither is the sound that we hear.
The colour that wee see is an abstract representation of the electromagnetic wavelengths and vibrations, that the s/m/l cones and rods receive and are harmonically tuned to pure blue (primary), green (Primary) and yellow (secondary).
It is through unravelling the minds abstract representation of the objective reality of the colour spectrum, that is proof of intelligent design.
As with any sensor, they all require function tables abstraction to convert physical measurement into internal representation.
The design of such an abstract representation system, requires intelligence.
Which religion? Which science? If there is any group of people less qualified to define what religion (or spirituality) can be, or know what science actually is - that would be Skeptics like Dennett. The question itself leads to a strawman argument/discussion.
A very very bold statement. Rather shows your narrowmindedness.
@@jonathanwalther Prod ye the donkey's rump ye are sure of a kick.
No, it's not awe of nature, nor is it gratitude. It's wanting to live forever; it's insisting that death is not final but a doorway to another existence. It's existential terror. Secondly it's the wish to be reunited with one's parents, one's spouse, siblings or children. And finally it's theodicy. It's wanting justice, so that the people who have transgressed will be punished in the end. All the rest, the scholastic and epistemological questions, are - as regards religious people - a superfluous indulgence. Why? Because faith fundamentally bypasses any theory of knowledge. You're not going to convince people of something they don't want to believe in the first place.
It not a case of ''Wouldn't it be nice '' at all ...DD' S premise is inadequate.
Whew, is this recent? Dennett is holding up so much better than the other Four Horsemen have. Must be that ol' Kringle magic.
Excellent discussion. So aggravating watching religion and religious organizations, like Templeton, attempt to coopt science. "God, the master of ceremony." Stealing that!
A quite unintelligent conversation.
Many of these videos are Further From The Truth.
funny answer and how accurate :)
hi imperialxs
'Deeper, into the Mud'?
Based on your comment, you must know what "the truth" is. Why not just state what that truth is along with your argument for how you know it to be true?
I see no conflict presented in this video between science and religion. I see only a conflict presented between one scientist's opinion about science and that same scientist's opinion about religion.
That opinion is the subject of this video so the first sentence of your post seems odd. His perceived conflict is exactly what is "presented in this video."
@@mikel5582 "His perceived conflict is exactly what is presented" -----
Rather, his perception of conflict based on a particularly poor articulation of theology is presented. And yet he continually make his appeal to "truth".
*"I see no conflict presented in this video between science and religion. I see only a conflict presented between one scientist's opinion about science and that same scientist's opinion about religion."*
... You are correct. Science cannot "scientifically evaluate" religion nor can religion offer any empirical evidence for the existence of an all-powerful God. I'm sure a Rabbi or a Priest might offer an equally bias opinion of science.
hi andrew
bingo!
thank you for a worthy clarification
There is not conflict. This all has to do with "religious" beliefs.
A religion is simply an organized FIRM BELIEF in something or someone responsible for existence. A religion doesn't have to involve a "god."
Theological religions are actually a natural phenomena, which will always be observed of most people ... because Man has known for thousands of years that only an intelligence like Man makes rules & Laws and anything with clear purpose & form ( ie Functions).
Everything in the Universe has clear & obvious purpose & form.
Everything in the Universe are clearly Functions.
And only an intelligence ( like Man) makes Functions.
Man obviously did not make the Universe & Man. Something like Man but extremely powerful ( eg God) made the Universe & Man. And this is why we have had "theological" religions thousands of years before the scientific revolution.
The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories ... prove Universe Functions .... which is the explanation for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. Newton was stating the obvious. Everything is a Function made only by an intelligence.
Science (Function) relies on the Laws of nature (functions) for Man ( a Function) to explain natural phenomena (functions).
Science is all about explaining FUNCTIONS. WTH?
Regarding the question of what is theology without following the footsteps of science ,
It’s true
Theology says in the words of god in the Quran,
He says ,
God is the the objective truth and , his book and it’s content as well ,,the existence is the subjective truth , and those which he called his wards that is beyond human consciousness ,,
, and when he said ,,
Walk through the earth and look how the existence and it’s design has started “”
He was talking to you my dearest scientists ,in order to discover his occult in the Quran to become news and facts .
And he says:-
God fears from his free humans who are knowledgeable ,
And he means all kinds fields of science
The Quran was completely misunderstood since the seventh century,I will explain that later , but the Islam that we have today is the way life the prophet Mohammad lived and his attributed saying which completely falls.
I had to study epistemology and strong Arabic in order for me to understand gods words and his verses it’s 20 years since I started and haven’t finished even 15% of the 623 verses
No one on this planet can understand more than 100 subjects in his life time .my perceptions which fall under the frame of logic are considered sins in my world .
I have a passion for knowledge in almost all scientific fields,
But Iam a business man earning a living
A good discussion to have, thank you.^ Both religion and science are man made tools. Mostly they have a different purpose. One's primary purpose is about teaching societal values, a subjective realm of the mind, and the other is designed to objectively study the physical world. To the extent a religious person's comments or interpretations on the physical world contradict science, it is presumed that the tool designed to objectively study the physical world, science, rules the day. In that regard, science becomes a great friend to the religious person who seeks to understand "spiritual" (that is, of the mind) meaning associated with ancient scriptures that are mostly written in metaphoric style, because then the religious person can eliminate literal interpretations as possibilities for the intended meaning. Having done that, realizing that physically impossible interpretations are ruled out, the religious person can consider non-literal meaning as a preferred interpretation. As for scientists, during WW1 with the nations of Europe locked in trench warfare, several of the leading scientists of the day stepped forward to offer their scientific knowledge of chemistry to develop the first "weapons of mass destruction".
"Thermodynamics is the ONE theory of universal content which will NEVER be overthrown."-Albert Einstein
NOTHING & NO ONE has EVER inflected thermodynamics in even the most minute.
1st LAW--Heat (energy) is NEVER originated or terminated
2nd LAW-- Heat goes ONLY to cold; "the principal placing constraints upon the direction of heat"
This universe of E=MC2 CANNOT have begun...it cannot be eternal (it would have cooled...it hasn't...it will)
NOTHING KNOWN TO HUMANS can reconcile the existence of this universe. It's not unknown, it's expressly, definitively
in contradiction to the Laws of Thermodynamics.
"Science is not things as we want them to be...it's things as they are"--Einstein
"Things as they are", as reflected in our MOST proven by far physical law, is the impossibility of the existene of this universe.
Agonize to your heart's content, atheists cannot get science argue for them
@@WayneLynch69 Hey there Carl. I liked what you wrote. Nice.^
Release of chlorine gas was a despicable implementation of chemical warfare. The same scientist discovered a process for economical nitrogen fixation, thus providing farmers a practical means to fertilize their soil to grow crops and lessen widespread hunger.
Fritz Haber used scientific knowledge for life and for death and later suffered at the hands of Nazi fanatics. What on earth does any of that have to do with the topic of this video?
@@mikel5582 Religion, a subject of the discussion, primarily relates to moral values. Science, also a subject of the discussion, relates to the study of, among other things, chemistry. I covered how silly it is for a religious person to not aver to science on matters relating to the study of the physical world and what is or is not physically possible. Then I touched on the moral failure of highly trained scientists relating to, just for example, the creation of the first weapons of mass destruction. Can you see how all of that directly relates to the subject of the discussion?
@@prestonbacchus4204 Sorry, my response wasn't intended to be confrontational but I reject the idea that human decency can only be found through religion when it's clearly ingrained in most people instinctively.
I don't follow any religion (traditional definition of the word) but find Haber's implementation of chlorine gas for chemical warfare to be utterly deplorable. I don't need any religious philosophy to recognize that act as a being despicable.
Edit to add that, given the atrocities conducted in the name of god(s), I don't think they're in any position to define moral doctrine.
Fear of death. Number one reason for religion, I think. Every religion provides a story and invites you to join the story, play a role.
Boom. Right on. Religion wouldn't have existed otherwise. I'm sure of it.
i think its more about finding a purpose/reason to live for. Theists believe that there's no meaning in life without God, therefore the actions you'll take wont have any consequences. whether you do good or bad. at the end it doesnt matter, because there's no reward or punishment.
Fear of death is one reason people buy into religion, but not the reason it was invented. Life is an eating, screwing and murdering simulator, and religion is a tool that nerds invented to pause the simulator while they take some time to investigate why we want to eat, screw and murder so much. They found the answers they were looking for, but that only led to more questions, and so here we are working our lives away. Basically religion is what happens when intelligent lifeforms become too smart for their own good.
If the story says you have a eternal soul and a God that will judge you for what you did with your body ... then yeah, fear what will happen after death.
Most people will always believe in a soul/spirit and a supernatural Creator ... because Man has an intellect and knows only an intelligence like Man makes rules & Laws and anything that has clear purpose & form ( ie Functions).
Everything in the Universe is clearly a Function ..... made by a very very powerful intelligence.
This is the reason why we have all the religions with their stories.
Either all are wrong (eg Abiogenesis & evolution) or there is one religion that has correctly identified the intelligence that made every Function in the Universe, and fully explained why.
There's a reason why the greatest and most influential religion of all time .... says there was a 6 day creation & the 7th Day will belong to God, 1 day is like 1000 years, and Jesus (Son of God) will return to rule the earth for 1000 years before Judgement Day with 144 000 male Jews who died in end times believing in the Christ. The current Jewish year is 5782.
God had a reason for the 6 day creation & the 7th Day will belong to God.
Yeah. Fear God .... because you do not know the day or hour ... you will die. There is no time in Heaven or Hell. You go straight to Judgement Day in 7000 Anno Mundi.
@Terre Schill Stop believing any of the bs from Rabbis. For crying out loud, for 2000 years Rabbis have doing all that they can stop the spread of Christianity and calling Yeshu (Rabbinic curse word) a false messiah and a Gentile god of an idolatrous Roman/Greek religion. And the clowns still same today even though the greatest & most influential Man in all of History ... is a Jews .... called Yeshua (Salvation) with over 2.6 billion followers. There are only 15 million Jews today and most do not believe in God and are taught to hate Jesus.
God promised Abraham that he would be the Father of Nations.
Christianity originates from Messianic Jews who accepted Yeshua as the promised Messiah & the Son of God, and were forced out of Judaism by the major sects of Pharisees & Sadducees.
Judaism today originates from the Pharisee sect which aggressively rejected Yeshua & his Jewish followers.
The Torah is clear that the Mesisah is the Son of God and will be a sin sacrifice to save souls of God's "Chosen People." To save God's Children.
Abraham is the Father of the Faith. God fulfilled His promise to Abraham .... .through the Messianic Jews who had his Faith in God & His Messiah.
God's Chosen People ... are the People of the Faith ... be they Jew or Gentile.
Rabbis have hijacked Judaism and made the religion all about being a "good" Jew and God's Chosen People ... according to Rabbinic interpretation, opinions, teachings.
If there is no life after death .... then why does God order the Jews to make Atonement sacrifice in the Temple? Rabbis are morons.
There is nothing in the Torah .... saying only the five books of Moses are the Torah .... that there will be an Oral Torah and Rabbis are to be the righteous "interpreters" of God's word and are to compile the Talmud.
The Hebrew Bible is the Torah ... all 24 books.
Except for the Catholics & Greek orthodox .... the Old Testament is the Torah with a number Jewish books subdivided. Of course the Torah has been translated into greek & other languages ... but the only beef between Judaism & Christianity .... is the INTERPRETATION ...of God's word with respect to the nature of God, who the Messiah is and God's Chosen People.
Genesis 1; 1 - 3 in the original Hebrew including word picture meanings which was the norm 3400 years ago ... states God is plural (Father, Son Spirit) and singular. Moses deliberately uses singular & plural pronouns ... because God is singluar and plural. Man was made in God's (plural) likeness and it is not good for Man (or God) to be alone so from Man came woman and together they are One ( unity) flesh.
See. Rabbis are morons. They completely "misinterpreted" the first 3 chapters of God's word and have been teaching Jews lies about God.
Abraham saw God in three Men ... standing next to God. This is Genesis 18. To understand this ... you have to have understood what Genesis 1 - 3 told us about God( singular & plural). All three Mean are God, not God and two Angels. Abraham worshiped all three Men as God ... and all three told Abraham to do as he said he would do for THEM. The three Mean are Father, Son & Spirit. So who is the God that was standing next to Abraham and the Three Men? C'mon. This is not difficult to figure out. We have a Father & a Son .... and .... a Spirit which is everywhere and can take multiple forms at the same time. And again God is singular & plural.
The Father is the God head and has final say on everything the God thinks & does. But just like the Son, He only has a single form, and can only be at one place at a time. The Son & Spirit obey the Will of the Father which is why they can speak as God.
God does no procreate. God is Spirit and always existed as the Trinity.
It was the Father who decided He wanted to have Children, knowing they will sin, and planned to make His only begotten Son to become the Father of the Children of God because He knew Adam would sin.
So from the Children of Man (Adam) would come the Children of God (Jesus).
Jesus is now permanently a puny Human Being with a body & soul. He no longer has God's power. God's Children will now get God's power ... through the Holy Spirit and he Angels.
If Adam & Eve and their descendants were to never sin ... God would have made Man as a powerful spirt that can procreate. But God knew both puny Man & the powerful Angles will fall.
Everything you need to know about life & death and existence is in Genesis.
Ignore those moron Rabbis. God is a Trinity & Jesus is His only begotten Son.
Genesis 22 is a Messianic Prophecy. Remember. Abraham knows God is a Father, Son & Spirit. Issac is not Abraham's "only begotten Son" which is said three times in the chapter. God will provide the sacrifice that will satisfy God. And God provide a Ram representing Israel.
Christ is the English for the greek word for Messiah in Hebrew.
Christianity is a religion for God & His Messiah.
Rabbinic Judaism is a religion for Jews and their God.
See the difference?
God fulfilled His promise to Abraham through Christianity and the Messianic Jews who accepted Jesus as Lord & Savior.
The Torah states the Jews will reject the Messiah, be cursed by God .... but ... will eventually repent their sins & accept the Son of God in end times.
6 x 1000 years Man will rule the Earth
1 x 1000 years God will rule the Earth.
Judgement Day.
The Jewish year is 5782 with many religious Jews believing they are living in end times and their Messiah will soon appear to save .... them.
Jesus did die before the Temple was destroyed ( Daniel 9: 26) exactly 40 years (days) before, for the people of Jerusalem to repent their sins otherwise God will destroy the city ( Book of Jonah).
Jesus will be returning in the year 6 000 to rule the Earth .... with 144 000 Jewish men from the 12 tribes who died believing in the "Christ" during the 7 year tribulation (Revelations).
The New Testament is the continuation of the Torah. And this is not debatable because God has blessed Christianity and cursed Judaism. Rabbis can say whatever they want. God has made it clear what He thinks of the Trinity, Jesus & the New Testament.
Science is a religion.
Religion was the source of science.
Religion as a philosophy and science as a philosophy of nature.
.
Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason.
There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.)
Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
A good start for you is a dictionary and look up the term religion. This is will help you to stop making up your own definition, because that is not how English or any formal language works.
@@anthonycraig274 that's why you're stuck with primary school education because you still rely on dictionary definition.
@@dongshengdi773you haven’t even reached primary school level. I think you need crawl before you can walk.
@@dongshengdi773
heh heh
be gentle, now, big brother
@@dongshengdi773 Dictionary definitions are the only definitions making up your own definitions for words causes unnecessary problems.
Intellectuals seek desperately for Truth but unfortunately their efforts are thwarted due to polarization in their respective fields. If they would accept that ABSOLUTE TRUTH does exist, and take an interdisciplinary approach, they would most certainly find it.
I was a hardcore scientifically minded individual only interested in facts. Reading dozens upon dozens of books on Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, and understanding both subjects very well. My quest in this search for Truth was fueled by the abject terror I had for death. I desperately needed to know the Truth about life because once you’re dead, all bets are off.
At one point I made a conscious decision to abandon my well trained logically thinking mind and dive into a field I had always assumed was completely illogical; the Holy Scriptures.
I joined a small non-denominational church and walked down the isle receiving Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I was “told” by the pastor that I was now saved and going to Heaven; really? I didn’t feel any different and my sinful desires remained unchanged.
Being the scientifically minded individual that I was, I wasn’t about to accept being told I’m saved; I needed CERTAINTY!
I thought to myself, if the religious community is using the Holy Bible to teach and gain this knowledge and dogma, why not investigate it on my own? It seemed a very logical way to proceed.
I purchased the King James Bible on CD, and listened to it constantly while stuck in rush hour traffic commuting back and forth to work. This was a total of 3 hours a day 5 times a week; 15 hours of Word a week is a lot of scripture feeding! This went on for over 3 years where it came to the point that not only did I have scores and scores of scriptures memorized, but also entire CHAPTERS memorized verbatim word for word! I had a lot of word in my head, but the software hadn’t downloaded to my heart!
One day on Saturday March 25,1995 I was alone at the beach in my car listening to worship music, reading God’s Word, and loving God with all my mind, heart, soul, and strength. I remember reading to “love your enemies”, something I could never understand. I looked up to the sky with nothing but overwhelming love for Jesus; I thought to myself, “how beautiful it would be to just like Jesus”!
No sooner had I thought this when suddenly it happened, it really happened! I saw something “open” inside my mind and all those scriptures that had been “buffering” for the past 3 years suddenly downloaded, opening my blind eyes, and skyrocketing my brain processes to unimaginable levels! I was in utter TERROR and thought to myself, “how is this possible Lord, how can a mere man understand GOD?”
Several scriptures came rushing to the forefront but I will only mention 2 here:
“Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.”
(Proverbs 2:5)
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY IS UNDERSTANDING.”
(Proverbs 9:10)
The best way to describe what I felt that morning was HOLINESS had entered me, and in the process of this the demons that had been with me my entire life and I didn’t even know were there, had jumped out of me with a hideous screech!
I also noticed an amazing phenomena when I began reading the Bible. I had always read and listened to the Bible as a 3rd person, this apostle is writing to this other apostle, this scripture doesn’t apply to me; for the very first time those same words were now HOLOGRAPHIC jumping out of the pages and speaking directly to me! I was as blind as a bat and only picked the nice soothing scriptures for me while mentally deflecting the harsh severe scriptures for the apostle who I thought the scriptures were being written to. I also knew that God had planned this all out from the beginning when I read:
“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for YOU, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen YOU to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the TRUTH: Whereunto he called YOU by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)
I can’t express enough how addicted I became to the Word after that day! It’s no wonder scholars claim the Bible to be filled with contradictions; only after receiving the Spirit does everything make perfect sense! The Bible’s LOGIC is SUPERNATURAL and incalculably PERFECT!
Humans can’t see this by casual reading and observation but only by the revelation of God himself. It’s no wonder when you read the following scripture, I came to the clear understanding the scripture is speaking of ITSELF, as Jesus is himself the Word made Flesh!
“I AM the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by ME.”
(John 14:6)
That is why the scripture the follows says:
“If ye had known ME, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have SEEN him.”
(John 14:7)
I hope and pray that through my ordeal and quest for Absolute Truth, people my come to the unmistakable conclusion that there is ONLY ONE WAY to God, and that is through his Word!
“Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever.”
(1 Peter 1:23)
I don't mean this as a slight upon Dennett or any other scientist who has had a proclivity to explore religious concepts, but what I regularly find to be marveling as someone who comes out of Religious Studies, is how little is understood between fundamental concepts that come out of this area of research and how little others who enjoy playing with these concepts have a basic conception of. Take as simple example the extent to which this dialogue practically exclusively revolves around the concepts within "theology" and the specific notion that there is only one overarching God and in turn effectively suggest this is how a proper framing of religion should be approached. While I highly appreciate the CtT series, the more I've watched it, the more it has proven a bias toward ignoring basic conceptions of religio that other fields of study have taken great care to consider as part of the totality of the claimed argument that science and religion aren't so different and that what scientists have for so long failed to take into consideration of just how complex and diverse human interaction with the numinous has been throughout its existence.
@@Bloozguy Thank you for providing the most simple-minded, unlearned, modern pro-science/anti-religion belief of what constitutes the vast totality of religio, and thus further adding to the validity of my point.
@@Bloozguy You're continuing to prove a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes the breadth of religio and deeper point I made with regard to Dennett and Kuhn only considering the typically Western-centrist, almost exclusively Judeo-Christian notion of theology. If you're so certain you know the "truth", maybe you should be contacting Kuhn instead of trying to prosletyze me into what keeps sounding like a personal axe to grind with God.
Your criticism isn't without merit but how many religious philosophies do you think need to be represented to provide a fair survey?
Since most of the CtT's scientist and philosopher guests are from Western cultures, they can only respond to the concepts of god that they're familiar with. CtT is also limited to guests who speak the same language as Kuhn. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing guests who offer allegorical lessons for life, like, for example, scholars of Laozi or Gautama Buddha.
@Body By Stardust You haven't proven anything other than your religious fervor to attempt to proselytize your religion of science, which has yet to prove how and why consciousness attuned to the numinous. I never said you need a degree in RS or philosophy, but it certainly appears had you some general awareness of these concepts, you'd likely not be trying so hard to convince me you know the "truth" about something you keep proving to have little understanding of.
@Mike L It seems to me it would only take one. Certainly, in the case of Buddhism this challenges the entire notion when considering there is no conception of God. But there are a number of scholars who have argued Hinduism's Vedantic heritage as well as Daoism's deeper claims ultimately remove the Western concept of God altogether once you dig far enough.
Kuhn has had a number of guests on whose philosophies are aware of but don't match with the standard Western theological or even philosophical framing that so much of science throughout its 500 year, give or take, history has aligned with. And to be clear, I'm very appreciative of Kuhn interviewing these thinkers. But my gripe remains, theology is but one, highly challengable notion of what constitutes Kant's conception of the noumenon and Otto's conception of the numinous.
I found this to be a particularly good example of the challenges at hand when removing the strictly theological framing. ruclips.net/video/9zxqS7TzRUU/видео.html
PS Kuhn just uploaded this episode which I can't help but to wonder if he read my comment and thought, "You obviously missed the episode I did in addressing this." Of course, while I side with Kuhn when considering how much analytic theology appears to complicate the nature of God even more, it doesn't resolve the fact that the Eastern traditions as well as some notable indigenous traditions bypassed this altogether and leaves open the possibility that sentience evolves out of the numinous.
ruclips.net/video/yJhe-KBKNS8/видео.html
I can't watch any Dennett interviews anymore, because he's told an observation on CTT once before I'd rather not know.. unfortunately I cannot "un know" it. He informed that our full vision spectrum only captures an are about the size of a quarter, EVERYTHING else is peripheral. Indoor, outdoor, close, far... it doesn't matter. Upon simply looking he is right. I wish I never heard that.. ignorance was bliss. So I'm scared to listen to him speak lol. Seems silly huh? In my 50s and he's managed to take some innocence away from me lol. I kinda think he told that one on purpose too 😡. Gonna like.. but that's it lol.
I wish proponents of atheism would look into religious concepts outside the Western framework.
Brahman has never had a job description.
Faith and fact cannot be reconciled. Believing something to be true is categorically different from knowing something to be true. One can believe 2+2=5, but that doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4.
That's exactly why science is a religion
@@dongshengdi773 ??? You're going to have to explain yourself. Science is not a religion, and my statement does not support that view. So how did you end up parsing it that way?
In 1931, mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel proved that any effectively generated theory capable of proving basic arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In other words, a mathematically sound theory lacks the means to prove itself. An analogous statement has been used to show that humans are subject to the same limits as machines.
:
3x+1 Collatz Conjecture
The Simplest Math Problem No One Can Solve
The Collatz Conjecture is the simplest math problem no one can solve - it is easy enough for almost anyone to understand but notoriously difficult to solve.
:
a.x³ + bx? + cx + d = 0
Cubic Equation
How Imaginary Numbers Were Invented (ie. negative numbers and infinite numbers)
A general solution to the cubic equation was long considered impossible, until we gave up the requirement that math reflect reality.
:
Banach-Tarski and the Paradox of Infinite Cloning
By MAX G. LEVY
August 26, 2021
One of the strangest results in mathematics explains how it’s possible to turn one sphere into two identical spheres .
.
Why 1 = 2 ?
WHY CAN'T YOU DIVIDE BY ZERO?
In the world of math, many strange results are possible when we change the rules. But there's one rule that most of us have been warned not to break: don't divide by zero. How can the simple combination of an everyday number and a basic operation cause such problems?
@@thereligionofrationality8257 Misconceptions about Science
if you truly understand SCIENCE... Science has Not Proven anything ... they are all theories only.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Proofs are not the currency of science. all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.
by Satoshi Kanazawa - an evolutionary psychologist at LSE
The Scientific Fundamentalist
@@dongshengdi773 Science is not about proofs. It's about observing reality and trying to create simple and rational models that best explain it. And please stop upvoting yourself.
Daniel Dennett's expression on his face as he asserts his materialistic view of reality, is the epitome of what it means to be "smug" and "condescending" about metaphysical ideas that he, in an alternate display of the "Dunning-Kruger Effect," is simply not conscious enough to realize that he is not conscious enough to comprehend.
You stake out the intellectual high ground while simply engaging in an ad hominem
@@acslater017
aloha acslater
concur with your relevant statement here
still, ultimate seeds' conclusion appears on point
Care to argue some points or just continue slinging mud? Lol
@@uselessgarbagehandler What points would you like me to argue?
Define gods. Every power is from God. There is no power that is not of God. You have to understand what we are talking about when we reference God.
God is an ocean of universal consciousness and this consciousness is pure and not tainted by qualities of matter. We derive our personal consciousness from this source. This primordial awareness has always existed or so they say, the ancient sages and seers of ancient India who came up with Advaita Vedanta, one of the main school of thoughts in Hinduism. What we call matter is consciousness itself. This may explain the growing near death experience literature and other paranormal phenomena like ghosts, hauntings, ESP, premonition, psychic medium readings (the genuine ones), and even dreams. The brain is seen here as an instrument. Now this may very well be true and science cannot do nothing about it. After all, science is based on pre-existing matter and material laws. It didn't create or dictate those laws. Similarly, the existence of consciousness (God) preceding space and time may very well be true. The near death experiences are very interesting and Advaita Vedanta was talking about the hard problem of consciousness in 7th century AD. The human nervous system is the most sophisticated machinary ever created to link to and explore levels of consciousness. Advaita says we have the waking state, dreams, and dreamless deep sleep. We are even aware of the darkness of dreamless sleep. It mentions a fourth state of 'turiya' which transcends the three normal states of consciousness and is bright like the sun. It's the universal consciousness or always existing source of sentience. It lits up matter with consciousness.
How different the concepts of God are in East and the West!
Every power is from God is an unproven assumption. I do not have to take it seriously.
@@kos-mos1127 It’s the definition of God.
@@JungleJargon So the definition of god is "the source of all power"? That's not a definition I'd heard before but, if true, why not just call it "power" and avoid the unnecessary extra layer?
I so agree with Dennett at 2:46 - "I don't buy it. There's truth and then there's everything else." HOWEVER...
With their common objective being Truth, good science & good religion belong together. How might we arrive at a satisfactory synthesis of science with religion? There's Truth, and then there's the question of what we do with that Truth. Good religion incorporates good science, to arrive at how that Truth should be interpreted and adjudicated.
In a sense, good religion should be doing the task of philosophy, where Dennett himself said (if I remember correctly) that the role of philosophy is about asking the right questions.
Can particles remain entangled once their separation is greater than their light cones?
less entangled, more dancing
Yes. That's the whole reason entanglement is so 'spooky'. It ignores the existence of light cones, and the wavefunction collapse forces entangled particles into displaying paired properties instantaneously. Ie. faster than the speed of light.
@@thesprawl2361 I actually knew that. I was just showing off that I out thought Daniel Dennett and RLK on this one point. My life was meaningful.🤯🤣
I don't think you understand light cones. "their separation is greater than their light cones" is a little like saying "I live farther away from my friend than his next doctor's appointment."
@@fluffysheap It was maybe my poor attempt at mimicking a profound observation coming from a simpleton, similar to Forrest Gump. At about 4 minutes in the video, they talk about things we can't ascertain that are outside the light cone. Because of cosmic inflation, the farthest observable objects are becoming unobservable (outside the light cone), yet they may still be entangled with objects that we can still see. That is the more precise version of my thinking and maybe it is flawed.
Who is this Daniel Dennett? Oh yeah. We want to believe the truth. No physical thing can ever make or direct itself.
Everything does?
That is not true.
Faith in science doesn’t mean we will send prisoners to test drug to find cure. Faith in religions may blind ignorance but improve ethical that we accept like anti-war
There’s only one absolute truth. Emotions aren’t truth. Emotions are how you feel based on what you believe. The absolute truth is that no physical thing can ever make or direct itself. Only your Maker can remake you again.
The absolute truth that no physical thing can make or direct itself is a claim of absolute truth that should not be taken seriously. Only your Maker can remake you again assumes there is a maker. This is only a truth claim aimed at convincing people that are already bought in.
Not everyone assumes there has to be a Maker. In the earlier creation stories the deity come later on in the history of the Cosmos. The earliest creation stories start with the primeval undifferentiated chaotic state that filled the Cosmos with the birth of God from the swirling abyss.
Object credit giving isn’t good.
I am currently reading one of his books. He really does go into the details of a subject. You can say the devil is in the detail, when looked at closely its just nature not god.
hunh??
@@A3Kr0n yes, a deepity
what is life? what is consciousness? what is a Beethoven symphony? what is a flower? what is a tree? science describes processes and patterns, not what things are. Newton said it himself, there's no way to say what gravity actually is, science just tells us how it behaves. You can say how things act through science, but not what they are. Neils Bohr said science shows us what we can measure, and allows us to make predictions with high probability based on those measurement, but its not telling us what particles or the universe actually is, that is not what science does. science doesn't describe what anything actually is. science isn't philosophy.
Then you never heard of the philosophy of science. Science is an developing process, it does not matter, what Newton or Bohr said, what matters is, which of their ideas/statements were right in the long run. It's a fallacy to appeal to (scientific) authorities. They were great minds and helped develop the sciences tremendously (esp. Newton), but not everything they said was right.
It's a wild assumption, that there is more than these processes and patterns (your so called 'what things are'). We as humans make chunks (a "tree", a "symphony", "life") by clustering the patterns we observe/invent. We define, make taxonomies, try to order patterns, give these 'things' names. There's nothing mystical. There is no other 'real thing' behind it. A thing is, what we define a certain thing shall be/represent. The real question is, how elaborate can science become, to get deeper and deeper to the fundamentals.
@@jonathanwalther of course i've read the philosophy of science. it goes back to aristotle and particularly bacon. so tell me what is consciousness? what is a tree? not what category you put it in based on the structure of our seeing, feeling, and cultural apparatuses, that have nothing to do with trees themselves. you can give me a symbol. you can play a "word game." that's it. in terms of the cosmos, you can also signify a pattern that will predict outcomes of processes with incredible probability, but that is it. what is gravity? what is any force? what is any law? what is any organism? what is it? what is time? we have no idea what it is. we can describe how the process works somewhat on a very elementary level, through science. the closest we can come to describing what things are on a purely rational basis, was probably attempted by Heidegger, and he couldn't pull it off (or at least he ended up writing so abstractly that what he means ends up being pretty subjective, and i'm uncertain if he totally defined what is to be a living being). is what i do, what i am on a cosmic existential level? a chimpanzee is a banana eater that climbs trees? is that what it is? it is what it does? i dont think so, because i look at it and see this living organism that isn't just what it does. it's this living being. it's species is just an abstract name we threw on it to categorize it with other beings we see as similar, but that is just our construct. we can deconstruct it down to smaller bits to see what it is made of, but what its made of, isn't what it is. it is a chimpanzee. i am a person. a living orgainism in time, that isnt just a coffee drinker that writes and shoots photos. i'm this thing. but what am i? yes there are particles that make up proteins and chemicals that make up my body. but a car isn't its axle. it isnt its steering wheel or its metal, it isn't oil and gas. a car is a car. but what is a car? again what is consciousness?
Daniel is very limited and is dogmatic in his method.
Love Mr Kuhn and Mr Dennet!
It's annoying to hear someone slander natural theology (or just theology in general) when it's obvious that they don't know very much about it at all. Everything Dennett says about God doesn't actually apply to God as understood in classical theism. Maybe he's reacting more to God as described by contemporary analytic philosophy of religion?
calculated softball questions to make Daniel Dennett seem smarter than he actually is
Guys Not put his finger in fundamental questions in phich and religious show his discern them are nill. In this sense guys are talking has no sense rethoric
Visual proof that Santa Claus is real.
Until we stop looking for God with a scientific framework we will never end this disagreement. Of course we won’t find him through science, God is not a being, He is not a supreme being, God is the pure act of Being, from which and by which all contingent particular things have their existence. God is Love as well as Creator. This is why we say he has personhood. Not that he is a bearded old man on a throne. If you can believe in the Big Bang, which I do, that the universe came forth from a very dense particle of singularity, that at the speed of light time ends, and some of the concepts of space time…how can we not grasp the philosophical constructs of God?
Until we stop looking for werewolves with a scientific framework we will never end this disagreement. Of course we won’t find leprechauns through science,. Yahweh, werewolves, and leprechauns are not beings that can be detected and thus we can infer that they likely don't exist at all. At best, we could conjecture that they have an inconsequential irrelevant existence.
How many times have religious theologies had to accept that their view of reality was wrong ?
That anyone can believe that they have the real answers is obviously ridiculous. They don't.
@@thomasridley8675 at least as many times as scientific explanations have had to be changed and revised.
@@JD-HatCreekCattleCo
Science evolves as more information becomes available. Just the way it should be.
Religion has always had to evolve in an attempt to stay relevant to a changing society. Just look at how much of the bible has been discarded as no longer relevant ? I would say that a vast majority of their gods commandments are being simply ignored as no longer socially acceptable or simply inconvenient at this point.
Why should we accept their god when they can't even agree on it ? All trying too push their particular reality on a public that's no longer as simpleminded as they would like us too be.
I love how all the other theologies are absolutely wrong. But, the one they follow is somehow the exemption. But, of course every religion has too believe that they have the right interpretation of reality. No matter how much of reality has to be ignored too make it fit.
@@thomasridley8675 Every word in the Bible is as true as it ever was. Some of it is mythology and not really meant to be taken literally, some is in coded language, and some of it was never intended to apply to Christians, only Jews. Some is hard to interpret because the cultural context has changed, or because the language itself is hard to understand.
None of that is the same as "discarded because it's inconvenient."
Daniel acknowledge he doesn't know about a huge amount of things and even agree he or science will never know everything, obviously he cant explain why he's able to have those believes (aka consciousness) BUT he 'thinks" he knows enough to exclude GOD from his believes.
Why science has to exclude GOD from their field of study Daniel?
Because you have to exclude god as candidate explanations in order to do science .
If we didn’t , we’d still believe gods caused lightening
Physicist Sir John Polkinghorne. He was knighted in 1997 and in 2002 received the £1-million Templeton Prize, awarded for exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension. A famous theoretical physicist who became an Anglican priest . author of five books on physics and twenty-six on the relationship between science and religion;[9] his publications include The Quantum World (1989), Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship (2005), Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion (2007), and Questions of Truth (2009).
.
He is just one of hundreds of Scientists who are also priests .
aloha dongsheng
bullseye for relevance on this vid
thank you
will we need more fingers to count how many here will follow up with these resources?
So Angelican faith is the truth? What do those from other faiths think about that?
The templeton prize is awarded for “affirming life's spiritual dimension,” right ?
Basically , a million for making unsubstantiated claims
This proves nothing, Dongsheng.
Isn't the Templeton foundation biased toward religion/spiritually?
Hundreds of scientists out of the total of hundreds of thousands to millions of non deity believing scientists.
My question to the religiously minded is ,' what's in it for God, Ie. why did he bother to create the Cosmos?
Never yet had a convincing answer.
Great question. My theory: Jesus says it's God pleasure to give the kingdom to those who believe in him. We also learn from Genesis that we're made in his image. Perhaps God views us as a Father views his child/children. Best answer I can give I'm afraid.
@@amateurprojects3341
Thankyou for your considered thoughts.
Auto anthropology. I like that :)
"I wish there was somebody to thank, and there's nobody to thank."
a statement provoking many enquirers to wonder how hard dan has looked
Nobody as far as I'm aware has made contact with a God, has evidence for it or even knows what it wants (if anything). I've searched all my life and have come up with nothing. Dan and I are in agreement in this regard.
wait, what?
@@edcarew4971
looked hard
found nothing?
sorry, ed
it just ain't that difficult
@@edcarew4971
let us note, ed
the states sitting 'president' creature-thing is also world renowned
so much for dragging out notoriety
a thorough thinker
with thinking a notably far- lesser faculty than intuition (heart) and direct apprehension (gut)
thought hard, got nowhere (even a little smugly)?
maybe try something else?
Just don’t stoop to give any of the glory to mindless matter or energy that can never produce itself.
Glory? What about all of the pain, suffering, agony, loneliness, hate, etc. Oh, those came about by mindless accident but the good stuff came about by .
@@mikel5582 All things are judgments of God. There is no power that is not of God. You need to question your intentions. Your Creator has greater judgments than you.
@@JungleJargon By extension, because you "know" this god to be true while I doubt its existence, you believe your judgement to be superior to mine... and the billions of people who don't share your specific conviction.
@@mikel5582 You didn't actually say anything of substance. All you did was throw opinions at me.
@@JungleJargon I have another opinion for you. Perhap Googling the term hypocrite would help you in future communications.
Draw the two Venn Diagrams of Science and Religion. Then draw the circle around both of human thought. Those neurons in the 21st Century Scientist's brain are the same neurons in the ancient thinker's brain. Until we fully understand the cognitive science down to the simplest physical level inside the neurons.....The present Identity and Computational Theories are circling the target but have not gotten in.
Theology revealed by what is outside physical reality and science (called God by many)?
Does reason and fantasy conflict?
The reductionist attitude built over time of a scientist's career makes its way into his real life also. This reduces to the basic requirement of having food to survive in his/her life and therefore he/s shuns materialism and stick with just food as a 'reduced' basic need.
Some of us reductionists don't have stuff because we would rather do stuff.
Daniel Dennett reminds me of a religious fundamentalist. They know that they know. Lawrence Kuhn knows that he doesn't know. I am more on the latter side.
Do quantum fields have or are influenced by things not scientific?
I cnt except god as an answer.its a cop out..we all can be good human beings .i don't need religion for that..yes some religion can do good just like the salvation army does..but we are now of modern day human brains with all the information we have over eons..but people still makebelieve a god....why?no evidemce and science deals on proof and evidence .that gets reasoned by peers.To show its real..but religion to me is just a fairy tale to keep u down xx😍 love to all❤❤
There is friction between science and religion because people fail to see their common denominator. Science and religion complement each other and they are on both sides of the same coin. Science is a religion and it requires faith as much as religion does. Even atheism is a religion that requires faith that no deity exists. Proponents of science rely their faith on an institution called the scientific community. In fact there was a study made that "Faith in Science" has significantly declined in numbers as reported by the New York Post in 2012.
…
Many sciences require faith; in Physics, the singularity gave birth to the universe from nothing to everything, in Biology, abiogenesis claims precursors of DNA gathered together and communicated to form life, even though we can't create life even by mixing the ingredients together in a lab, and no one knows who wrote the instructions imbedded in a DNA, nor the instructions of an atom, nor the laws of physics, in Psychology or Medicine, we rely on faith in our doctors. Faith is the psychological force which motivates a man to act upon his beliefs and hopes. It transcends belief in that it is the force which puts belief into action. Example, astronomers from SETI have faith that they will eventually discover aliens.
Science does not require faith. Science is methodology to understanding how do we know what we know. Religion assumes the conclusion and then filters all their data through the conclusion that God exists and created the universe. Science start with observation then come up with a hypothesis to explain the behavior there observing. Then they come up with predictions that they can test their hypothesis against. This is the exact opposite of what religion does.
Physics does not say the singularity gave birth to the universe from nothing that is what pastors and theologians say. Singularities in physics means that the equation broke down and no longer is describing what is happening. The idea that the Universe arose from a singularity has been shown to be wrong based on observation of the CMB. The CMB shows that the Cosmos was smooth and uniform with quantum jitters. Applying General Theory of Relativity which says a uniform gravitational field causes the Cosmos to expand over itself. The Cosmos does not have a beginning in the normal sense of the word beginning. The initial expansion of the Cosmos is the beginning of time itself making the Cosmos The Beginning. The end of the expansion of the Cosmos is the end of time making the Cosmos The End.
Whether or not you want to call that God it does not matter because there is no point in praying to the Cosmos because it is so far removed from humanity that the Cosmos is unable to care about the human condition. Are their people that pray to the Cosmos? yes and they have similar transcendental life changing experiences that traditional theist have.
There is no difference in them, they are both derived from the human brain, which is the same as everything in the universe, there is no difference between you, me, the trees, water, fire, planets, galaxies, math, physics, thermodynamics ECT...we are the universe experiencing itself and that's my final answer...
Who expect what about nature, hope its me earing bad nature as never been humiliating like this.
Does anything determine nature? How did nature start?
Dont believe in anything you cant SEE or see the EFFECT'S of. A man that believes will never learn anything new. Beliefs are chains. We must look at life with a skeptical open mind.
I've personally seen the effects of Jesus Christ in the world
@@jeniosk1097 You've seen the effect. You're assuming the cause.
Anything that has clear & obvious ... purpose, form, structure ... is a Function.
All Functions ... are systems that PROCESS inputs into outputs ... and have purpose, forms( design) & properties which are all INFORMATION.
All Functions ... possess & require ... INFORMATION to exist & to function.
Information ... can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence.
Purpose & Design ... can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence.
And everything in the Universe .... has clear & obvious ... PURPOSE & DESIGN.
Universe, galaxy, Solar system, Sun, Earth, Moon, Atmosphere, Air, water, soil, minerals, and life .... have clear & obvious purpose & design .... and are FUNCTIONS that possess & require INFORMATION to exist & to funciton.
We have religions ... because Man is an intelligence ... and knows what a Function is and who makes them. Man did not make the Universe & himself .... but a supernatural intelligence like Man did.
Quick question:
Why should i “believe” this?
According to you, that which can’t be seen or its effects isn’t worthy of belief.
That very principle itself doesn’t fulfill its own criteria for belief.
Feel so good to see the wonders of the world and shout: Thank you, God, for all your creation and for being the greatest Scientist of all.
Delusion is a place for some people to live
Transgender Is A Malfunction Of Creation
It is not a Choice as the God worshipers claim.
For those who hate Truth just point out what is not true in this post.
That would be Honest and Wise.
Truth Is Existence
No Man Is Truth.
Truth is All That Truly Exists.
Other Than Truth there is Just The understood Concept of An Absence. Lies with intent to deceive or not is fantasy. Lies remain in the nonexistent realm.
Truth only frees you from Lies and deceit
Creation is only the Rearrangement of Matter.
As, Matter does not evolve from nothing.
The Great intelligent Designer and Creator, Matter, Knowledge, Energy, Time, Space, and The Spirit Energy Source, Has Always Existed. All are Without Beginning or end.
Beginning and the End only reveals an absence.
Spirit Energy Source Is True Science. It is not Religion.
knowledge and understanding is of the Spirit Energy Source
The Great Creator Is Spirits
The Great Creator is not a Father or a lord those both are just a man, just humans.
The Great Creator is far more Massive and complex than the God worshipers realize and understand.
The Great Creator is not a being somewhere in space.
The Great Creator is a huge mass of spirits in perfect unity. And with the same care and respect for each another.
Truth is not free. Truth has absolute boundaries'. Justice comes only by the truth.
Free has absolutely no boundaries', free is chaos.
The Basic Of Justice is do unto others as you would like to be done unto you.
The Basic principle of Christianity, It is far from Justice.
To sentence and executing an innocent man for the crime of all humanity. What Honest person would let your neighbor be executed for your own crime? Evidently a Christian would.
However, you all will face your own consequences, for your corruption and crime. You will not pin it on an innocent man. You all will harvest what you plant.
And Christianity also promote Cannibalism by a ritual that they pretend they are eating Jesse's flesh and drinking his blood.
The Great Creator performs Justice. You all will face your own consequences for your corruption and crimes. You will not pin them on an innocent man.
Christian's : How is it that you successfully deceive those in other nations to worship your Imaginary Mythical Gods and then go to war for the nation you worship and kill those members of your own churches.
Words to the honest and wise: honesty and understanding is the only true belief. Without honesty and understanding we do not know what to believe.
To accept other’s opinion of the truth without proving it to yourself; it is being deceived it is not believing.
We must understand to believe.
Until Next time: Sweet Dreams: Truth will solve all our problems before we create them; and ignore or reject the truth; problems will multiply all by themselves; those problems will need no help.
Have a great and a meaningful life if it is at all possible.
Just whispers, of the Ghost of Reality.
At this point, both terms are too general for the question. The root of the word religion is along the lines of, 'that which connects a person to something greater'. To generalize so broadly is unfortunate when it sure seems this argument is about mashing all the denominalizations of all religions into one thing. That's the same as mashing together scientism with scientific thinking. True science oughta be at odds with scientism, but that's barely on most people's radar with the mass trance and trauma over the past 2.5 years. It seems to me there isn't a single person on the planet that doesn't operate through faith - it's impossible not to have faith.(*Not some trite definition whereby it's blind belief). Consider that faith is a practice of how a person co-creates their experience of reality - in part that which a person continually thinks about, generates emotions from, and validates their existence by - it's what every person practices whether they're aware of it, make beleiving they're beyond it, or playing victim to the practice of their faith.
Your clearly not happy that science has definitions that actually reflect how it has changed and developed as a method . You prefer root definitions so that you can mischaracterise what it actually is .
Nothing is science is based on faith .
Thanks for the scientific reply, Tony.
Weak arguments by the guest. Just avoided the questions he couldn’t answer.
Existence of nature as free, without coercion or constraint, could be evidence of God through free will?
In the end Dennett simply chooses not to trust any revelatons. But this where all philosophies brakes down.
Nobody chooses their beliefs . Dennet just isn’t convinced in “revelations “ are actually revelations
We are creatures of exploration. Science has been for the greater part of our history the quintessential vehicle we have used in this search of what makes and is reality.
Today I like to announce we have a new and definite answer to that question.
GOD IS THE FOUNDATION OF REALITY AND HE HAS GIVEN US THE MATH TO KNOWN AND PROVE HIM TO BE SO.
God is the "FINE TUNER" of our universe, and He is eternal.
The truth is in the math.
What is a number? A Mathematical Proof
Here is that proof: Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1.
This equation says a number, any number is a set-in space that change with space.
In physics this equation reads: Gravity is matter changing with space. It combines Relativity or fractured space with Quantum mechanics or spatial expansion.
How dose God fit into this equation?
This equation is God's mathematical name.
God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God.
Breakdown: God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity
In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore, man is a fraction of God
Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind.
Plus (+) in math means: “with” the addition of
There is only one God. In mathematics the number “1” represents a single entity.
Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed (delta) With (+) God (1).
Scientific Method
Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4
Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth?
Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist, He should be found in the house of mathematics.
Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation
Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set-in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1))
Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise
This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance.
Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of 3 domains of space.
a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion a.k.a time and energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information
Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exists otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number.
Cantor's Mistake
George Cantor known as the father of set theory was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity.
Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity.
Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set.
Example. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement.
Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1.
This is Cantor's big mistake!
A correct set correspondence method
Here is a better way to measure these two number sets.
Match 2.1 with say 2. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of 100 divided by the square root of 25. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity.
Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality, but they also describe our existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Numbers like truths don't lie.
Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is in many ways our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discovery comes about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long?
Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based in math or science but in faith.
We have been blessed. I believe we are at a point in our evolution where we can come to know God in the science we study.
We should not be afraid of knowing God's working regardless as to how He choose to do those works. Whether it be evolution or any other method in His works we get to know the truth is we are here to learn and practice those learnings.
If doubt remain then please answer this question. What is a number? Google it if you need help. Infinity says a number is both qualitatively and quantitatively a set-in space that change with space. Isn't this what we do when we count or measure anything at all. Yes, this is exactly what we do when we measure or count anything.
In counting we take a memory or a something we name and put that something into an order of some kind in the space of our mind. We can arrange that something into least to greatest or whatever meets our satisfaction but the fact that we put anything into an ordered sequence is in effect making a change happen.
So, there we have it. A set in the space of our mind changes with the mind. At one moment the set is 1 and at the next moment it is 2 then 3, 4, 5 and so on.
In conclusion. Fighting over whether Creationism or Evolution is the right answer as to why we are here is the wrong picture both have a place with God.
william.mabon@yahoo.com
"Science has it's limitations" therefore god.
More accurately, the question should be, does science and God conflict, and the logical answer is no.
Again it’s a belief. You believe in big bang theory because it’s theoretically possible. But none of us witnessed big bang. why theory is better than religion beliefs?
No, but scientists and religionists simetimes do.
I expect you To be and you will be the High of all civilisation ever be with spiritual and science and tecnology all mix with love inconditionnel love. That is my response to your question. You have To belive I AM human because you will not see me. So,now I decide To change this prophecy the new name of all this. Is The New Chance. So I deasaper for a bit. You should see me all over the planet so be good to all I love and care of each
At the ROOT of the God's matter there is a LOGICAL ISSUE, monotheism is not acceptable. The almighty God knows the future, more particularly the ACTUAL future: EXACTLY what it will really happen! But that ACTUAL future also includes many God's actions. Well, God has no intention to be OBLIGED to EXACTLY carry out all the God's actions LISTED in that future. It's not necessary: as far as He is concerned God simply states "so be it", that's all and He is free. Indeed "being almighty" also means "NEVER carry out REDUNDANT ACTIONS".
This is what happened, this is why you have christianity: God does not dwell here among us now, God is thus like a spirit here. God manifests himself in three different ways: Father, Son and Spirit of God (AKA Holy Spirit). However, they are NOT three different Persons, no triune God exists.
Bob please check this verse. Quran 17/85
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, “The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little.”
Neither one of these guys is an engineer.
ouch!
heh heh
@@friendoengus They make some obvious statements that underscore this.
Dennett and the other New Atheists bone to pick is not with the modern Catholic Scholars but Fundamentalists. But being an institutional academic always puts him at odds with religion.
Science has not answered most of the Big questions in nature because Science has limitations to what it can do. Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, mathematician, broadcaster and author Marcus du Sautoy in his book, . He took over this position from atheist Richard Dawkins in 2008.
There are still a lot of things we do not know. It’s important that people realize there are limitations to science.
“Perhaps we need to think about more positive dialogue perhaps with science and society and issues of religion, for example, and we look for ways can share the different ways we look at the world rather than polarizing it,” du Sautoy said.
"I wonder, whether as I come to the end of my exploration at the limits of knowledge, I have changed my mind about declaring myself an atheist. With my definition of a God as the existence of things we cannot know, to declare myself an atheist would mean that I believe there is nothing that we cannot know. I don’t believe that anymore. In some sense I think I have proved that this God does exist. It’s now about exploring what quality this God has."
From atheist to agnostic believer after more than a decade of holding the position as Professor of Public Understanding of Science.
thank you, dongsheng
notable that sincere scientists devoted to inquiry generally make enough progress to engage theism (having got more than they bargained for and thereby needing it)
The "big" questions for science evolve with new knowledge. When we solve one question other new questions often emerge. That's the nature of inquiry and I don't know of a single scientist who doesn't understand this.
Which specific big questions do you think remain to be solved? If these are solved, will you agree that we don't need to invent supernatural explanations or will you complain that there are still more unanswered questions that continue to emerge.
Actually science has answered all the big questions.
Scientist are constantly enquiring and refining their knowledge, because science requires evidence to overcome scrutiny which is part of the method.
Religion doesn’t answer anything because all it requires is nothing but belief, and people who want to believe regardless of evidence.
what would a sentient AI say about God ... would AI have something to say about that ..
It would say "Whether real or fiction, God is sentient intelligence with a mind, free will, nature and can make maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes abstract or physical FUNCTIONS." Hmmmm? Clever AI.
Trying to use our minds basically ..
Everything in the world, even the whole universe itself starts and ends
..Is born and dies .
So, No other solution .. rather than; ..there must be a creator that is not born and never dies ..has no start and no end .
If you want another solution try to find another thing that has no start and no end ..even if you thinck it is mother nature or any other thing or parrell universes..try to fitch and find out non born non dying anything any constitution..try to reason up .
Alexander Pruss formulates the argument as follows:
1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4. This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5. This necessary being is God. (Creator, Designer, Programmer, Initiator, First Cause, Unmoved Mover)
@@dongshengdi773 *"4. This explanation must involve a necessary being."*
... That's where you run into some logical problems. That's a quite a _quantum leap_ from simple "facts" to the necessity for an "omnipotent being." Item (4) could have just as easily been, _"This explanation only requires the presence of all contingent facts and nothing more."_
@@dongshengdi773 He should clearly separate his premises from his conclusions and then present his position as a cogent argument.
The problem with using our minds to come up with solutions of what is true is we operate with different information and points of view.
The Universe has a start or end is an assumption that has not been demonstrated. The mathematics of beginning break down at a singularity. In calculus a singularity means the equation that is being used is no longer valid.
According to the General Theory of Relativity an empty Cosmos has accelerated expansion due to having zero spatial curvature and zero gravity. This means that we can never arrive a true beginning or get to a true end.
This means if we could remove all matter, energy, space and time from the Cosmos we still would not have nothing according to physicist.
We have not yet reasoned that the Universe has a beginning we only show that we have limits to how far we can trace back cosmic time.
@@kos-mos1127
In addition to start and end concept, the whole universe is obviously .. matter with no mind ,
So it is not capable of creating neither itself nor others .
If you assume it has limitless great great intelligence and highly sophisticated mind capable of designing, engineering & implementing rather than and above all creating ..life/ nature/laws and stunning live beings holding altogether the whole nuclear explosive 13.7 milliard year non-vanishing steady precise path universe including milliards& milliards of galaxies which.. all is far far beyond all humans mind capabilities...if so; please note your talking about GOD .
Another proof;
Absolute nothingness is just like zero ..it is merely a hypothesis it is the opposite of existence...so, absolute nothingness, zero .. absolute void can never exist ..so it was not there before the existence of the universe as assumed by most of people.. specially..atheists.
If there is anything that exists now .. directly it means there is some original existence who extends in all direction and dimensions leaving no space to any other thing.nothing before him nothing after him no other existence with him because he is the absolute inclusive existence..all other matter are s.th. like drawings..not true original existence .
Force/ energies draw the whole universe...matter is s.th. we feel.due to energies. majority / more than 99% of any matter is space except for tiny under-atom particles which I do thinck they are going to prove they are mere energy ..so space and matter are not true existence ..just 3d drawings-like far far marvelous precisely world synchronized creatures.
One depends on empirical evidence, the other on revelation. They're not complementary.
aloha zeig
please elucidate how they are not, or do you mean 'sometimes not complementary'?
@@friendoengus Hola, imo science deals in truth, and religion in bs.
@@zeigbert1743
i get you, and do not entirely concur,
because what is represented as science popularly these days is so often bald scientism (especially claims without legitimate evidence), amounting to just another deluded religion
@@friendoengus I wouldn't argue with that. A lot of what's called science nowadays is really just postmodernist activism. Postmodernism is a secular religion.
He thanks goodness. Without God, there’s no good no bad, just a universe that came to be by accident and the resulting materials reacting to one another. Lord in Heaven, smart people say the dumbest things
hi rick
cannot concur entirely
with or without a god, this place is good enough for me
thanking goodness/god all day long
@@friendoengus Goodness does not equal good enough for you
@@rickm5853
ok
what is good enough for you?
I somewhat agree with your argument. Good and bad are relative.
A lion eating a gazelle is good for the lion but bad for the gazelle. If the skills that the lion used to catch the gazelle are manifested from genomic information that benefits its offspring, then it's good for lions as a species. If the gazelle lacked traits that enable it to evade being eaten then it's removal from the gene pool might be good for gazelles as a species.
Objecrive good and bad for humans can be thought of in the same manner. Traits that benefit the species can be considered good while traits that are detrimental to the species can be considered bad. That assumes that we consider the continuation of the human species as being good. I think the jury is still out on that. 😉
@@mikel5582 The jury isn't even consulted whether you believe in the God of the Bible or not. If you don't believe in the God of the Bible then all of this is an accident that ends in destruction and again there's no good nor evil, just what is and its all temporary.. If you accept the Bible then God is the ultimate good and life transcends the material universe with eternal implications for humans. It's very black and white.
Stephen Fry with a beard
Laws of nature developed by nature from free will which is characteristic of God?
God is an ocean of universal consciousness and this consciousness is pure and not tainted by qualities of matter. We derive our personal consciousness from this source. This primordial awareness has always existed or so they say, the ancient sages and seers of ancient India who came up with Advaita Vedanta, one of the main school of thoughts in Hinduism. What we call matter is consciousness itself. This may explain the growing near death experience literature and other paranormal phenomena like ghosts, hauntings, ESP, premonition, psychic medium readings (the genuine ones), and even dreams. The brain is seen here as an instrument. Now this may very well be true and science cannot do nothing about it. After all, science is based on pre-existing matter and material laws. It didn't create or dictate those laws. Similarly, the existence of universal consciousness (God) preceding space and time may very well be true. The near death experiences are very interesting and Advaita Vedanta was talking about the hard problem of consciousness in 7th century AD. The human nervous system is the most sophisticated machinary ever created to link to and explore levels of consciousness. Advaita says we have the waking state, dreams, and dreamless deep sleep. We are even aware of the darkness of dreamless sleep. It mentions a fourth state of 'turiya' which transcends the three normal states of consciousness and is bright like the sun. It's the universal consciousness or always existing source of sentience. It lits up matter with consciousness.
This is an endless debate. Check Dr. Mary Neal talk about her NDE on Ted talks. Such first person subjective experience is the ultimate proof of where consciousness comes from. Science can only be objective and consciousness is a phenomena of subjectivity. How do we reconcile the two? As Advaita Vedanta suggests, the objects arise with the subject and reality rests on this foundation of primordial awareness. It just is. The 'I' sense in us is a pale reflection of this reality.
aloha joy
coherent, and close to what we observe
thank you
@@friendoengus @friend agni Aloha. To go into the depth of Advaita Vedanta I suggest looking up Sarvapriyananda on RUclips. He's so clear and coherent in his explanation of the core truths of Vedanta. This entire philosophy is based on our everyday experience of the waking state, dreams, and the blankness of deep sleep. It then discerns what is real, that which never changes, and the changeless background of being or awareness against which all changes are perceived. Religious concepts and scriptures are just hearsays. The truth is experiencable because it is your very being. You must yourself be the truth.
Check him out. Search: Sarvapriyananda
@@friendoengus Here are some excerpts from I AM THAT:
"All questions arise from your believing yourself to be a person."
"How little does man know of his Self [the one, immortal, formless substratum of all that exists], how he takes the most absurd statements about himself for holy Truth. He is told that he is the body, was born, will die, has parents, duties; learns to like what others like and fear what others fear."
" To you, you get born and die, while to me the world appears and disappears. You see yourself in the world, while I see the world in myself. You cling to the idea that you were born into a world of pain and sorrow; I know that the world is a child of love."
"Why don't you enquire how real are the world and the person?"
"To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. And to know what you are not you must watch yourself carefully, rejecting all that does not necessarily go with the basic fact: "I am". The ideas: I am born at a given place, at a given time, from my parents and now I am so-and-so, living at, married to, father of, employed by, and so on, are not inherent in the sense "I am". Our usual attitude is of "I am this". Separate consistently and perseveringly the "I am" from "this" or "that", and try to feel what it means to be, just to be, without being "this" or "that". All our habits go against it and the task of fighting them is long and hard sometimes, but clear understanding helps a lot. The clearer you understand that on the level of the mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker you will come to the end of your search and realize your limitless being."
Nisargadatta, I AM THAT
@@friendoengus A far-fetched proposition for science but not for reality. It is unaffected by our interpretations of it. This light makes everything possible and loveworthy!! It is consciousness that loves science and mathematics, and art, and literature, and so on. It discovers the laws of nature in science, and refutes them too in religion. Therefore anything we can observe cannot be reality. Hint: Who is doing the observing?
How arrogant! Accually he is anthrpolitan himself, because he does not acknowledge the limitation of human senses and intellectual power - how sad, but typical western thinking indeed; indian knowledge took the limitation of human mankind into account from the beginning of thinking about reality!...
How seriously should one take a person who thinks that God, who is supposedly the architect of the entire cosmos, could become so idle as to be playing, pardon me, did he say "air guitar"? What do humans really know? Most of humans' major discoveries and inventions are purely accidental and we like to parade ourselves as the geniuses there ever can be.
The cultural origins of
the different religious theologies can't be overlooked. The gods are always an extension of the culture it came from.
The main purpose of spiritual theologies are too imprint their reality on the population as a means of social control. Where individually is seen as a threat and must suppressed at all costs. Using lethal force if necessary. Creating their laws to enforce whatever reality they believe in. And their interpretation of scripture is used as justification for their position of authority. Even if you have to totally corrupt the foundational theology in the process.
There isn't a spiritual based theology out there that can stand up too even a basic reality check.
Of course, if you lose your religion, you also lose your special position in the reality they have built for you. The few to be saved, the proud of their hypocrisy and delusional faith in all too convenient gods.