Are you proposing an inversely proportional relationship between these two variables? Have you tested this hypothesis? Do you have any empirical evidence at all?
I agree! It's fascinating to me. Science doesn't have all the answers of the universe. Scientists, physicists etc, are constantly learning new things and will continue too. Nobody knows what will be discovered in the future about the nature of reality, it's largely an open question.
@@PetraKann If you are intrigued by his statement perhaps you could suggest or design an experiment that could prove or disprove the hypothesis? I would also like to know if you believe if it’s feasible to gather empirical evidence enough to prove that there isn’t an inversely proportional relationship between the two variables mentioned.
Everyone knows that the great Freeman Dyson died last year. SO WHEN WAS THIS INTERVIEW RECORDED? Crucial information! PLEASE start adding the original interview dates in the show notes!
If you watch enough Closer to Truth, you can get an idea of when an interview was recorded by the color and thickness of Lawrence's hair, he's been doing this for long enough. But I agree that it would be useful to provide a date for these clips.
Not sure why you would need to know such specific information. The point of these clips seems to be the reposting of the most profound responses to RLK's form questions he asked of all interviewees. 😮
I agree with him that one shouldn’t confuse science with philosophy. I agree that everything that is living in the universe is probably an expression of the universe as is everything else as it is part of the universe but whether it has purpose is debatable. We give purpose to our lives as a means to incentive of genetic evolution as with all species which may well differ from species to species.
There is no evidence of any underlying purpose. That's how he feels. He feels there is a purpose. Like he said, "If we don't have a purpose, you might as well say goodbye. You can't live without a purpose." I say to that, "Well, then create one."
@@peacecraft3449 absolutely. Wanting something to be true has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true. All claims must be justified with evidence that is observable and repeatable. Otherwise one person‘s opinion is no different from the psycho rambling in the subway.
The very idea of “force” or operating principle is a challenge to materialism, the conception of mere atoms and a void. It would be a hypostasis without phenomenal being of which we predicate “force”. It is a mystery, and one that should not be left unthought.
Месяц назад+2
@@alka9scottus there are literally forces in the standard model of particle physics
If we define God as whatever existed from the beginning, then God exists, as it does not look logical to consider that nothing (including God) existed in the beginning. At the same time, the existence of God is not our concern, it is the possibility of life after death that worries us. The existence of God does not imply the existence of life after death or vice versa. We haven't got any definite clue in this regard so far.
>If we define God as whatever existed from the beginning Whatever existed, so regardless of what that was? So, if what existed from the beginning was some simple impersonal t-shirt printable abstract generative logical structure that is necessarily true, with no intelligence or personal characteristics at all, then that's god? What does that mean in practice, would theists all start worshiping and praying to this logical expression?
Some theologies claim universes exist beyond physical level the simulation game theory is somewhat a 15% framework of what universe operates in. Its not finite or predetermined but as its own sets of operators in which it exists.
I liked the video but I disagree with Freeman... he is being too vague on his stance. One foot here and one foot there... I would have liked RL Kuhn to have challenged him more.
First, we are minerals, then plants, then animals then spiritual. You and I are spiritual infants. Our level of consciousness continues to grow, as does our abilities. We have no choice, we are forever but since we are newborns, we require a lot of attention and we get it. Your conscience is your guide. It only gets more complex, as do we. Smile, you are loved.
"Our level of consciousness continues to grow", Does it really? Proof? Judging by human action & activity it would seem the contrary is much more evident.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038Looking at so much obvious insanity today one might think so but looking back it seems to me that we are definitely less insane, heartless, than we have been in the past as a whole. There's evidence that caveman cared for their elderly even at great sacrifice for themselves though but also that caveman fought against each other also even though they certainly had plenty of places with resources to spread out. We still have plenty of room to spread out btw but we act like we can only use the wee fraction of what is available to support capitalism by artificially restricting supply which can be seen by looking out the window on a cross country flight. 🙏
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 As of Dec. 21, 2012, only higher consciousness children are born on Earth. The oldest will be 12 this year. Earth is advancing so most of the people on Earth can no longer reincarnate here. The kids are voluntarily coming to Earth. The problems created by humans were too severe for the same humans to solve, so the people are being replaced with higher intellect/higher consciousness souls. About two-thirds of the souls on Earth today will not be reincarnating on Earth. The living planet itself has already advanced and the inhabitants are catching up.
We are inside something far greater than ourselves..to comment on what that is is naive.the universe might have a purpose that might not be all about us..
So, Dyson believes design leads to evolution which has a mind of its own. Therefore science helps mankind to think beyond into the mysterious reality of metaphysics when consciousness becomes the fundamental reality based on which life and cosmic consciousness comes to existence.
Asking "who designed God" demonstrates the level of ignorance you have concerning the logic of this question. I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling you inexperienced. The simple answer to that question is that all things that exist must have a non-contingent foundation because wholly contingent objects cannot be a foundation for anything. Therefore, there must be a "necessary" foundation for all contingent things. That is why "energy" is not candidate because energy is potential between two things which means its contingent. The universe, as well, can't be the foundation because the universe is made up of parts which also makes it contingent. Instead there must be a "necessary" foundation, or a "necessary" first cause. "Necessary" is philosophical term that means that it must exist. That it cannot not exist. In any possible world, something "necessary" exists because it is the opposite of contingency which looked at another way means, "a contingent thing that could possibly not exist." So the foundation of all things must be "necessary." It has no designer. It has no cause. It must exist. There are many more details we can tease out of this conclusion but, in short, the details we tease out sound a lot alike the characteristics of the God we speak of.
God's Intelligent Design as believed by believers in the church interpretation of the word of God consists of this: God Created mortal beings that he placed upon the Earth and left there to decay and die, but before they do these beings must suffer if they don't follow God's orders of believing in the form of Jesus and worshipping that form as the Only way to God. These beings not only suffer from illness, lack, trauma, cancer, pain, hate, and all sorts of crazy things while on Earth, but before they die they also must accept Jesus to "save" their Souls that are in danger of Eternal Damnation....more or less!! Now mind you, Christianity will have you believe God sent a "savior" to Earth for three years after an eternity of no savior, and the last two thousand years of darkness, suffering, wars, famine, disease, etc, are simply the consequences of crucifying this "savior" while waiting for this "savior" to return to grab a few souls to take to Heaven while the rest are placed into an even greater evil called Eternal Damnation with Lucifer. This is Paganism at it's Best! This is what Spiritual Truth calls the NATURAL MAN'S FOOLISHNESS of Spiritual Things, as well as the Wide Gate Leading only to Death. Also sounds like such a Loving God. Christianity sees God as an Imperfect Being that created an Imperfect World filled with Imperfect beings, and this belief is of the mind of the Anti-Christ. This natural man also believes he is called to Correct what God Allows to Happen by calling it SIN so he can Elevate Himself not only above his neighbor, but above God as well, and this is the Self-Righteousness of True Heresy. If God is a Delusional, Power Hungry, Psychotic Mad Man as the church believes, this Christian Intelligent Design Belief is Absolute Brilliance, but if God is All-Encompassing, Omnipresent, Incorporeal, Immortal Spirit, then the Intelligent Design must be of Its own Immortal self, not of birth, suffering, decay, and death! Spiritual Letters such as those found in the bible are talking about the Infinite Identity of Your True Self "Within," not about a world of images outside of you. Everything speaks to the Father Within, the Soul, not the finite image, this is why it is said to "take no thought for your life." God's Intelligent Design tells you exactly what it is in the first line of Genesis for those with the Ear to hear: "In the Beginning, God Created the Heaven and the Earth" This one sentence puts everything else in the bible into a Perspective that no natural man can Discern, so unless this one line is Understood through God Awareness, which is Spiritual Discernment, the Bible is just a set of religious beliefs with complicated doctrines and rituals without a purpose. The True Message of the Bible is so Pro-Spirit that by default it is Anti-Religious in every way, right down to Symbolizing Religious Beliefs as the Hated Deeds and Doctrine of the Nicolaitans. DIVINE WILL = God/Infinite Awareness/Divine Consciousness/Kingdom of God/All-Encompassing/FATHER DIVINE MANIFESTATION = Individualized God Soul Consciousness/Son/MOTHER DIVINE DEMONSTRATION = Soul Body/Image/HOLY SPIRIT **Honor thy Father and thy Mother** Every Image is God being Itself in Infinitely Different Progressions of Receptivity to Itself Appearing as the finite images we call form and life. This is why we are told not to Judge After Appearances, and Judge ye no man after the flesh, as well as, take no thought for your life, because God is the Only Presence!! Where we appear to see, smell, taste, touch, or hear the image, any image, we must know it is God being itself in perfect receptivity to itself appearing as the image and the activity of the image, this way we don't judge the image in any way, thereby using what is called: Righteous Judgment. We can certainly know the belief is the belief in God Amiss, but we must refrain from judging the Image and Activity of the Demonstration of this, as this is the Image of the Souls Progression back to Infinite Awareness called the Holy Spirit. When this appears to take place for you, you can guarantee that God Soul Consciousness Awareness is Unfolding, and this will be the beginning of the Appearance of Building Receptivity to this Principle. We can't Be, Love, Hate, Obey, Disobey, Honor, Dishonor, or Worship God because it is God which is Being Us, even though the Mystery of God lies in the Appearance of the Belief in Free Will....!
@@alka9scottus Are you thinking that I am a proponent of the silly evolution theory? Think again. The guest is just so very wrong by claiming that God is a product of evolution. If evolution could produce God, then there could absolutely be no need for God's existence. But how very wrong he is. God has always existed. He is not and can not be a product of senseless evolution.
@@nupraptorthementalist3306believers who have to make bogeymen of those who think otherwise to elevate themselves against a world which routinely rebuffs their fanciful imaginings.
In his last book, ‘Brief answers to the Big Questions’, Professor Stephen Hawking contrasted Einstein’s dictum that “God does not throw dice”, with his own observation: “all the evidence is that God is quite a gambler. The Universe is like a giant casino, with dice being rolled, or wheels being spun, on every occasion.” I agree with Dr Hawking. However, I believe that ‘God’ made the dice, but ‘God’ does not throw the dice. ‘God’ built ‘The House’, ‘God’ set the odds, and then ‘God’ gave us the dice. ‘God’ lets us throw them as often as we choose, as no matter how many times we throw them, as ‘God’ knows, ‘The House’ will always win. I am a living, self-conscious, processor of Information, in a Universe where everything is Information and Energy, and where, if there is a purpose, it could be characterised as “Information seeking understanding through experience”. Carl Sagan captured it best when he said, “We are a way for The Cosmos to know itself”.
Omniscient - God doesn't participate in time. He isn't circumscribed to the delimitations of mass and magnitude, i.e., the temporal and the spatial. Understanding the finitide mind and the delimitations thereof is how we come to the conclusion that God is omniscient. For there are two fundamental things in the universe: the shower head and the drain. Man is caught up with what comes out of the shower head and cares not what happens when it goes down the drain. God is the abode of the antecedent in showerhead and the ends of dissolution in the drain. Therefore, God is all-knowing. Something imerges and such things disolve - what, therefore, is this unseeable substratum?
Freeman Dyson’s ideas here are a classic case of overcomplicating the simple. First, the argument from design is just humans projecting their need for purpose onto the universe. Just because we feel like there's a purpose doesn't mean there actually is. The universe is indifferent, and life is the result of natural processes, not some grand cosmic plan. As for "mind" at different levels-from quantum mechanics to the universe having a consciousness-this is pure speculation without any real evidence. It sounds interesting, but it’s an unnecessary leap to imagine atoms or the universe itself having anything like free will or awareness. Dyson’s idea of a God evolving with the universe is equally puzzling. A god that learns and grows through us? That’s just anthropocentric storytelling, a way to avoid the harsher reality that the universe simply doesn’t care. Finally, while he rejects the anthropic principle, his "mind-centered universe" still clings to the comforting, yet flawed, idea that the universe revolves around intelligence. It doesn’t. The universe is chaos, and we’re just a blip in it. Trying to infuse it with consciousness or purpose is philosophical handwaving. Dyson’s comfort with mystery is fine, but let’s not romanticize the unknown with these half-baked metaphysical ideas.
You don’t need the necessity of purpose to show design - but it helps. You just need to see that in biology from the micro level, the slow introduction of change is less likely to survive than having all the necessary mechanisms in place at the same time. Purpose and reason? That is a different topic.
Yes it is somewhat over complicated. But your idea “First, the argument from design is just humans projecting their need for purpose onto the universe.” This may or may not be the only explanation for design - a projection of need. It may be the observation of design in nature or even “apparent” design as Dawkins puts it. Design implies designer. Need for purpose is a different topic. They certainly may converge, but not of necessity.
@@antbrown9066I suppose it’s true that a well designed organism built from scratch is more likely to survive than any single mutated organism. The question is whether such an organism is more likely to occur fully fledged in the first place. Thats only true if we assume the existence of a designer to make it that way. So this line of reasoning can only work if we assume a designer, it can’t be used as evidence for a designer.
@@simonhibbs887 depends on your definition of evidence. Design implies designer. Or appearance of design as Dawkins puts it. Your question of what is more likely to occur in the first place. Good thought. Balance that with whether an organism is likely to exist at all by an increasing length of time - the slow method. I am not sure this is measurable, testable or replicable.
@simonhibbs887 All that existed from the beginning put together may be defined as God. Everything else has come into existence from these that existed from the beginning. If someone wants to worship God practicing some rituals, it is the individual's interest. God doesn't lack anything and doesn't need human worship either.
Everything in Existance is the design of god, and god is the design of knowledge in universe, god is created by intelligence of universe and humans are the intelectualpart of God, Everything belongs to god but the things anyone doesnt know but is known by someone is the sign of the existence of god, blah blah, Bhagwan blame kiss ka ek kiss ka God is the enjoyment of present moment with a meaning discovered for enjoyment is all about life, kuch bhi chalega Prabhu Zi Zab Earth Aapki 🌗Goldy🌓
My toenails were designed to grow continuously, regardless of length. I have to cut them every year, which is a nuisance. That doesn't seem very intelligent to me.
@@tedgrant2 I've never heard such a stupid argument. We have to wipe our butts to. Ha Ha! I've defeated the concept of God. I'm so smart because it was so easy!!
Hi its me ID 😎 God, but guess what I truly feel inconfortable lots of you calling me like that juste Philippe Will be perfect jesus was long ago everything change Philippe is adequate reagarding we are un 2024, love and care
I am an atheist, but I would never go so far as to say there is no evidence of intelligent design. I would like to hear your theory on how life formed from nothing. Please give a single example of how the self-replicating molecule has been reproduced in the lab or anywhere else. I would love to see the experiment that proves life originated via random processes. Start by googling "abiogenesis."
God is the I in the Sleeping Dreaming State using the Mind Device to create a world inside its imagination. The reason why everything seems so confusing is because the "MIND" is sleeping and dreaming.. The I Real Self is asleep inside of the dream and the Mind has created a body Avatar to explore the dream creation. The Existence Is The I Self. The I Exist as the Duality the Dream and The NonDuality "The Real". The I animating the Body in the same manner the I animate the Real of the Existence. The I Animating the Body is a fractal shattered Self in the duality. The I in the Body is in the Sleeping Dreaming State. That Which The I call God is the I, not wearing a body and in the "Supreme Ego" State. All Light is Being Obscured from the Self and the Mind - The Consciousness. All Is I Self. I Am All. The I and I is exploring inside the I dream Creation. Time To Awake From The Sleeping Dreaming State. THIS WORLD IS A DREAM. ALL IS ONE. "Out of One Came Many". Out Of Many We Are One". All Is Myself.
Different idea of “science” than that from which “telos” and “physics” emerged… anachronistic to apply his critique to their formulation as such. So far as his analysis is strictly historical it is likewise not “scientific” in definition (which is fine so long as it is not confused otherwise)…
I think it's obvious philosophy is far superior to science in it's ability to allow all reasonable means to get closer to the truth. Luckily for us the most influential scientists in history have not constrained themselves to the limits of the scientific method.
I believe in God, but I'm not going to watch this full video because I'm not interested in bad arguments. First, you labeled the video, “Is Intelligent Design Evidence of God?” If you change "God" to "a Creator", then you have a circular question that answers itself. Second, Lawrence immediately started painting the creation argument in negative terms, which I found belies his claim to open-mindedness. He seems to have chosen his side. Third, the very first thing Freeman does is hamstring everything that comes afterward by separating the answer from scientific inquiry while the question is born in trying to ask if what we learn about a universe perfectly tuned for life is scientific evidence for God? That's enough for me. I'll catch the next episode. There's only so much stupid I can take without a net.
Yes I truly understand 😎, when you look for stimulating anwser to question that you have probably for long Time,you realy dont feel listening ease conversation plus ease negative conversation from suppose scientiste who realy seem to know true secret as initiés reagarding this old new way to do sciences methaphysic math great and exact prediction ,Even if new vision (suscitent) are juste expression from different True. Are intense curiosity are imagination are nessairy to see clear the otter side of those doors,inside are (Me)😎 Philippe living in univers, in the back of those objective doors it existe,where all of are forces from life and are faith into an ideal. When I say faith its not about faith in me, no religious purposes, no its about what each of you as a power to reach what each otters as inside most of time its keep as a secret the Faith to rise your secret, now its time to realy belive in you your freind Philippe 😎
So to explain the existence of the universe he supposes the existence of a mind that chose to make it this way. Great. Only one problem. Now we have to explain the existence of this mind, and why it would make such a choice. So rather than actually explaining the strangeness and unlikeliness of universe, now we've got to explain something even more strange and unlikely, and then still also why that had such a state that it created our strange and unlikely universe. This is progress?
Existence of a universe in which intelligence is emergent is a better conception of his starting point. “Universe” itself is vague. It’s being in it that is contentious. He distances himself from an “anthropomorphic” idea. He doesn’t presume “choice” or any phenomenal condition as to which the creative principle in nature is defined.
Show said validation. The physics of the Universe strongly indicates otherwise, i.e. the expansion of the Universe & increasing rate of expansion of Dark Energy. You can just make crap up without proof nor without understanding the math & science which is apparently the case with you.
@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 Expansion does not contradict that. On the contrary. Can you reason? Or is that unscientific 🤣 Ever heard of infinity in mathematics? Or is that made up crap too.
I think Existence trumps Mechanism. " I Am", is a profound and holy name, and the " is-ness " of everything, including yourself and your consciousness, is a thing mysterious and wonderful. Our science, employed around Him as our axis of rotation is a wonderful tool and toy. Our tools and toys as substitute explanations, are just absurd.
*"Humans imagine purpose. Existence just is. God is a cope."* ... Regarding _"Existence just is:"_ In my book I have the author (who just happens to be "Existence") explaining how "Existence" came to be. It's "Existence's" autobiography! ... "Existence" often refers to itself is _"That which is."_
Why can’t there be an architect? Why can’t that architect have intention? Or purpose? Or an ultimate ambition? The question is no less preposterous than the hard-core scientist who categorically asserts that there is no designer. That the universe just is. They might say that our understanding has lower and upper limits, beyond which one cannot proceed. Yet they still hope for and search for a “Theory of Everything”. A theory that would tie everything up in a nice little package. The “God” theory is just such a package. I agree that “God” if there is a “God” does experience our growth and trials tribulations and successes. I imagine that would be a nice place to be. Those who dismissively reject the idea of “God” in any form or in any circumstance, reveal everything about themselves and nothing about the ultimate mysteries of our imagination.
The purpose of life on Earth is to learn about good and evil, a world with God and a world without God, so we can make an informed choice about where we want to spend eternity. So a taste of Hell on Earth is necessary. To quote the great philosopher, Yogi Berra, “If the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be.”
@@dontveter3372 I think there are enough religious studies, historical references, experiences of NDEs, that shows that the idea of hell is a great misinterpretation that was later used to strike fear into the masses. As a catholic and an historian i find the idea of hell totally silly. Different if you wanted to say "to see what is good, what we hate, what is beautiful and what is evil"
Месяц назад
@@francesco5581 complexity is a human construct. nature doesn't care about complexity.
A man made construct based on a principle. We can argue all day about the theories of God, but not the Principle in God. Get it right already. Grow up.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 life. I would like to see how you or anyone else can explain the origin of first life in the universe. If it was a random process, then the burden is on you and every other biologists to prove life can be replicated via the same evolutionary processes. So far, no one has been able to produce a self-replicating molecule from lifeless matter. With that said, only a fool would deny the possibility of an intelligence that underlines the universe. Even as an atheist, I am smart enough to reserve judgment until the final vote is cast.
Wow, even folks like Dyson struggle with the problem of purpose - which is a deeply anthropocentric question. For a snale or a rock, the universe needs no purpose. Only humans ask that question. The argument of intelligent design itself is weak: a godlike, omnipotent designer wouldn't have built such a messy, life-denying universe (for the most part) if he really wanted to create mankind, life and beauty in the first place imo.
No one has ever been able to prove the origins of first life in the universe; the self-replicating cell. No one has ever been able to create life from non-living things. This is enough for me to allow the possibility of intelligence in the creation of life, if not the universe.
"I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian." Freeman Dyson. The problem with evolutionary theology a la Whitehead and Dyson is that it simply postpones whether God is relevant to how we live our lives. If He grows when we grow in mind and choice, then He is our creature. He can't exist or make up His mind without our help!
@@blusheep2 One god is the minimum requirement to play the game. So this means there is a god ? So which one is it ? My bets on Odin. And don't tell me it's one of those island gods. They seem to pop up everywhere.
@@thomasridley8675 You are using the fact that there have been many God's as reason to imply that God doesn't exist. I am just turning your own logic around and saying if that is how we should reason then we should point out the fact that all the people that believed in these gods believed that at least 1 god was real which would then imply that God does exist. I'm calling you higher towards better logic.
@@blusheep2 Obviously the question of our origins is still up for debate. But i can, without any doubt, say the theologies we have created are just culturally generated control systems and their gods do not exist. It's really obvious that we have no idea what this reality means. And are just making up some very convenient answers they can use to validate their cultural superiority. And of course, their right to rule.
It's not the universe itself having purpose, it is God or the Personal Infinite Mind that gives the universe its purpose to function according to God's providential governance. He is right about science is limited to know what philosophy and theology can add to knowing that God is the best explanation of all things.
Месяц назад+1
god isn't an explanation of anything. it is a surrender of rationality to primitive emotion.
Everything in life is based on design, from creating a movie to writing a song to preparing a meal to building a house. There is nothing in life that is not design based. Yet, when it comes to the argument of biology, suddenly there is no design, and if you mention design, you are labeled an idiot. Take a step back and look at your hands, your heart, your eyes and the structure, the functionality, the tremendous complexity....and reflect... I'm not saying adopt any current religious views, but think of life and biology in a deeper sense
Thats easy to explain away. Simply introduce from the “scientists” a non testable, non replicable and non observable concept called the multi verse. That is one way we can avoid the obvious inference to the best explanation - design. Logical?
@@antbrown9066I prefer testable, replicable, observable explanations, preferably with a rigorous mathematical formalism. In this case evolution through natural selection.
@@antbrown9066 I’m not a multiverse fan, it’s a plausible theory but I think others are more likely. As further the origin of life, work on that is ongoing. I don’t see any significant obstacle to getting there. After all we already observe evolution operating in pre-biotic chemicals. If non living chemical cycles can evolve, and they can, there’s no apparent obstacle to that leading to life.
@@simonhibbs887 the obstacle getting there seems to be that the complexity is increasing and it seems the time rather than getting closer, seems to be getting further. Also, it is not observable, testable or replicable. Same with multiverse.
@@francesco5581 sure, that’s a cute saying but what happens when we find another “science genius” that disagrees with this man’s positions? We easily can. It appears as though this identification holds no bearing on whether a personal belief system/cultural tradition is rooted in reality or not. As such, it’s pointless to have mentioned it.
@@asyetundetermined at the very core or is consciousness > matter or is matter > consciousness. so is perfectly normal to have always 2 different positions and are both perfectly legit .
(2:00) *FD: **_"I think it's quite likely that the universe has some sort of a mental apparatus which you can call God if you like."_* ... And that's a good way to put it. Theism posits the highest conceivable level of intelligence (God) and atheism posits no intelligence whatsoever. ... As with most speculations, the truth lies somewhere in between. The most logical conclusion is that there is a *minimum amount of intelligence* woven into the fabric of reality. The amount that is present is only that which is minimally required to facilitate *orchestration.* Its presence is so integral and minimalistic that it can't be isolated. This is why we have the ongoing debate over "fine tuning." ... A minimum amount of orchestration results in half of everyone claiming _total randomness_ and the other half claiming _divine orchestration._ It's much like a Jackson Pollock painting. Did he just randomly pour paint onto his canvases, or did he have a game plan all along? ... As someone who has seen his works up close, ... _he definitely knew what he was doing!_ ... Logic states that you're not going to end up with any type of organized, repeatable structure without some level of intelligence being involved.
*"Atheism posits nothing and “the truth lies somewhere in between” is an argument to moderation fallacy."* ... Every ideology has some type of reasoning attached to it; otherwise, it would be a totally arbitrary and incohesive ideology. Neither of us believes atheism to be an *arbitrary ideology,* so we can both agree that people are atheists for *specific reason(s),* The most universal reason for being an atheist is "lack of empirical evidence." Their unwavering insistence on empirical evidence unfortunately propagates into subsequent ideologies, and that's where it becomes problematic. The atheist ends up "restricted" from considering other more salient propositions that have nothing to do with theism. *"and “the truth lies somewhere in between” is an argument to moderation fallacy."* ... "The truth lies somewhere in between" is not unlike "slippery slope." They both aren't 100% accurate, but they end up being accurate more times than not. Ironically, both terms lie _somewhere between_ "100% accurate" and "totally inaccurate." ... (mic drop)
@@asyetundetermined *"atheism is not an ideology at all."* ... Yes, it is. Marriam-Webster: *IDEOLOGY:* a: _a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture._ Now, if you want to claim that atheism is NOT a "manner of thinking" (i.e., "it's arbitrary") then you're more than welcome to think that way. ... I don't think your atheistic brethren will go along with it, though. *"Empirical evidence of what, exactly?"* ... The existence of God. Did you not know that?
Empiricism is not equivalent to atheism. Empiricism: “save the phenomena” Atheism: the explanation of phenomena can be limited to those things of empirical form. The former, if genuine, is reticent with regard to theory. The latter presupposes an ontology of those objects observed, and is willing to justify itself in a semantic game of “nonbeing” … A-theism is a position contra Theism.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
The more time i spend on this earth the more i realize how little i know or can comprehend about the nature of reality
Are you proposing an inversely proportional relationship between these two variables?
Have you tested this hypothesis?
Do you have any empirical evidence at all?
@@PetraKann you can agree or not i have never felt the need to validate my statement
I agree! It's fascinating to me. Science doesn't have all the answers of the universe. Scientists, physicists etc, are constantly learning new things and will continue too.
Nobody knows what will be discovered in the future about the nature of reality, it's largely an open question.
In the meantime we just heard yet another attempt to explain a mystery by something we don’t understand.
@@PetraKann If you are intrigued by his statement perhaps you could suggest or design an experiment that could prove or disprove the hypothesis?
I would also like to know if you believe if it’s feasible to gather empirical evidence enough to prove that there isn’t an inversely proportional relationship between the two variables mentioned.
Everyone knows that the great Freeman Dyson died last year. SO WHEN WAS THIS INTERVIEW RECORDED? Crucial information! PLEASE start adding the original interview dates in the show notes!
he rose from the dead for this interview
I like to know these things also but it's better for us to accept that for now it's a mystery. 🙂
He died 4 years ago
If you watch enough Closer to Truth, you can get an idea of when an interview was recorded by the color and thickness of Lawrence's hair, he's been doing this for long enough. But I agree that it would be useful to provide a date for these clips.
Not sure why you would need to know such specific information. The point of these clips seems to be the reposting of the most profound responses to RLK's form questions he asked of all interviewees. 😮
Goodness is God, and we are creations who experience goodness from learning what goodness are. Peace be upon us all
God will always exist when you redefine the word to fit anything.
Goodness is God!?! Are you Cuckoo? Mysogeny, Genocidal Infanticide, Child beating, Stoning for petty slights and friendships??? Grow Up!
I agree with him that one shouldn’t confuse science with philosophy. I agree that everything that is living in the universe is probably an expression of the universe as is everything else as it is part of the universe but whether it has purpose is debatable. We give purpose to our lives as a means to incentive of genetic evolution as with all species which may well differ from species to species.
There is no evidence of any underlying purpose. That's how he feels. He feels there is a purpose. Like he said, "If we don't have a purpose, you might as well say goodbye. You can't live without a purpose." I say to that, "Well, then create one."
If you are stating there is no purpose, you can't say anyone can create one. The second statement contradicts the first one.
@@peacecraft3449 absolutely. Wanting something to be true has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true. All claims must be justified with evidence that is observable and repeatable. Otherwise one person‘s opinion is no different from the psycho rambling in the subway.
The irony is under foot, is in the air, the stars, our eyes. We are oblivious.
I don't know about God but I'm pretty sure there are forces in action in forming all this incredible complexity that we have no idea of.
The very idea of “force” or operating principle is a challenge to materialism, the conception of mere atoms and a void. It would be a hypostasis without phenomenal being of which we predicate “force”. It is a mystery, and one that should not be left unthought.
@@alka9scottus there are literally forces in the standard model of particle physics
If there are forces in action then who put them in action?
There may or not be a creator of the universe but to believe in an interventionist God is quite a stretch.
this
Not at all, if there is a creator than what has been created is already an intervention.
When was this video made?
At least four years ago...
That's it, I believe the same thing as he said.
But I don't believe about soul's existence.
If we define God as whatever existed from the beginning, then God exists, as it does not look logical to consider that nothing (including God) existed in the beginning. At the same time, the existence of God is not our concern, it is the possibility of life after death that worries us. The existence of God does not imply the existence of life after death or vice versa. We haven't got any definite clue in this regard so far.
>If we define God as whatever existed from the beginning
Whatever existed, so regardless of what that was? So, if what existed from the beginning was some simple impersonal t-shirt printable abstract generative logical structure that is necessarily true, with no intelligence or personal characteristics at all, then that's god? What does that mean in practice, would theists all start worshiping and praying to this logical expression?
Not outside the universe but outside the scientific picture of the universe.
science isn't static
@@maspoetry1 right sciences is motion momentum and so on because its Alive 😎 Philippe
Some theologies claim universes exist beyond physical level the simulation game theory is somewhat a 15% framework of what universe operates in. Its not finite or predetermined but as its own sets of operators in which it exists.
I liked the video but I disagree with Freeman... he is being too vague on his stance. One foot here and one foot there... I would have liked RL Kuhn to have challenged him more.
Agreed. Thought the same.
Not true u can live with out purpose u can live without god
Just don't believe you'll ever learn proper grammar and spelling😅
First, we are minerals, then plants, then animals then spiritual. You and I are spiritual infants. Our level of consciousness continues to grow, as does our abilities. We have no choice, we are forever but since we are newborns, we require a lot of attention and we get it. Your conscience is your guide. It only gets more complex, as do we. Smile, you are loved.
"Our level of consciousness continues to grow", Does it really? Proof? Judging by human action & activity it would seem the contrary is much more evident.
groovy. ☺
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038Looking at so much obvious insanity today one might think so but looking back it seems to me that we are definitely less insane, heartless, than we have been in the past as a whole. There's evidence that caveman cared for their elderly even at great sacrifice for themselves though but also that caveman fought against each other also even though they certainly had plenty of places with resources to spread out. We still have plenty of room to spread out btw but we act like we can only use the wee fraction of what is available to support capitalism by artificially restricting supply which can be seen by looking out the window on a cross country flight. 🙏
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 As of Dec. 21, 2012, only higher consciousness children are born on Earth. The oldest will be 12 this year. Earth is advancing so most of the people on Earth can no longer reincarnate here. The kids are voluntarily coming to Earth. The problems created by humans were too severe for the same humans to solve, so the people are being replaced with higher intellect/higher consciousness souls. About two-thirds of the souls on Earth today will not be reincarnating on Earth. The living planet itself has already advanced and the inhabitants are catching up.
Evidence is strong word. Design is subjective feeling like intelligent design. In massive disasters it disappears from our minds.
If you're interested in what Duson is saying, check out Sir Roger Penrose on consciousness.
This is always where 'science' dares not go--the why of something. Why gravity? Why consciousness? The question is meaningless, they say.
Brilliant mind ❤
We are inside something far greater than ourselves..to comment on what that is is naive.the universe might have a purpose that might not be all about us..
So, Dyson believes design leads to evolution which has a mind of its own. Therefore science helps mankind to think beyond into the mysterious reality of metaphysics when consciousness becomes the fundamental reality based on which life and cosmic consciousness comes to existence.
It's no argument becasue the counter is who designed god.
Asking "who designed God" demonstrates the level of ignorance you have concerning the logic of this question. I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling you inexperienced.
The simple answer to that question is that all things that exist must have a non-contingent foundation because wholly contingent objects cannot be a foundation for anything. Therefore, there must be a "necessary" foundation for all contingent things. That is why "energy" is not candidate because energy is potential between two things which means its contingent. The universe, as well, can't be the foundation because the universe is made up of parts which also makes it contingent.
Instead there must be a "necessary" foundation, or a "necessary" first cause. "Necessary" is philosophical term that means that it must exist. That it cannot not exist. In any possible world, something "necessary" exists because it is the opposite of contingency which looked at another way means, "a contingent thing that could possibly not exist."
So the foundation of all things must be "necessary." It has no designer. It has no cause. It must exist. There are many more details we can tease out of this conclusion but, in short, the details we tease out sound a lot alike the characteristics of the God we speak of.
God's Intelligent Design as believed by believers in the church interpretation of the word of God consists of this:
God Created mortal beings that he placed upon the Earth and left there to decay and die, but before they do these beings must suffer if they don't follow God's orders of believing in the form of Jesus and worshipping that form as the Only way to God. These beings not only suffer from illness, lack, trauma, cancer, pain, hate, and all sorts of crazy things while on Earth, but before they die they also must accept Jesus to "save" their Souls that are in danger of Eternal Damnation....more or less!! Now mind you, Christianity will have you believe God sent a "savior" to Earth for three years after an eternity of no savior, and the last two thousand years of darkness, suffering, wars, famine, disease, etc, are simply the consequences of crucifying this "savior" while waiting for this "savior" to return to grab a few souls to take to Heaven while the rest are placed into an even greater evil called Eternal Damnation with Lucifer.
This is Paganism at it's Best!
This is what Spiritual Truth calls the NATURAL MAN'S FOOLISHNESS of Spiritual Things, as well as the Wide Gate Leading only to Death. Also sounds like such a Loving God.
Christianity sees God as an Imperfect Being that created an Imperfect World filled with Imperfect beings, and this belief is of the mind of the Anti-Christ. This natural man also believes he is called to Correct what God Allows to Happen by calling it SIN so he can Elevate Himself not only above his neighbor, but above God as well, and this is the Self-Righteousness of True Heresy. If God is a Delusional, Power Hungry, Psychotic Mad Man as the church believes, this Christian Intelligent Design Belief is Absolute Brilliance, but if God is All-Encompassing, Omnipresent, Incorporeal, Immortal Spirit, then the Intelligent Design must be of Its own Immortal self, not of birth, suffering, decay, and death!
Spiritual Letters such as those found in the bible are talking about the Infinite Identity of Your True Self "Within," not about a world of images outside of you. Everything speaks to the Father Within, the Soul, not the finite image, this is why it is said to "take no thought for your life."
God's Intelligent Design tells you exactly what it is in the first line of Genesis for those with the Ear to hear:
"In the Beginning, God Created the Heaven and the Earth"
This one sentence puts everything else in the bible into a Perspective that no natural man can Discern, so unless this one line is Understood through God Awareness, which is Spiritual Discernment, the Bible is just a set of religious beliefs with complicated doctrines and rituals without a purpose. The True Message of the Bible is so Pro-Spirit that by default it is Anti-Religious in every way, right down to Symbolizing Religious Beliefs as the Hated Deeds and Doctrine of the Nicolaitans.
DIVINE WILL = God/Infinite Awareness/Divine Consciousness/Kingdom of God/All-Encompassing/FATHER
DIVINE MANIFESTATION = Individualized God Soul Consciousness/Son/MOTHER
DIVINE DEMONSTRATION = Soul Body/Image/HOLY SPIRIT
**Honor thy Father and thy Mother**
Every Image is God being Itself in Infinitely Different Progressions of Receptivity to Itself Appearing as the finite images we call form and life. This is why we are told not to Judge After Appearances, and Judge ye no man after the flesh, as well as, take no thought for your life, because God is the Only Presence!!
Where we appear to see, smell, taste, touch, or hear the image, any image, we must know it is God being itself in perfect receptivity to itself appearing as the image and the activity of the image, this way we don't judge the image in any way, thereby using what is called: Righteous Judgment.
We can certainly know the belief is the belief in God Amiss, but we must refrain from judging the Image and Activity of the Demonstration of this, as this is the Image of the Souls Progression back to Infinite Awareness called the Holy Spirit.
When this appears to take place for you, you can guarantee that God Soul Consciousness Awareness is Unfolding, and this will be the beginning of the Appearance of Building Receptivity to this Principle.
We can't Be, Love, Hate, Obey, Disobey, Honor, Dishonor, or Worship God because it is God which is Being Us, even though the Mystery of God lies in the Appearance of the Belief in Free Will....!
If God evolved with the universe, he can not be God. He should be just like us, as you claim, product of evolution.
Are you the cause of your evolution?
@@alka9scottus I don't understand the thrust of your question.
Then you misunderstand the theological argument altogether
@@alka9scottus
What exactly is the theological argument ?
@@alka9scottus Are you thinking that I am a proponent of the silly evolution theory? Think again. The guest is just so very wrong by claiming that God is a product of evolution. If evolution could produce God, then there could absolutely be no need for God's existence. But how very wrong he is. God has always existed. He is not and can not be a product of senseless evolution.
subjective free will causation designs experience of God in cosmos?
It's better than letting humans think they created it.
Literally no one thinks that!
Who thinks so?
@@nupraptorthementalist3306believers who have to make bogeymen of those who think otherwise to elevate themselves against a world which routinely rebuffs their fanciful imaginings.
@@colors6692 Obviously you're wrong. I think that some of you think that.
@@colors6692 Just like some people think they own planet earth. Most likely think they created everything here.
In his last book, ‘Brief answers to the Big Questions’, Professor Stephen Hawking contrasted Einstein’s dictum that “God does not throw dice”, with his own observation: “all the evidence is that God is quite a gambler. The Universe is like a giant casino, with dice being rolled, or wheels being spun, on every occasion.”
I agree with Dr Hawking. However, I believe that ‘God’ made the dice, but ‘God’ does not throw the dice. ‘God’ built ‘The House’, ‘God’ set the odds, and then ‘God’ gave us the dice. ‘God’ lets us throw them as often as we choose, as no matter how many times we throw them, as ‘God’ knows, ‘The House’ will always win.
I am a living, self-conscious, processor of Information, in a Universe where everything is Information and Energy, and where, if there is a purpose, it could be characterised as “Information seeking understanding through experience”.
Carl Sagan captured it best when he said, “We are a way for The Cosmos to know itself”.
Omniscient - God doesn't participate in time. He isn't circumscribed to the delimitations of mass and magnitude, i.e., the temporal and the spatial.
Understanding the finitide mind and the delimitations thereof is how we come to the conclusion that God is omniscient.
For there are two fundamental things in the universe: the shower head and the drain. Man is caught up with what comes out of the shower head and cares not what happens when it goes down the drain. God is the abode of the antecedent in showerhead and the ends of dissolution in the drain. Therefore, God is all-knowing.
Something imerges and such things disolve - what, therefore, is this unseeable substratum?
How can something do anything without time?
Literal shower thoughts here. With no basis in reality.
@@CSTBFO_jad He loves to hear himself speak.
Freeman Dyson’s ideas here are a classic case of overcomplicating the simple. First, the argument from design is just humans projecting their need for purpose onto the universe. Just because we feel like there's a purpose doesn't mean there actually is. The universe is indifferent, and life is the result of natural processes, not some grand cosmic plan. As for "mind" at different levels-from quantum mechanics to the universe having a consciousness-this is pure speculation without any real evidence. It sounds interesting, but it’s an unnecessary leap to imagine atoms or the universe itself having anything like free will or awareness. Dyson’s idea of a God evolving with the universe is equally puzzling. A god that learns and grows through us? That’s just anthropocentric storytelling, a way to avoid the harsher reality that the universe simply doesn’t care. Finally, while he rejects the anthropic principle, his "mind-centered universe" still clings to the comforting, yet flawed, idea that the universe revolves around intelligence. It doesn’t. The universe is chaos, and we’re just a blip in it. Trying to infuse it with consciousness or purpose is philosophical handwaving. Dyson’s comfort with mystery is fine, but let’s not romanticize the unknown with these half-baked metaphysical ideas.
ok
You don’t need the necessity of purpose to show design - but it helps. You just need to see that in biology from the micro level, the slow introduction of change is less likely to survive than having all the necessary mechanisms in place at the same time. Purpose and reason? That is a different topic.
Yes it is somewhat over complicated. But your idea “First, the argument from design is just humans projecting their need for purpose onto the universe.” This may or may not be the only explanation for design - a projection of need. It may be the observation of design in nature or even “apparent” design as Dawkins puts it. Design implies designer. Need for purpose is a different topic. They certainly may converge, but not of necessity.
@@antbrown9066I suppose it’s true that a well designed organism built from scratch is more likely to survive than any single mutated organism. The question is whether such an organism is more likely to occur fully fledged in the first place. Thats only true if we assume the existence of a designer to make it that way. So this line of reasoning can only work if we assume a designer, it can’t be used as evidence for a designer.
@@simonhibbs887 depends on your definition of evidence.
Design implies designer. Or appearance of design as Dawkins puts it.
Your question of what is more likely to occur in the first place. Good thought. Balance that with whether an organism is likely to exist at all by an increasing length of time - the slow method. I am not sure this is measurable, testable or replicable.
No.
@simonhibbs887 All that existed from the beginning put together may be defined as God. Everything else has come into existence from these that existed from the beginning. If someone wants to worship God practicing some rituals, it is the individual's interest. God doesn't lack anything and doesn't need human worship either.
This guy builds spheres.
Everything in Existance is the design of god, and god is the design of knowledge in universe, god is created by intelligence of universe and humans are the intelectualpart of God, Everything belongs to god but the things anyone doesnt know but is known by someone is the sign of the existence of god, blah blah, Bhagwan blame kiss ka ek kiss ka God is the enjoyment of present moment with a meaning discovered for enjoyment is all about life, kuch bhi chalega
Prabhu Zi Zab Earth Aapki 🌗Goldy🌓
He said before that he was a Socinian. Sort of a Whiteheadean.
My toenails were designed to grow continuously, regardless of length.
I have to cut them every year, which is a nuisance.
That doesn't seem very intelligent to me.
Why, because its a nuisance? Do you really think that is good reason?
@@blusheep2
Yes
@@tedgrant2 Well its not.
@@blusheep2
As far as I know, humans are the only animals that use nail clippers.
You never see an elephant clipping its nails.
So why us ? 😭
@@tedgrant2 I've never heard such a stupid argument. We have to wipe our butts to. Ha Ha! I've defeated the concept of God. I'm so smart because it was so easy!!
So who or what was the intelligent designer of your god thing????
Unmoved mover is the idea
the 1 instead of the 0 (and we know that the zero never existed)
God.
god's mommy and daddy
Hi its me ID 😎 God, but guess what I truly feel inconfortable lots of you calling me like that juste Philippe Will be perfect jesus was long ago everything change Philippe is adequate reagarding we are un 2024, love and care
Ummmmm... since there is no evidence of intelligent design, then it can't be evidence of any sky daddy.
I am an atheist, but I would never go so far as to say there is no evidence of intelligent design. I would like to hear your theory on how life formed from nothing. Please give a single example of how the self-replicating molecule has been reproduced in the lab or anywhere else. I would love to see the experiment that proves life originated via random processes. Start by googling "abiogenesis."
Look I am no dady, I am a grand grand Brother 😎 Philippe
God is the I in the Sleeping Dreaming State using the Mind Device to create a world inside its imagination. The reason why everything seems so confusing is because the "MIND" is sleeping and dreaming.. The I Real Self is asleep inside of the dream and the Mind has created a body Avatar to explore the dream creation.
The Existence Is The I Self. The I Exist as the Duality the Dream and The NonDuality "The Real". The I animating the Body in the same manner the I animate the Real of the Existence. The I Animating the Body is a fractal shattered Self in the duality. The I in the Body is in the Sleeping Dreaming State. That Which The I call God is the I, not wearing a body and in the "Supreme Ego" State. All Light is Being Obscured from the Self and the Mind - The Consciousness. All Is I Self. I Am All. The I and I is exploring inside the I dream Creation.
Time To Awake From The Sleeping Dreaming State. THIS WORLD IS A DREAM. ALL IS ONE. "Out of One Came Many". Out Of Many We Are One". All Is Myself.
CTMU ?
What a brilliant reconciled body , mind and soul .
This guy is good
Good for nothing! lol
There is no good evidence for creationism. And there is no good evidence for the existence of a deity either.
@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 There is evidence all around you.
Different idea of “science” than that from which “telos” and “physics” emerged… anachronistic to apply his critique to their formulation as such. So far as his analysis is strictly historical it is likewise not “scientific” in definition (which is fine so long as it is not confused otherwise)…
I think it's obvious philosophy is far superior to science in it's ability to allow all reasonable means to get closer to the truth. Luckily for us the most influential scientists in history have not constrained themselves to the limits of the scientific method.
000000-,-0 😅😂😂😂
I believe in God, but I'm not going to watch this full video because I'm not interested in bad arguments. First, you labeled the video, “Is Intelligent Design Evidence of God?” If you change "God" to "a Creator", then you have a circular question that answers itself.
Second, Lawrence immediately started painting the creation argument in negative terms, which I found belies his claim to open-mindedness. He seems to have chosen his side.
Third, the very first thing Freeman does is hamstring everything that comes afterward by separating the answer from scientific inquiry while the question is born in trying to ask if what we learn about a universe perfectly tuned for life is scientific evidence for God?
That's enough for me. I'll catch the next episode. There's only so much stupid I can take without a net.
Yes I truly understand 😎, when you look for stimulating anwser to question that you have probably for long Time,you realy dont feel listening ease conversation plus ease negative conversation from suppose scientiste who realy seem to know true secret as initiés reagarding this old new way to do sciences methaphysic math great and exact prediction ,Even if new vision (suscitent) are juste expression from different True. Are intense curiosity are imagination are nessairy to see clear the otter side of those doors,inside are (Me)😎 Philippe living in univers, in the back of those objective doors it existe,where all of are forces from life and are faith into an ideal. When I say faith its not about faith in me, no religious purposes, no its about what each of you as a power to reach what each otters as inside most of time its keep as a secret the Faith to rise your secret, now its time to realy belive in you your freind Philippe 😎
So to explain the existence of the universe he supposes the existence of a mind that chose to make it this way. Great. Only one problem. Now we have to explain the existence of this mind, and why it would make such a choice. So rather than actually explaining the strangeness and unlikeliness of universe, now we've got to explain something even more strange and unlikely, and then still also why that had such a state that it created our strange and unlikely universe. This is progress?
Existence of a universe in which intelligence is emergent is a better conception of his starting point. “Universe” itself is vague. It’s being in it that is contentious.
He distances himself from an “anthropomorphic” idea. He doesn’t presume “choice” or any phenomenal condition as to which the creative principle in nature is defined.
What "purpose" is he presuming is there?? He sounds like a creationist! ("The Universe has some kind of mental apparatus") , Explain that bro!
Efficacy of mathematics for one
What is the "purpose" of your own existence and why do you care if there is no "purpose" in the universe?
@@liamc4113 he didn't say that he has a purpose or that he cares
@@alka9scottus How so? Explain or go away with your nonsense.
@@liamc4113 A silly Strawman totally lacking in any substance whatsoever.
2:38 Eternity is the purpose. Which can be validated by science. Like in mathematics as well.
Show said validation. The physics of the Universe strongly indicates otherwise, i.e. the expansion of the Universe & increasing rate of expansion of Dark Energy. You can just make crap up without proof nor without understanding the math & science which is apparently the case with you.
@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 Expansion does not contradict that. On the contrary. Can you reason? Or is that unscientific 🤣
Ever heard of infinity in mathematics?
Or is that made up crap too.
I think Existence trumps Mechanism.
" I Am", is a profound and holy name, and the " is-ness " of everything, including yourself and your consciousness, is a thing mysterious and wonderful.
Our science, employed around Him as our axis of rotation is a wonderful tool and toy. Our tools and toys as substitute explanations, are just absurd.
Your comment is what's absurd & has no basis in observable reality!
ID 😅😅😅😂😂😂
Humans imagine purpose. Existence just is. God is a cope. 😮
This position is teleological in itself
God is a crutch.
And a very poor one.
*"Humans imagine purpose. Existence just is. God is a cope."*
... Regarding _"Existence just is:"_ In my book I have the author (who just happens to be "Existence") explaining how "Existence" came to be. It's "Existence's" autobiography! ... "Existence" often refers to itself is _"That which is."_
"existence just is" is the explanation that an ignorant and bored father gives to a kid who is asking something he doesnt know ...
Why can’t there be an architect? Why can’t that architect have intention? Or purpose? Or an ultimate ambition? The question is no less preposterous than the hard-core scientist who categorically asserts that there is no designer. That the universe just is. They might say that our understanding has lower and upper limits, beyond which one cannot proceed. Yet they still hope for and search for a “Theory of Everything”. A theory that would tie everything up in a nice little package. The “God” theory is just such a package. I agree that “God” if there is a “God” does experience our growth and trials tribulations and successes. I imagine that would be a nice place to be. Those who dismissively reject the idea of “God” in any form or in any circumstance, reveal everything about themselves and nothing about the ultimate mysteries of our imagination.
First!
Even a designer had to be designed.
That's right folks, it's designers all the way up !
Common sense is out of favor? 😂
Guest speaker has proved that scientists do exist . 😂
Two completely confused fellows living a meaningless life... they need to question physical death and its significance... wasted life...
Are earthquakes, tornados, deadly diseases, mosquitos to spread them part of God's design?
yes , pretty complex things to exist "by chance" ...
The purpose of life on Earth is to learn about good and evil, a world with God and a world without God, so we can make an informed choice about where we want to spend eternity. So a taste of Hell on Earth is necessary. To quote the great philosopher, Yogi Berra, “If the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be.”
@@dontveter3372 I think there are enough religious studies, historical references, experiences of NDEs, that shows that the idea of hell is a great misinterpretation that was later used to strike fear into the masses. As a catholic and an historian i find the idea of hell totally silly. Different if you wanted to say "to see what is good, what we hate, what is beautiful and what is evil"
@@francesco5581 complexity is a human construct. nature doesn't care about complexity.
@@dontveter3372 You don't even understand Yogi's meaning!
God is a man made construct. Lots of cultures = lots of gods. Funny thing that 🤣
A man made construct based on a principle.
We can argue all day about the theories of God, but not the Principle in God.
Get it right already. Grow up.
So sad watching humans exaggerate their importance in the universe.
This is not even a legitimate question.
so the existence of something instead of nothingness is "an exaggeration" ???
@@francesco5581 not remotely what he said. the existence of something is a brute fact.
@@francesco5581 This is a totally irrelevant response to MJ's statement. Where in his comment is there even the mere suggestion of "nothingness"?!
"brute fact" is not science, is not logic, is not an answer. Is the answer of who has no idea of what to say.
Not one thing is known to be in this Universe except by the knower of things. Know what I mean?
Every argument for God is an argument from design at one level or another.
Show one proof for the existence of a god, just one!
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 life. I would like to see how you or anyone else can explain the origin of first life in the universe. If it was a random process, then the burden is on you and every other biologists to prove life can be replicated via the same evolutionary processes. So far, no one has been able to produce a self-replicating molecule from lifeless matter. With that said, only a fool would deny the possibility of an intelligence that underlines the universe. Even as an atheist, I am smart enough to reserve judgment until the final vote is cast.
Wow, even folks like Dyson struggle with the problem of purpose - which is a deeply anthropocentric question. For a snale or a rock, the universe needs no purpose. Only humans ask that question. The argument of intelligent design itself is weak: a godlike, omnipotent designer wouldn't have built such a messy, life-denying universe (for the most part) if he really wanted to create mankind, life and beauty in the first place imo.
The purpose of a rock is to drop down by gravity ... eventually.
@@liamc4113 Not if the rock already sits at the lowest point (minimum potential). /s
@@liamc4113 down is a human construct. rocks have no intrinsic purpose, same as humans
Tell me why a small rock will chase a bigger rock? Rock should go in random direction as you said if there is no intrinsic purpose.
@@liamc4113 "chase" is a human construct. gravity isn't a "purpose"
No one has ever been able to prove the origins of first life in the universe; the self-replicating cell. No one has ever been able to create life from non-living things. This is enough for me to allow the possibility of intelligence in the creation of life, if not the universe.
“Autopoesis” - exactly
@@alka9scottus that's a great word. I have never heard it before. Thank you.
"I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian." Freeman Dyson. The problem with evolutionary theology a la Whitehead and Dyson is that it simply postpones whether God is relevant to how we live our lives. If He grows when we grow in mind and choice, then He is our creature. He can't exist or make up His mind without our help!
god is a primitive fiction
300,000 gods later and we are still playing the game of my god did it.
But the one thing all these believers agreed upon is that there is at least one God.
@@blusheep2
One god is the minimum requirement to play the game.
So this means there is a god ? So which one is it ? My bets on Odin. And don't tell me it's one of those island gods. They seem to pop up everywhere.
@@thomasridley8675 You are using the fact that there have been many God's as reason to imply that God doesn't exist. I am just turning your own logic around and saying if that is how we should reason then we should point out the fact that all the people that believed in these gods believed that at least 1 god was real which would then imply that God does exist.
I'm calling you higher towards better logic.
@@blusheep2
Obviously the question of our origins is still up for debate. But i can, without any doubt, say the theologies we have created are just culturally generated control systems and their gods do not exist.
It's really obvious that we have no idea what this reality means. And are just making up some very convenient answers they can use to validate their cultural superiority. And of course, their right to rule.
It's not the universe itself having purpose, it is God or the Personal Infinite Mind that gives the universe its purpose to function according to God's providential governance.
He is right about science is limited to know what philosophy and theology can add to knowing that God is the best explanation of all things.
god isn't an explanation of anything. it is a surrender of rationality to primitive emotion.
Well said & accurate.
Intelligent design could be evidence of Penrose's CCC.
🤣🤣🤣no
physical nature of cosmos inside God's mind all around it?
Juvenile fictional fantasy.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 seems you have faith-phobia. lol.
Everything in life is based on design, from creating a movie to writing a song to preparing a meal to building a house. There is nothing in life that is not design based. Yet, when it comes to the argument of biology, suddenly there is no design, and if you mention design, you are labeled an idiot. Take a step back and look at your hands, your heart, your eyes and the structure, the functionality, the tremendous complexity....and reflect...
I'm not saying adopt any current religious views, but think of life and biology in a deeper sense
Thats easy to explain away. Simply introduce from the “scientists” a non testable, non replicable and non observable concept called the multi verse. That is one way we can avoid the obvious inference to the best explanation - design. Logical?
@@antbrown9066I prefer testable, replicable, observable explanations, preferably with a rigorous mathematical formalism. In this case evolution through natural selection.
@@simonhibbs887 yes. Try that with multi universe - or origin of life….
@@antbrown9066 I’m not a multiverse fan, it’s a plausible theory but I think others are more likely. As further the origin of life, work on that is ongoing. I don’t see any significant obstacle to getting there. After all we already observe evolution operating in pre-biotic chemicals. If non living chemical cycles can evolve, and they can, there’s no apparent obstacle to that leading to life.
@@simonhibbs887 the obstacle getting there seems to be that the complexity is increasing and it seems the time rather than getting closer, seems to be getting further. Also, it is not observable, testable or replicable. Same with multiverse.
These people really twist themselves into any number of contortions to try and make this work. So stubborn and self-important.
"these people" is actually a science genius ....
@@francesco5581 oh wow. He must be right about everything then.
@@asyetundetermined of course not but remember what Pasteur said "little science carry you away from God, a lot of science brings you closer to him"
@@francesco5581 sure, that’s a cute saying but what happens when we find another “science genius” that disagrees with this man’s positions? We easily can. It appears as though this identification holds no bearing on whether a personal belief system/cultural tradition is rooted in reality or not. As such, it’s pointless to have mentioned it.
@@asyetundetermined at the very core or is consciousness > matter or is matter > consciousness. so is perfectly normal to have always 2 different positions and are both perfectly legit .
(2:00) *FD: **_"I think it's quite likely that the universe has some sort of a mental apparatus which you can call God if you like."_* ... And that's a good way to put it. Theism posits the highest conceivable level of intelligence (God) and atheism posits no intelligence whatsoever.
... As with most speculations, the truth lies somewhere in between.
The most logical conclusion is that there is a *minimum amount of intelligence* woven into the fabric of reality. The amount that is present is only that which is minimally required to facilitate *orchestration.* Its presence is so integral and minimalistic that it can't be isolated. This is why we have the ongoing debate over "fine tuning." ... A minimum amount of orchestration results in half of everyone claiming _total randomness_ and the other half claiming _divine orchestration._
It's much like a Jackson Pollock painting. Did he just randomly pour paint onto his canvases, or did he have a game plan all along? ... As someone who has seen his works up close, ... _he definitely knew what he was doing!_
... Logic states that you're not going to end up with any type of organized, repeatable structure without some level of intelligence being involved.
Atheism posits nothing and “the truth lies somewhere in between” is an argument to moderation fallacy.
*"Atheism posits nothing and “the truth lies somewhere in between” is an argument to moderation fallacy."*
... Every ideology has some type of reasoning attached to it; otherwise, it would be a totally arbitrary and incohesive ideology. Neither of us believes atheism to be an *arbitrary ideology,* so we can both agree that people are atheists for *specific reason(s),* The most universal reason for being an atheist is "lack of empirical evidence."
Their unwavering insistence on empirical evidence unfortunately propagates into subsequent ideologies, and that's where it becomes problematic. The atheist ends up "restricted" from considering other more salient propositions that have nothing to do with theism.
*"and “the truth lies somewhere in between” is an argument to moderation fallacy."*
... "The truth lies somewhere in between" is not unlike "slippery slope." They both aren't 100% accurate, but they end up being accurate more times than not. Ironically, both terms lie _somewhere between_ "100% accurate" and "totally inaccurate." ... (mic drop)
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC atheism is not an ideology at all. Empirical evidence of what, exactly? You’re begging a question that’s not even been asked.
@@asyetundetermined *"atheism is not an ideology at all."*
... Yes, it is.
Marriam-Webster: *IDEOLOGY:* a: _a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture._ Now, if you want to claim that atheism is NOT a "manner of thinking" (i.e., "it's arbitrary") then you're more than welcome to think that way. ... I don't think your atheistic brethren will go along with it, though.
*"Empirical evidence of what, exactly?"*
... The existence of God. Did you not know that?
Empiricism is not equivalent to atheism.
Empiricism: “save the phenomena”
Atheism: the explanation of phenomena can be limited to those things of empirical form.
The former, if genuine, is reticent with regard to theory. The latter presupposes an ontology of those objects observed, and is willing to justify itself in a semantic game of “nonbeing” …
A-theism is a position contra Theism.
This dude went around his asshole to get to his elbow and said nothing.....