Cosmology and Creation | Episode 1805 | Closer To Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- To most physicists, mindless laws generated the universe. A few believe that a supreme being is the creator. But don’t the discoveries of cosmology eliminate the need for supernatural causes? Featuring interviews with Stephen Barr, David Bentley Hart, Nancey Murphy, Tom McLeish, and Andrew Pinsent.
Season 18, Episode 5 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Cosmology #Creation
Dr. Kuhn, I am mesmerized every time I watch an episode of this series. I always take something of great value away when I observe and listen to your most profound inqiries. I am certain that it is one of the greatest things (if not the greatest thing) to happen to RUclips, as well as to the internet as an ever-expanding whole. It will persist in consciousness long after we have transitioned from time-bound experience. Scintillating and transcendental. I'm reading "The Mystery of Existence: Why is There Anything At All?" and I can't read more than a few pages at a time because the material is so dense and thought-provoking. I have to stop and contemplate every few lines. It's fantastic to share consciousness with a mind like yours. I hope I have the opportunity to meet you at some point in the near future. Bravo!!!!
That first interview was fantastic. It really put my inner thoughts out in front of me. The fact it exists at all! The example he gave was perfect.
This series is just outstanding. Such a breath of fresh air for someone who has found value in philosophical theistic understandings of ultimate questions, and has grown tired of the way this perspective is bypassed in popular opinions in the culture. The presenter is miles ahead of these popular opinions in his openness to these views.
That said, his inference after contemplating the argument from contingency suffers from some of the same mistakes. The conclusion of the line of thought is not a negative statement about science not disproving God, but that God is the necessary ground of the universe. Moreover, the fact that this line of thought is not scientific doesn't mean nothing follows from it! This inference would seem to assume a scientistic epistemology, which is a non-starter from my perspective.
If you don't follow the Closer To The Truth YT channel, you're doing it wrong. Very useful discussion here no matter where one falls on the topic.
I love how is possible to watch and listen to ideas from the smartest among us,. While reading comments from the dumbest of us.
That's a youtube theme, unfortunately. Although sometimes it's not smartest/dumbest, but dumbest/dumbest.
😂😂😂😂 this is so funny but true... you know the way to truth is dynamic and unfolding, anyone who can't change his stands can't arrive at truth.
doc, I watch every day. just like being back in college. GRAZIE. If I ever see you Kuhn, BIG HUG!
I’m learning so much. I really need these theistic points of view to expand my understanding.
Ni b uv m
Well you probably do, after all you probably didnt run away or escape the religion thrust upon you, so good luck.
@@MehmetlerMehmedi I’ve never been in a religion. I just see the value theology could have. I don’t care who Is right or wrong, I just want to get closer to truth.
@@ameremortal Sounds like you're goona love the upcoming video on channel Playitalready then. I dunno when it will get uploaded, but click his sub/bell icons. you can watch his current main vid and its description for now (the future upload will be better though). i might see your comment if you comment there.
They should put verbal gymnastics in the Olympic games - these believers would win all the medals!
Cute.
Thanks - That is usually what I find.... They simply engage in all sorts of games and assumptions and their opinions because they are so desperate to fulfil their presuppositions.
But your ad hominem does not disprove their hypothesis tho
Thank you for another great installment in the CTT series.
I thought that this one really did “move the ball forward” in getting at the truth, particularly with the insights of Barr and Hart.
Their position seemed to be a modern version of the old teleological “watchmaker argument.”
The sheer existence (or apparent existence) of all existence (the local universe and greater multiverse landscape beyond) irrefutably argues for: an existence “source”, “predicate” or “creator.”
The next question is why existence?
It could be for 1. A Reason 2. No reason (randomness) or 3. We can’t ask the question for some unknown (or later knowable) reason.
I pick 1. There is a reason. And I pick philosopher John Leslie’s reason.
The need for Good justifies the creation of existence. And the building up of more Good justifies its on-going existence.
David Bentley Hart nails it. Creation is not just a temporal event that happened in the past, but is more fundamentally ontological. When God creates, he brings the entirety of the substance of being into existence. It makes no difference to whether the universe had a temporal beginning, to whether it's eternal, or cyclical, etc.
But it is highly relevant to point out that a beginning was spoken of pre theory.
Temporary beginning wouldn't define the beginning of the universe since time and space were subject of creation too! As you rightly said it's ontological and unfolding creation. We cannot fix time for God's creation
The priest at the end is all over it.
Fruitful simplicity indeed.
Perhaps Mr. Kuhn mischaracterizes what "most cosmologists" believe:
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" -- Stephen Hawking
Maybe instead of "God" we should use the term "Fire". Or would that make us all Zoroastrians? :)
Touche'
rubiks6 - God is just another anthropomorphic prime mover. There are literally thousands of them. A God who made a universe needs _at least_ as much of an explanation as the universe by itself.
The Bible says God is an Eternal Fire.
@@BugRib God, who is that? As "G" God, that is a concept of the Creator God of the Omni attributes. Hardly some "just one of thousands", no matter what you think about God existing. Even if you are an Atheist, you should know that the monotheistic God, the most high, is the biblical concept and far and away the one billions have believed on, til this very day!
@@rubiks6
"For our God is a consuming fire."
Hebrews 12:25
"The Lord /is/ the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth."
Isaiah 40:28
The Quantum world absolutely preaches the existence of God. Or at the very least the possibility he exist.
David Bentley Hart is closer to truth.
What's interesting is if the concept of infinity exists only through the metaphysical language of mathematics, but purely physical infinity cannot somehow actually exist, then it seems to follow that metaphysics itself and its causal powers take primacy in creating existential events (creation). This is quite an irony for the physical sciences. Or at least presents another paradox to resolve and/or reconcile.
science seeks explanatory power... that is a fair and honorable goal but to say explanatory power therefore no God is equally as false as to say no explanatory power therefore God...
Wonderful!
A miracle happened somewhere.
Every symphony had a composer. Every painting had a painter. Every house had a builder.
But who makes the pebbles on the beach ? He must be very busy !
if the universe is all accidental how are our creation intentional
"You cannot disprove the geocentric model, you can only exclude it on philosophical grounds" - George F.R. Ellis
Whoa! He’s right!!! 🤯
All theists arguments make assumptions that are non verifiable. Not to mention believers have a different definition of what "God" is.
There is a third choice for ultimate reality: consciousnesses . I know I'm conscious and there is a hard problem of matter which is why thexwakung dream is so persistent. That persistence allows science. I'm trained as a scientist and started as a radical atheistic materialist. I'm now a radical monist and I believe in a single ineffable Ultimate Reality.
what are the implications of time and the past being infinitesimal?
so weird idea...but you could say that 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , ... etc are all infinitely far from infinity. I wonder if it could make sense to think of infinity as a starting point like 0, and work from there.
But it's also infinitely far from infinity to any real number
It blows my mind that people imagine God is something puny human beings can even begin to comprehend. The arrogance!
So enyoy and be happy
you could speak with Suboor Ahmad a philosopher from england. He makes beatiful Arguments for the existence of God.
Suboor and his erroneous contentions have been eviscerated on numerous occasions by far superior interlocutors.
@@bradwhelan4466 in your opinion.
God is infinitely more powerful than us. If we human one day create an AI that has all the knowledge of the universe and is 1000 times more intelligent and powerful than us. While this AI can develop a superior mind. We'll still be his creators.
God is the theologian's AI
There is Order in the Universe, so the questions is : Where does the Order come from?. You can discuss ad nauseum how did the Universe begin (or not), it is interesting but, excuse me, superficial. It is like rearranging the chairs in the Titanic's deck, oblivious to the iceberg that will sink all of our beautiful theoretical buildings.
BTW, I still LOVE your series.
how can the cause of physical universe come from ontological creation and existence?
Love CTT...another great video. I would prefer an eternal universe[infinite time(+/-) and infinite space(+/-)]. I look forward to the day when we discover that the cause of "Red Shift" observed in distant galaxies is NOT due to recessional velocities.
Infinite time and infinite space is more logical given the fact that having a finite universe will put as in situation wherein the question of having an edge to our universe would be hard to imagine if indeed there is ,what would it be ? Would the edge of the universe be finite too.?
does order with respect to universe have something to do with entropy in universe?
how is potential manifested ontologically and for reality?
Is it stupid to spend so much time debating something that is never going to be proven either way.
Really interesting! I believe in an infinite past and a infinite future and we are lucky to have this life on planet earth! God has nothing to do with it.
Consulting the best and the brightest isn't enough to figure out our origins. For the ultimate answers, we need to hear the mentally ill, the deranged, the lunatics.
We must listen to them, we need more more wars, more disagreements, more death, more Ignorance, suffering and pain. That's where, apparently, God is found.
Maybe God is infinite reality and some religions turn it into a physical Being which doesn't make sense. Reality that has never had a beginning and will never have an end. All possible types of creation happen inside reality. Consciousness could be one structure of reality that is expressed in an infinite number of ways.
Stephen Barr says we have to choose between God (a clearly deistic one) and the universe as the explanation of ultimate reality. Why? Can we not just admit that we don't know?
As an atheist physicist I agree that the universe needs to be explained in terms of existence and not the big bang. However this does not lead to a God. Existence is explained in terms of mathematical possibilities.
Excellent programe
We do NOT know that the universe could have been other than it is - maybe, maybe not.
12:24 How is that "nothing follows" from "an argument that cannot be refuted?" Certainly in this case quite a lot follows from it.
physical laws of nature could come from free will?
are eternal and infinite related? for God to create universe(s) would eternal / infinite have some connection to physical reality / nature?
Could infinity in mathematics link scientific laws to a creator God of the universe? Do scientific laws come out of infinity, with infinity a part of God? How explain infinity with respect to mathematics, science and universe?
The problem with belief in god is that if there is a supreme being and is the law giver, the giver of the fundamental laws of the universe, then "he" would not be bound by those fundamental laws, he would be outside of time and space; ergo neither scientifically provable or disprovable. However, since everything material is bound by the fundamental laws of the universe it would appear that if there is a creator he would be creating through science, meaning all things going back to the beginning of time is scientifically explainable, with little room for supernatural intervention. However, if there is a God, he could reach into to the universe and supernaturally intervene as he sees fit since he would be above the natural laws of the universe and while being outside of time and space could come into it when he so desires, while still not being bound by the laws of science. Physicists as all scientist must be skeptical, it's the nature of their job; and anything without proof must be written off, it's why the majority of scientist are atheists; but this in and of it's self doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
Your idea is demiurge not God
Reality = That which is.
God = Creative Intelligence.
Excelent
Ultimate?? may never be answered
With what we presently know about our reality through physics, a God is not necessary. Physicists say, "We don't know, but inflation and quantum mechanics offer reasonable possibilities (?probabilities)." Theists continue to make "God of the Gaps" arguments.
If someone tells me that he or she believes in God I can't help thinking he or she is a little bit simple or slow.
@@joshmcclean2113 , perhaps, but at least, they are deluded.
If the universe or universes are infinite, then even in our Universe the second law of thermodynamics says evolution and existence fall apart already
Scripture does not "teach" anything. It merely asserts.
We're witnessing an answer to the fermi paradox that a civilization has reached its apex the ceiling of not expanding
Please restate that in english
zempath - You got that too?
God? Point to him/her/it. Point to something that cannot be explained in any other way. A book does not need real characters to be a good read, or contain uplifting messages. The many religions have no way of confirming anything they say. The Bible seems to say. God loves you, and if you don't follow God's rules he will torture you forever. What kind of love is that? It is more likely that NONE of the things in the Bible are the word of God. Rules designed to frighten and control people.
The books of the worlds religions also provide a way to resist secular power bases that have a trained military. You can get people to fight insurmountable odds by telling them God is on our side, we cannot be defeated.
The argument that you would eliminate God because you get some understanding on how he made everything is completely senseless. I had an experience while fully awake most of the day and God exists. I was an Athiest before. I can't share the experience but I pray he reveals himself to everyone.
The problem is the definition of "God" . Is it just creator or does he interfere with human affairs? If you dig deep enough you will find that "god" is a reflection of human desires and less of a reality. If there is a entity that is all good, knowing and perfect you might expect to have better reasons to believe in him. I think that religious thinking evolved as a coping mechanism for the immense suffering in life and nature.
There is a saying
"The pessimist may be right but the optimist has all the fun along the way"
We are God
@@InnerLuminosity I agree.
@@nathanforrest3483 5 meo dmt showed me this ultimate truth!
@@InnerLuminosity thinking deeply showed me.
The observable universe emerged from a preexisting eternal uncreated substrate. The fine-tuning argument argument doesn’t hold up see CTT episodes about it.
Obviously, the theist can't explain anything so god is their only answer. How about something simpler found in statistics, at the beginning of time (but of course there was no time), so it began as the 1 million+ dies all rolled a 6 at the same time, that happened, the universe begun. Explains fine-tuning and why the universe began... A god if he ever was, left this building millions of years ago and hasn't been seen since, but if anyone sees him in the meantime ... let me know!
If existance is what the first guy thinks is in need of an explanation then how is he going to explain god's existence?
What value is there in exploring what people believe? Isn't it more interesting to explore what is true? Instead of consulting people, one can inquire nature itself by observing it. That is essentially what moved mankind from ten thousand years of stagnation to staggering asymptotic progress.
(Tell me about Stacy.)
It took a universe (a galaxy anyway) to make a man. Maybe everything is here so we can be here.
i think you're barking up the wrong tree with god, stick with science
The road you are on is wide and easy
Hello, this universe is no symphony; we are not talking about a perfect creation here. Creation ex nihilo might mean that there's a deeper, more fundamental reality that is uncaused cause to our universe. That intellect is involved with creation seems plausible. But a perfect intellect, with a grande plan is grandiose. Life on Earth is crude, haphazard creation at best. God is way too perfect, and non intelligent natural processes is void of being able to create any coherent functions. I take the middle ground with the argument for psychophysical harmony. The universe is mostly toxic to life, but life's emergence is spectacular occurence that may not have happened but for our good fortune.
christian scientists seem to really follow their own narratives.. It can be very hard to let go of the idea of living for eternity in heaven, and I get the allure, but all I see is mental gymnastics being spun around real physics.
A beginning was stated as fact in the scripture. Should we shrug off the theory as just projections of a pre existing religious notion? Is that jungle gym science then?
@@Jamie-Russell-CME I see it more as people trying to find evidence for what they want is all,if we took a mythology as absolute truth and always tried to spin it,all mythology would follow explain stuff
If there is a god how god came existence.? Does god just pop into existence?
The first statement by your first guest should have effectively ended this series.
The God of religion is dead
Long live the God of science 👍
Hum A FEW believe in a supreme being? Might want to get your self out of scientific books and look at statistical facts. Next tell me how many christian and Muslim there are! Unless you meant to say a few MILLION!
Thought I misheard that too.
It’s actually really simple to prove that God does not exist. There’s no way through what we know, it would go against every physics law, we understand, and that is real in our world, the fact that there is a intelligent brain/being creating something. How is this always overlooked: something like a creator would have needed to have been created itself! Plain and simple it’s a paradox and it makes me wanna cuss how obvious this is and how it’s never discussed. There must be something that created something that is so intelligent and higher up. A God can’t just appear out of nowhere. It makes no sense at all but yet they say you can’t explain away the idea of God. I just did ha ha not very difficult is it? The idea of God creating everything makes absolutely no sense. It’s a contradiction. It’s a paradox. Put that into your philosophy books America :)
AND MAN MADE ANIMISM AND CREATED GODS AND GODESSES AND ANIMATED THEM THAT EVOLVED INTO MONOLATRY.
Why does the universe exist ? Because God made it for his own private reasons.
Why does God exist ? That's a silly question !
"A few believe that a supreme being is the creator." A few billions do! Further from truth every time!!!
He’s talking about accomplished physicists, not the masses.
@@circusOFprecision So what??? What is a "supreme being"??? Rubbish!
@@GeoCoppens wrong.
@@sheenaalexis8710 So tell me how you know! . You strike me as an ignoramus! Who in his right mind talks about mindless laws. Utter crap!
@@GeoCoppens when you learn to use intellect like an adult, instead of hurling insults at ones who simply have different points of view, then we will chat. Use words to explain and defend your point of view. Not name calling. It only makes YOU
Look like an " ignoramus "
A very intresting and instructive series of videos. But I miss the Islamic vision of creation . Islam as a monotheistic religion has inks to christianim an judaisme an its point should be intresting
THE NEED TO BELIEVE IN A CREATIONAL "GOD" IS SIMPLY A COP OUT FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL HUMANS ARE CAPABLE OF CONCEIVING OF A REALITY WE ARE SIMPLY NOT ABLE TO COMPREHEND. WE SIMPLY CAN'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN'T KNOW SO WE CREATE A SKY DADDY TO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN IT. I'TS ALL ABOUT EGO. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A GOD.
OK, God created multiverses, God created evolution, God created Evil and good, God created God, and God created the death of our sun, our galaxy, and our universe or universes. Satisfied?
It's God's way not yours he rules you don't as soon as you realize that the better you well be
God in the bible is trickster of human intelligence,i'am not robotics mind.
God wanted to convey most important message thru some selected prophets who only were arriving strictly in middle east thousands of years ago when there was no advent of science . God chose to stay in hiding sending holy text to few select prophets of illiterate era of stone age . God thought sending such text would convince people of HIS existence ; people who were to born thousands of years later in science age.
Problem with God is he does whatever he damn well pleases, whether we like it or not. That being said, all physics is dependant on prexistimg conditioms, even quantum processes. Infinite regression of physical states is non-sensical. The only thing that makes sense is a prime mover "outside"of physical reality... aka God.
@starman: God has done a lot more than speaking to his prophets: He has sent his son Jesus Christ right here to us. You can read his words in the New Testament. And history proves his existenge, his cruxification and his resurrection. What more do I need? I gladly follow him and enjoy what cosmology (that I like very much) will teach us. The findings of cosmology will change. Christ‘s word never does.
And that message is in the most widely distributed and translated book on earth available to most of earths population. The Bible has withstood numerous attempts throughout history to destroy it and those that put faith in it ,these facts alone testify ,apart from many other proofs, that it is a book from our Loving Creator and we can wholeheartedly believe what it says.
www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/history/
www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/
@@lastchance8142 if God made physics then quantify God with physics is even more nonsense,the God concept is flawed all over
The first one is arrogant, blind, full of self and other words I'd prefer not to say. I love Bentley, even if I'm not (and never 'll be) religious nor catholic
false analogy, 3:45
Philosophy is always very weak. Everything is subject to scientific scrutiny and science, in the end, is far more productive of actual benefits, like AC and medicine, to the human race. Not using your brain to improve the human condition is the biggest sin to me.
ironically he is no closer to the truth
Universe could not have existed forever. So it must have a creator. Well. What about, who created the creator if things require creation? No no...the creator does not need a creator. Why? Because I am telling you so. Will anyone accept any argument like this? e.g. Give me 1 million dollars? Why? You owe me 1 million dollars? Why? Because I am telling you so. How do you know that? I just know.
This is simply strange logic.
And even if, for the sake of argument, one goes along with - universe needs a creator...then therefore it must be god....and then it must be a god of specific religion...therefore it must be this this or that that specific god. I mean the leaps for absurd inferences is mind boggling.
Wouldn't that make all these creators conscious?
By definition, the nature of God cannot be apprehended by any creature, nor is God constrained by physical reality.
@@lastchance8142 One can "define" something to exist and then assert its existence using the "by definition" as an argument. It is not a rational argument.
@@lastchance8142 true, transcendental knowledge is required for us to know God, only he can reveal to us the answers to the questions of " what am i " ? and " what is God " ?
@@SandipChitale then how would you define existence?
why do we need something other than the visible? Is it just something brain excerise? why do we need that? we should follow the arts, I mean painting, photography, cinema, literature, theatre, sculpture and so on, but without transversing with the invisible, but with and afford to reach to invisible. I do'nt know what I mean
I agree, let's get rid of everything we can't see: gravity, virtual particles, air, etc. Oh, and let's not forget: viruses!
@@zenbum2654 you have either misunderstood the comment above, or I have simply derived a different interpretation. I believe this to be a semantical problem. What I think he means to say is that individuals spend all too much time worrying about or occupying themselves with metaphysical affairs, and these affairs often lead to more questions than answers, which is why the commentator above questions whether or not this is simply a mental exercise- this illustrates the futility of pondering such questions.
The comment holds the stance that one should only concern himself with that which allows progression in his
tangible state of life;
his concerns should be limited, and concerning only that which would affect his life directly.
He should understand that the mind is, by nature, inquisitive. It has a certain tendency
to ask a variety of metaphysical questions that cannot be understood.
Different minds hold drastically different views and make it increasingly difficult for individuals to come to concrete conclusions on metaphysical topics. This leads to contradictions, different opinions, views and perspectives which make it ever the more difficult to come to the truth if so there is any.
He should understand his mental restrictions; man is restricted to the confines
of his mind; he can then, by no means, fathom the totality of the human condition and
the world in which he lives. He may only strive to make his "temporal" life bearable,
in the face of seemingly unbearable chaos.
Take no heed in questioning such intangible, unanswerable affairs.
Bask in awe of human existence, propel science in hopes that it may
perpetuate the future well-being of human endeavors, ponder philosophical matters in hopes
to come to a better way of living life, but they should be restricted to materialistic development, not in a greedy sense, but around the morals and ethics that the individual holds, which should be judged by philosophy.
Most existence-based questions are simply an expression of an underlying fear: the fear of death, or rather what comes after it.
The possibility, no doubt, exists that life after death in some form continues, but the rational mind should be able to find solace in there being life after death, as well as no death at all. So that he may continue his ever-so-fleeting experience, life itself.
Life's only purpose is life, to sustain itself.
Do you ask for the purpose of love? No, it's purpose is simply itself.
And so to end with such questions...
@@RamSharma-zp5fx Hi, my mother language is not English but I will try to simply consider your answer, simply. The way your understanding is true in most sense, I recall Deleuze's sentence "the persistence of art". Mind, the body, the artist practices the life, simply. BUt without academicaly, do you understand? or without any belief life after death or something. As you understand, we are just simply trying to "sense" the life, someones more luckly proceeds art and someones luckly interpret the arts. I do not know the intuitioun, basicly is about death. I do not mean that death is not important. But ı am not sure it is the basis.sometimes art, can be more than the meaning and knowledge and experience of death you know? You are right, it can be a semantical problem. This is now, what I can follow. Maybe, we should follow perception. The art as life, as perceived, how it is. Without comparision with science and theology and so on..it is human product, but as life, as space and time, as consciousness, as perception, as bodily awareness, as seeing as sensing.. but we need artists to burnish it. I am not glorify the artist here. Only we need is to sense, in some sense. the art appears first in the body, right? then the artist make it visible.
@@RamSharma-zp5fx Please take a deep breath and calm down. I was being facetious.
I think what you mean is you'd rather be at a Broadway show😎
I think infinities are to be preferred. It seems unlikely to me that the Big Bang "happened" only once and that this is the only universe.
Stephen Barr, the first guy interviewed has very narcissistic body language. He just comes across very arrogant and condescending.
UNIVERSE IS ONE UNITARY WHOLE : INFINITE : THERE IS NO BEGINNING AND THERE IS NO END : IT JUST IS ! :CONSCIOUSNESS !
INFINITY HAS NO CENTER : ANY POINT IN INFINITY CAN BE A CENTER , THE " OBSERVER " : EACH WITH IMAGINARY COORDINATES IN THIS INFINITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS !
I don't believe in the bible's description of God.
Wat an analogy. The notes comparing to the physics of the universe that there is a musician that creates the notes . Wat a reality check for atheist communtity.
It's all just an accidental event that just popped up out of nowhere into somewhere for no apparent reason . Now I'm really confused.
Gary, Adi Shankaracharya an Indian monk wrote the following in the 7th century AD (Six stanzas to explain who we individuals are)
Lyrics in Sanskrit with English translation
Nirvana Shatakam
*Tat Tvam Asi* in Sanskrit
*That Thou Art*
*You are that infinite reality*
ruclips.net/video/UrZUQh6SpcQ/видео.html
No one is saying that except for the religious, so educate yourself.
Robert always interferes in the midst of something interesting being said and puts his own two bits. He is not a physicist but tries to show his knowledge of physics and science.
.
He does have PhDs and a science background. He is intelligent and adds to the discussion. I don't know what you're watching but he is a very good interviewer and doesn't interrupt like you are saying.
Who pays these theologians and why? Even worse, who listens to these theologians....? Why is God always 'He?' Just curious.
You can get too hung up on rationality. We need to accept both the Rational and Irrational, to understand this World.
what is the value of god?
Invaluable.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME why?
Can or wont answer. Is this the way it goes
The anthropology of man only go back a mere 200 or 300 hundred thousand years . The Cosmological time scale is in the range of billions of years . The Human observer of the Cosmos is of little epistemolog ical consequence . The Human Brain is not evolved enough to understand such complex problems. Humans are still in a primitive stage of consciousness regarding human existence on planet . Earth .
Change that music in the beginning
Why don't you learn manners? Articulate your thoughts properly.
Change the way you ask! How about that.
@@sheenaalexis8710 i dont understand what your saying, i am merely pointing out that i dont personally like the music that has been chosen for these wonderful series, the music at the beginning i am talking about,
All arguments for God's existence are flawed, and adding them together does not result in an argument that isn't flawed.
Exactly
who made math? humans? lol.