I told Stephen Hawking he was wrong, in front of everybody, at a mega super-genius science conference. He cried, retracted all his papers and books, gave me his noble prize, willed his wheelchair to me, and everyone stood and clapped!
@@chameleonx9253 _"misunderstood my point"_ I didn't, I just thought my comment mocking "Turek out-smarts Hawking" claim was obviously outrageously more ridiculous than the existence of a non-existent, omni-omni, nowhere god.. ..I had even hoped it was laughable.. ☹
From Hawking's book: *"Philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science - particularly in physics."* It seems Frank hasn't kept up with the science either !
I dig this man! Your channel seems to be quite new but I wish you luck in growing it to huge proportions to help drown out the sensless noise such personas as Frank Turek create.
What senseless noise does Turek create? Demonstrate it. Be specific and don't lie again. Of course, you are lying. You cannot demonstrate any such thing. Just more noise from a lying atheist dope.
Do note that particles of matter can pop into existence out of "nothing" however, this "nothing" is NOT actually nothing in a philosophical sense. The "nothing" of the vacuum of space does actually contain some things - but in colliquial language we just refer to the vacuum of space as "nothing." Is Turek not aware of this distinction? It sure seems like he's exploiting an equivocation fallacy.
He knows. He's just a liar. Nothing comes from nothing because nothing can't exist. If it did, it would be something, and hence wouldn't be nothing. Ergo, there must have always been something.
@@steveg1961 I know it sounds like semantics, but that's because the concept of "nothing" is incoherent to begin with. Like actual infinities, it's just a hypothetical concept that doesn't correspond to anything in reality.
L.S. buddy my friend, you have the Christian argument for creation and God's role in it completely backwards if you think God is trapped in some type of infinite regress of conditioned causes. God is the unconditioned cause of everything. What you are actually doing is making the mistaken atheist's objection to the classical Christian point of view. God is not the supreme *being* one being among many beings, just bigger. In the classical Christian formulation of the argument which dates back to St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, God stands completely outside of creation and is 'ipsum esse subsistens' the sheer act of To Be itself. God in a sheerly non-violent act speaks the Universe into existence 'ex nihilo' for our sake in an act of sheer and unconditional love. Go ahead and read the bible, then read the Summa Theologica, at least the First Part at least at that point you can say you have actually been exposed to the argument you are criticizing. Frank Turek is actually a very smart and very well informed apologist and if you are going to dismiss him out of hand like this you are only going to continue to make yourself an apologist for Dunning-Kruger.
@@williamreymond2669 point taken about Summa Theologica, but I must insist I have indeed read the Bible, more than once there is actually a Bible with four different translations a few feet away for me that I just recently finished
Ok, that's good news, but did you understand my point about conditioned and unconditioned causes? God isn't caused by anything, God is the cause of causes. Why is there something rather than nothing? If I could give you another well intentioned piece of homework, even before you crack open the cover of the Summa, just try to imagine the strongest form of *nothing* possible: no matter, no energy, no vacuum, no time, no dimensions, no laws of science, no fundamental constants, no mathematics, no numbers, no mind to hold the thought - *nothing.* Just hold that thought for a minute. @@danger.snakes
The problem you have is your pushing God further and further back, its actually just special pleading. There is no reason to believe that God actually has any of those properties. The history of Christianity illustrates this, as science advances God gets more and more remote, not so much the personal God as the God hidden behind time, space, and material existence. In other words Aquinas is outdated and not a good argument.
The fact that our brains desire a reason and demand purpose and understanding for everything implies that this very driving force within us has an object of focus. We are hungry, therefore there must be food. We are thristy, therefore water. We desire purpose, knowledge, understanding, therefore there are objects out there that fulfill these desires.
Our brain is mostly a biological device whose function is to understand reality. The relevant functions are to predict the behavior of our fellow humans and our physical environment. That implies that there is something to understand and that it is understandable. But this is more or less true. Reality is only understandable with a certain percentage of certainty. It is not possible to achieve perfect certainty.
No, our instincts help us to survive. They do not guarantee our survival. They're not even guaranteed to be appropriate to circumstance. You've offered a classic Teleological Fallacy.
@@nickguy8037 Name one thing you desire that is not tied to reality. The concept is simple. Why would a species evolve a false and unattainable goal? Please show me any species that has done this in any way outside of humans.
My algo doesn't usually suggest smaller channels. I'm usually force fed cnn or some other dumb shit like that, but I'm glad I checked out your channel. Good content....I subbed... Good luck on growing your channel!
Closest thing we got to nothing, as far as I know, is "creationist logic", but even that seems to just noise. Frank Turek isn't even using logic, he's too dishonest to do so. "Leading atheist", do I need to say more?
Anyone going to Turek the Turkey for philosophy is as wrong as going to a virgin priest for sex advice. Turkey also screws up the quote. Einstein is telling physicists to become philosophers. Hawking followed that instruction. "It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why, then, should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt cannot reach them; but, it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now."
Turk understands, his goal is to discredit scientific ideas so his target demographic keeps buying his books! And the smug laughter at his own points is insufferable.
5:49 It's impossible for something to wonder why it exists if it doesn't exist. The fact that we're here is not as impressive as theists seem to think; it's meaningless to discuss the odds of something existing if it definitely does exist, and it's kind of silly to ponder whether there's a possibility that we wouldn't have existed.
@@nickguy8037 I think it's mostly annoying to watch them mess up probability arguments, because while it's almost effortless to point out how wrong they are in other fields by simply citing facts that contradict them, you pretty much have to give a ground-up summary of the entire premise of statistics and why it doesn't apply and doesn't even mean what they say. You can't just cite a reputable scientific source that says, "Actually the probability of life was 1 in 50," because that is something that categorically cannot be calculated, and for all we know may have never been probabilistic in the first place. But people naturally correlate their intuition of likelihood to mathematical probability, so even if you can explain it technically, it's still a hard sell to tell somebody something that's intuitive is completely separated from reality.
@@CookiesRiot I would disagree. Purely because when I try to explain scientific answers to their questions I find that their basic general knowledge is so lacking that the more complex scientific knowledge means nothing to them and they reject it. So I end up laughing, because it is either that or cry.
Determinism is the view all events in the universe are causally inevitable. INEVITABLE. Not, God - maybe, maybe not - feel like doing something.. Hawking said he believed in scientific determinism _(if I can trust Turek's 'quoting')_ but Hawking never said *_WHAT_* those laws were nor how they worked. Simply that he believes we can work it out, based on examining connections, and seeing what-does-what. It doesn't *_need_* to be 'cause then effect', somethings may be 'effect then cause'.
If our universe is fine-tuned for anything it's the creation of black holes. He's doing the survivor fallacy. We evolved here so of course we're well adapted to our environment. Isn't gravity kinda like an attribute of matter? "Created gravity" is like saying "created hungry".
It's hard to figure out what Frank Turek's overall position is until you figure out that he's just lying. Then, unfortunately, he becomes a lot less interesting.
11:16 you are wrong to agree with Frank here about what Stephen was saying. Stephen’s comment was that reality only consists of natural processes. Frank (and you) changed this to reality is purely cause and effect.
"Time" basically means "things are happening." Events are occurring. This is regardless of whether or not it's outside of the spacetime of our current observable universe. "Timeless" is thus meaningless if interpreted in the sense of "no time." But if interpreted to refer to time (events occurring) into the past without beginning, then that does actually mean something. But what could "spaceless" mean? Words like these in Christian apologetics rhetoric is just another example of how these guys love to make up word games to try to justify their beliefs - while being crushed under all of the baggage of their clownish 'The Bible is God's Word' theology.
You're simply lying. The beginning of physical existence (time/space/matter) necessarily involves a TRANSCENDENT (timeless/eternal/non-contingent causal agency). Don't pretend these necessary attributes are 'word games.' Liar.
'Spaceless' means exactly that - no PHYSICAL SPACE. The cause cannot be the effect (space) thus has no spatial dimension. You're cluelessness and lack of acumen is not a fault with Turek.
@@JimCastleberry You wrote, "'Spaceless' means exactly that - no PHYSICAL SPACE. The cause cannot be the effect (space) thus has no spatial dimension. You're cluelessness and lack of acumen is not a fault with Turek." Yep, guilty as charged. I'm clueless about what "nonphysical space" is. What does "nonphysical space" mean?
I enjoyied the video. No problems whatsoever except this one tiny thing, see: 2:48 - Turek "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could, right?" LS: "Well, actually..." imo you should take what he said at face value, bite the bullet and agree. Having said that im sure you do agree with his statement itself.
@danger.snakes Okay, lemme explain my understanding So you spoke about some quantum theory particles, but I'd say that's not nothing then, and the only thing left is the good old infinite regression. Therefore any hypothetical uttered regarded something out of nothing can be refuted by "oh, hey, that thing that you just said? Ye that ain't there brother"
@@lleeyyllaa30482 first of all, I'm not sure the quantum fields had to come into being to exist; second of all, I'm not sure the universe itself really had a "beginning" in any real sense, it could easily be cyclic, always existing I don't buy the argument that something cannot come from nothing, and I don't buy the argument that for there to be something instead of nothing, there had to be a beginning I also think it's special pleading to say that for things exist you need some other thing outside of those things to create them if the outside thing is also infinite, which Christians would say is the case, then by their standards it is no more reasonable to exist by itself than the universe, and I would argue much less reasonable by virtue of being infinite in more ways than merely matter or energy I also think it's special pleading to call god "timeless" when time is really just a function of motion - for something to exist outside of time is impossible that's just a few of my thoughts
@danger.snakes Oh, just to be clear, I'm not defending God by any means 😅 it's just that my understanding was that no one actually denies the notion of something coming from nothing. I'll read into it some more! Gl with the channel.
@@danger.snakes The ability to observe a fact is not an explanation of the fact. When you are asked: "how did you get here" it is not logical to answer with "well, if I didn't get here, you wouldn't be able to ask the question". In that same way it is illogical to say "well of course the universe is fine tuned, otherwise we wouldn't be here".
@@courageousmelon5654how is it fallacious? Its just the anthropic principle which as i understand it is simply an extrapolation of "i think therefore i am" and isn't actually trying to answer the question of where we came from or how we got here
36:25 the big issues here are your acceptance of gravity being a law and your acceptance of gravity being a force. Gravity is neither… it is an effect.
Saying that something begins does not mean that what begins was created from nothing. Every beginning of something is the transformation of something else. I began as a human being after the transformation of my parents' sexual cells. When one says that the tree begins to bloom, one is not stating that those flowers are the creation of the tree. They are just its transformation. It is common to speak metaphorically but that does not mean that we can go beyond the metaphor. Winter begins. A chair begins to exist. An animal begins to exist. The universe begins to exist. This only reflects our way of conceptualizing reality for the purposes of being practical. But it is not true that winter begins to exist.
space and time came into existence at the same time. That's why they call it spacetime. Winter became a possibility with the beginning of spacetime. @@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
