This was excellent, I could listen to these discussions all day given the chance. Nice to see Matt D chime in at the end. Along with Christopher Hitchens, these 3 are who I spend most of my time on RU-vid with.
+ghettofreeze William Lane Craig has already destroyed Larry in debate and of course Dick shits himself and does a runner when ever Craig comes to Oxford.
ghettofreeze Why am I a troll. My statements othat Larry lost badly in his talks with WLC and even edited an e-mail that Larry received from Vilenkin which backed up WLC's understanding of the theorem rather than Larry's. The sickening incident, as well as the full e-mail, is here www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem. As for Dawkins he always does a runner when WLC comes to Oxford. That is his right, however he always fills the need to write to the press about his refusal www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig. Dawkins claims that none of the professors of philosophy know who he is. However WLC is a philosopher of science as well as religion and both of the philosophers of science in Oxford, Harvey Brown and Simon Saunders do know of WLC and Brown as a deep admiration for Craig's work for example see here philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1661/1/Minkowski.pdf. You will not reply to this post as you have no arguments for your position - just like Larry and Dick.
I absolutely love these discussions. As atheists we don't have all the answers but we at least have the wit to try and understand the world around us with reason. We do not believe in revelation, authority or dogma. We do not 'believe' in anything. Belief implies that we lack evidence. This is akin to faith - belief without evidence. The world is a scary place and it would be easy to place our faith in a god. It might make us feel safer to have an imaginary friend. But, and it is a big but. The world around us is amazing and imaginary friends do not make it more amazing. Such belief weakens us. The fact that the universe does not care about us is liberating. It means every decision we make in life is ours alone to make. Our life matters and we can make it count every day by everything we do. What an amazing opportunity.
Framing spirituality as having an imaginary friend is just a logical fallacy called "an appeal to ridicule", thus it's not a sound argument. It's a fallacious assertion so often used in this discussion by atheists I wonder if they even realize they're doing it? That said, I suppose Isaac Newton, Max Planck, Francis Collins etc also didn't/don't use scientific evidence to understand the world in favor of a comforting imaginary friend? Yet another fallacy, implying a deep understanding of science is mutually exclusive with spirituality. Interpreting the universe as having order and directed information as a result of an intelligence that is beyond our current ability to fully understand is perfectly logical and is far far deeper and more complex than these over simplified strawmen like having an imaginary friend...the flying spaghetti monster, etc. Again, useless fallacies. In fact I'll say that assuming once your body dies your consciousness ceases to exist... that there is nothing...can in its own way be interpreted as a self serving comforting notion. This way there's no responsibility for your actions or treatment of others in this world...no tough lessons to be learned or growing pains for your true essence as a spiritual being...no tiring continued journey of trials and errors or accountability .. it's just blank, over...and you don't know the difference...you don't even realize you were ever alive.. no painful memories or emotions to cope with. All things considered this is actually the easy way out and more comforting than any kind of continuous conscious existence. So maybe you're the one who's worldview is based on what's most comforting to you? Furthermore, since you assume there is no consciousness after physical death without any so called proof or personal experience, you also believe in your paradigm without definitive proof either way. If scientific proof is the only thing you look to to establish your world view then a subject like the afterlife should render you an agnostic. Otherwise you are accepting a worldview you can't possibly verify one way or the other under your rules, thus making you guilty of the same thing you accuse religious people of. Lastly, it must also be comforting for you to know that in this spiritual - less universe you think you live in, that you are one of the lucky ones. I assume you're probably born in a first world country since you are online commenting. You probably have access to clean water and food.. Probably not getting bombed by drones, dying from disease without proper medical care, or starving to death. What a great role of the dice for you.. too bad for the other poor saps hey? Guess they miss out on this "wonderful opportunity" to make the most of their lives huh? It's easy for a person who has been given these basic blessings in life to accept that there's nothing more to our lives than this one short trip through this world.
@@Ojack33 WOW! Ok , 2 years later here is a reply. Read Ecclesiastes 9-5. Since you give the impression you so religions. Give a response when you're through.
Yes. Humanity needs to rely on itself (each other) to protect it from the universe, not on a manmade god. It's not that the universe is bad, it is just indifferent to our existence. And that's ok, especially after recognizing all of the hurdles and bottlenecks hominids have endured to arrive at our present state. It's important for us to realize that by some fluke we've made it this far, but we should not take it for granted that it was gifted to us by some god. The best tool to protect our species is science.
@@billybelcaro9585 This statement is riddled with assertions without any argument. Man-made God? How do you know that? You are simply assuming God doesn't exist and then, naively, implying that a sophisticated understanding of science science and a theistic worldview are somehow mutually exclusive. This of course is nonsense as evidenced by the existence of poeple such as George Ellis, Bill Phillips and Francis Collins.
@@Ojack33 I am assuming all the Gods people made up do not exist. I'd love nothing more than for a real God to reveal himself without encryption or promotion thru vague and contradictory man made literature. For me it feels better to count on ourselves, we can actually see and easily communicate with each other transparently. Saving the world isn't mutually exclusive to either science or religion, but it would be religious people who use science and not science people using religion. Unfortunately many religious people are too comfortable believing that humanity will end in an inevitable armageddon one way or another, and worse they think humans deserve it. I think relying on a higher power to take care of us is an imposition on God.
Greatness Shines through these two Great Scientists as they speak so eloquently and beautifully of Scientific truths on Physics and Biology...Unforgettable experience..
The interruption at 31.00, asking about biological symmetry, was by Carolyn Porco, leader of the NASA imaging science team for the Cassini mission to Saturn.
Thank God (LOL) for this video. This is the first breath of fresh air I've had in years. I'm one of those poor idiots who literally spent every moment of my life worrying if I was going to be thrown into some kind of cosmic campfire and tortured by goat-men and some red dude with cloven hooves because I didn't pray to the right invisible man. If one religion is false, it would seem to follow that they ALL are. I actually felt that guilt leave me when I listened to this talk. It's just fucked up to know that all that guilt was based on a multi-millennia-old myth that had been plagiarized from pre-existing myths of the same type. Guess I never had a reason to feel guilty to begin with.
Remember to support the Alltrials campaign guys, which has just gone from Europe to the USA, it's a campaign to get all trial data from the past and from now on published so we can do away with publication bias in medicine and finally allow researchers, doctors, and patients to make informed decisions concerning medicine and clinical research.
LOL 19:45 Lawrence Krauss utters "crap" as he takes a drink, implying his disagreement with Richards view of the reviewer, hilarious. Rock on Krauss, rock on.
I loved it when they talked about alien life :) Why not have a whole table with these two gentlemen and invited experts on this same topics? Many of the pro and con arguments for different aspects they only list here in passing sound fascinating. :)
I want to bring something up about what Krauss says at 53:15 about how there are no absolute truths that can apply to all scales at all times. He is slightly mistaken about that. There is one avenue for unconditional truths. This avenue is a priori facts. The reason a priori statements are absolute is because they are knowledge that is deduced through pure reason and justified independently from that of experience or observation, making them universally applicable to any conceivable observations. Sure, most would argue that a priori statements are fundamentally useless, but I have discovered ways to make them the most invaluable tool in the entire assemblage of reason.
+reetismatic "A priori" is not absolute truth, it is evidence that you are dealing with someone who is either a charlatan or confused. If something is self-evident, then there is no need to say so. "A prior" is just a fancy way of saying "I don't know why this is true," which is the same thing as admitting "I don't know that this is true."
Was the e.q., - specifically the frequency balance, different between Krauss' amplification and Dawkins' on purpose, I wonder? Seemed a bit strange that Krauss's sound was so thin (lacking the lower frequencies) and Dawkins' sound was nice and full sounding?
I actually think William Lane Craig’s philosophical views are really misguided but I saw all of the Australian debates Krauss had with Craig and at best he’s misrepresenting and at worst lying about Craig’s response to the question of what would make him lose his faith in God. What Craig said was that if wife died unexpectedly he might have the psychological impulse to shake his faith in God but he can’t imagine that would truly force him to lose faith.
Religion assumes, science PRESUMES. Which brings me to my next fact about reality: You either: know, don't know, or have an educated guess. There is no in-between.
TheDistantEchos you are forgetting the scientific method and the importance of empirical data. Sure there are presumptions, but they need evidence to gain legs.
Encouraging teachers to doubt what's wrong in school is a wonderful idea and necessary but how do we get teachers to agree on what "is wrong". It seems like personal belief can still sneak it's way in the classroom.
The view that Richard Dawkins is Strident is what people may feel but I don't think it is deserved at all. The first time I heard him was on Science Friday, merely talking about his book, "The Ancestor's Tale". He was so nice and those who called in were so friendly, it was a wonderful experience and everyone who called in were treated so badly. In his show, "The Root of All Evil", he was attacked by Ted Haggard and called arrogant - no one could have been more arrogant than Reverend Haggard! Later, this man who had exhorted his parishioners to behave in certain ways was found to be doing the opposite of what he was telling others! He became aggressive and violent and his behavior was truly difficult! Haggard has since been fired by his church for his misbehavior. Dawkins has merely been correct since. ,
Hyde Hill I didn't include all the questions. The whole question and answer section is available elsewhere on RU-vid. If I run across it again, I'll let you know where. Thanks for watching.
+Hyde Hill Yeah, (being into filmmaking myself) although I don't know if weather or not if it's just lucky, but I find the camera operators and the editor had their moments here; the amateurish handheld tripod moves, mixed with good off screen comments and clever cuts. The stage and the audience were great together all at once, loveable talk!
willzer808 That's the way Krauss is, pretty much in any presentation he's given. Though is it being smug, or confidence? Hard to differentiate, I get the impression it's because he's experienced so much physics that it naturally makes him feel more confident of how the universe is. If you question him he'll give an honest answer, and if he's wrong, he'll add that to his knowledge, that's what makes him a great person/educator.
The question is why we needed religion, because we going to marriage, dead , praying, teaching, the children’s should learn scientific way to know more about the nature, mortality, spaces , galaxy, which gives them reasonable explanation, and let them to choose by their own mind if they going to have a religion
Dawkins is tired of all this shit, it seems. As humans, all our most accurate attempts at truth are not ultimately claimable as truth. Taking walks, feeling the sand on your heels, breathing in and smelling new spring scents, shit like that, that's truth. Oh, and chilling. That's truth too.
byrysh That's awesome. Only video I've ever seen of him drinking he was having a martini at Christopher HItchens' apartment with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Whisky looks good on him!
I believe it's that weird apple variation of Crown.The ultra-sugary, tastes-like-candy version of Crown. =p But whiskey -- and a Canadian whiskey :D -- none the less. ^-^ I fucking hate that I missed this conference. I would have flown clear across the country for it if I'd known.
Good point about the Amalekites. WLC is okay that the children Amalekites were killed because they went to heaven but if his daughter was an Amalekite and was killed, it might cause him to lose his faith in God? That makes no sense.
Krauss say's the Double Slit experiment is "Ridiculous" about 50 minutes in... and Dawkins agrees. I'm not sure in what sense they are using the word "ridiculous." What does everyone thing?
they mean that it's ridiculous to think about it when you first see it... like it's hard to believe coming from a classical physics perspective or for a layperson...
1:07 “So she went into the garden to pick a cabbage leaf, to make an apple pie”, it’s cut, not pick, Richard. The funny irony is that, it’s from The Great Panjandrum, a poem written in 1755 to the test the memory of the actor Charles Macklin, who had claimed he could read any paragraph once through and then recite it verbatim. Clearly didn’t work for Richard on this day lol
Guitcad1 Fell over a week earlier - Portland, I think. Broke his glasses, which did a lot of the damage. It didn't look as bad at the event as it appears on camera.
Guitcad1 I was wondering the same. He doesn't cover it up with make up for camera. A moment I thought, hope he hasn't got some form of cancer like Hitchens or Carl Sagan. Conspiracy but outspoken secularists sometimes get odd deceases. Many fundamentalists around.
Love these guys. But I never understood that no matter what the topic, they always plug gay marriage, but they hate religion. Lol. Dosnt make a lot of sense considering marriage is a religious institution. Political plug I guess, everyone has an agenda. Either way, good discussion
Ravan Damien Fell over a week earlier - Portland, I think. Broke his glasses, which did a lot of the damage. It didn't look as bad at the event as it appears on camera.
Reason through the post-mortem experience using all of the logic you can muster up...50 years after you've died and tell me what you come up with . Take a couple of weeks with paper and pen. Will you then still be betting the farm that there is no post-mortem being? Again, use paper and pen. Wolfram is not the Name by which a man may be saved. That distinction belongs to the Name of Jesus Christ alone.
@@toni4729 LOL, come on you're being SO generous with yourself. Welcome to the era where one can associate with a group or a label in order to claim intellectual superiority. No need to do the actual thinking anymore. In actuallity, if you lack the critical thinking skills to call out Dawkins' crap, I'm affraid you're in religious domain
