I very much like the fact of Dr. Tallis' ability and willingness to participate in a conversation. He has definite ideas . . . and yet doesn't put up a dogmatic front. Most likeable and human at the same time. Thanks.
Robert, I wanted to express how much I enjoyed your wrestling in this video. The execution was just so good. Great questions. Loved the video. Much love to you and to Raymond on his journey. As an adherent of one of the Abrahamic faiths Raymond spoke of, it is always wonderful to wrestle with these sorts of questions/conversations. I find some people's positions very empty. (This is not meant to be an insult. It is about what I personally find compelling.) And seeing Raymond confronting or being confronted with these types of ideas/questions in a thoughtful/peaceful way was refreshing.
Hidden by the ink of history, there are events we do not know. Somebody that liked an idea particularly more than others from their contemporary philosophy / way of life / way of thinking, pushed that idea. Pushed it so much that when war arrived and he won, that idea became the status quo. Those who were born after could not access the old ideas that the prevalent idea came from, and they just worked with what they got. Centuries pass and people studied the idea in every aspect, they elaborated it. The idea became a person. But nothing tells us that the ida corresponds to truth. So yes, we can spend centuries and millennia studying something wrong.
Because you don't know something right now does not necessarily mean it is unfathomable. In fifty years we will know a lot more. In 1,000 years, we will know things that used to be unfathomable. If god only exists in spaces where we are a little fuzzy, then god has become much smaller over the last 200 years and will continue to shrink into something unfathomable.
The host hit the intuition that drives belief “I think everything needs an explanation, even if that explanation is a brute fact” If you are going to accept the principle of sufficient reason but then arrest that principle at God you have violated or modified the principle to fit your wants. Also, the principle of parsimony would suggest just to arrest the ultimate brute fact at the level of the universe (whatever you take that to be) God is superfluous
You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between facts and explanations. Brute facts answer what happens. Explanations answer why it happens. What happens? Apples fall. A brute fact. Why does it happen? Gravity. An explanation. What happens? The universe exist. A brute fact. Why does it happen? God. An explanation. If there's no need for explanations then God is superfluous, but so is gravity and all theoretical physics. And if you need an explanation for some gravity but not the universe - that's special pleading.
we won't know more about the how and the why of existence, agreed that the don't know part is okay, saying perhaps we will know more of the how and the why is presupposing a metaphysical commitment which can be attacked.
The heart of the matter is this, and the interviewer alluded to it speaking for himself: “i cannot find an explanation for our existence, for our uniqueness, and i am uncomfortable not knowing the answer. And God seems as satisfying an explanation as any and I am no longer carrying the uncomfortableness of not knowing“ not in so many words but that was the essence of his personal belief. Tallis is simply comfortable with not knowing.
@@CesarCloudsIt could be argued that Zeus does in fact exist, at the very least in literature, or art or maybe one face among many for the personality of human consciousness. It’s not sometimes that we see or don’t see a thing, but how we see it which defines it.
Most of Kuhn's "hopefulness" consists of desperately trying to find somebody to tell him there is one... If there is, it is readily apparent that the Deists might be correct..."on the 7th day God rested"...and then skedaddled out of town to avoid the blame later :-).
*I was thinking of something similar. Kuhn's attempt of labeling the matter as the "mystery of existence" whilst pondering the god of the gaps argument from ignorance is intellectual laziness. In effect, his aim was to indirectly try to show that agnosticism should be the preferred position over atheism. In any case, I'll take either of the two positions since BOTH (in my perspective) are justified when compared to the theist position -- especially the self-refuting notion of the Abrahamic god whose religious doctrines and inspired texts are full of absolute discrepancies, scientific inaccuracies, contextual contradictions, and justification for murder/slavery/genocide/homophobia/misogyny, etc.*
@@PhuckYourExistence Intellectual laziness or not doesn't explain the existence of our world, nor the universe as a whole. (And did I forget the power within each and every atom of the universe ?) Some "accident eh !! (And without any intelligence to arrange things too !!)
Nature is essentially relational and dynamical. To believe in a supreme being is to believe in the absolute.But what we call nature is fundamentally a manifestation of ever changing patterns of relations in infinite dimensions. There can be nothing "beyond" infinity. The absolute is impossible. The concept of creation is meaningless in this context. Conscious experience is the manifestation of patterns of change. Absent those changes there is no conscious experience.
Why would it feel like something to be patterns of change, no matter how complex? And where does the experiencer of these feelings come from? I don't know...this explanation for consciousness just seems like a category error to me. It seems obvious to me that conscious experience can't be explained in physical terms, almost self evident. But obviously it's not at all self evident to a lot of very smart people.
I would love to see a discussion between Raymond Tallis and Christian philosopher Joshua Rasmussen, who thinks the properties of god aren't contradictory but the best explanation of reality. I'm reading his book "How Reason Can Lead to God" and it's probably the strongest theist book I've read. I'm agnostic. Raymond said, "I'm skewered on fundamental reality..." Me too, man.
Dr. Tallis is thinking and communicating at a fundamentally higher level of understanding, free from the obvious ontological and epistemological limitations demonstrated by Dr. Kuhn. This exemplifies the main point of humanism: consciousness (mediated through sensation and perception) is both profoundly limiting and exhilaratingly boundless. The fears of consciousness (death, suffering, immorality, uncertainty, injustice, and, above all, responsibility) can and ought to be balanced/ameliorated/transcended by its hopes and potentialities.
Based just on this presentation, I'm not impressed with either of them. Tallis's description of the "mystery of existence" is pretty trite. @@lonniedeckermusic
Ethical Atheism is preferred to neo-con Christian or Islamic fundamentalism. Admittedly, the idea of God is a messy one. It is the religious equivalent of the physicist's Theory of Everything. The believer is trying to reconcile all we know (incompletely) of the cosmos with the idea of a Being which is outside this cosmos bound by space and time. It's bound to be messy.
When some one says there is no god, it is the god they created does not exist. God is story of life, like any other story of life we humans have created such as family life, working life etc etc. Cultures have created god with many different colorful narrations.
Cognitive understanding is a basic human need. Every culture in human history has evolved a concept /belief of god in order to explain our existence and provide a sense of security. We’re just particles and processes, but what a truly wonderful phenomenon. We are social animals and hopefully will recognize our common essence💫while celebrating our diversity ✨
I've personally never been religious, however, I have always been a "seeker" and very much intrigued by the concept of consciousness. My own personal experiences have brought me to the conclusion that our awareness is MORE than just the result of complex brain chemistry. Through my Out of Body Experiences, I have come to learn that consciousness is non-local, namely, not limited to the body. I would never have accepted this, until I had the experiences. However, I have not met "God" , nor do I believe in a God of the holy texts. I do believe in consciousness, though, and it makes me wonder if consciousness is fundamental. I don't know where that leaves a creator in the equation, but from my experiences I am certainly (99%), that we live on after the death of the body. I think we need to get rid of the word "Death" altogether.
I think a fundamental point is missed when talking about an apophatic God. It isn't so much that we cannot 'know' God but rather there is no way, in human terms, that such 'knowledge' can be communicated. In other words, it is personal experience which does not submit to being described by conventional forms of communication. Language may point to it, hence the term apophatic, but that is all. God may well be 'known', in an inner sense, but not described in an academic, or linguistic sense. Something which academics, among others, may find intensely annoying. Thus, although it may not be very meaningful to sit down and discuss God, it is not pointless to undergo practices which lead to the experience of such.
Great conversation. Personally I think a creator doesn’t make sense, also something coming from nothing equally doesn’t make sense to me. Some of Roger Penrose theories relating to an eternal universe of infinite big bangs , cycles of time etc are interesting to me . Also an idea of a self simulated universe, things happening when conditions are right seem interesting.
I always go back to wondering why an all-powerful creator would demonstrate such a lack of empathy? Don't even try to say that all the humans and other animals that were eaten alive, burned alive, tortured to death, or suffered unimaginable mental anguish needed those experiences for some reasonable purpose. The Universe rolls on, oblivious to small amounts of complex proteins stuck on small particles in vast galaxies for short periods of time. Though if consciousness influences quantum states, we may be our own creators. It is what it is and becomes what you make it.
Empathy is something that occurs within the universe but to even contemplate that some bizarre non-human, non-biological, non-material, entity that "existed" prior to the universe, is capable of it is mere fantasy.
@mikefinn, I hear you. I am an Atheist because SUFFERING exists. Edit: I find it extremely ridiculous that believers try to explain the existence of SUFFERING while believing that their "God" is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I truly believe that that is the epitome of ridiculousness
@@newmankidman5763: I'd caveat that to severe and pointless suffering. I think theists sometimes talk about suffering as being a "scaffolding" to something better, and I think /some/ suffering can be. Sometimes people can learn and grow from it. But if, e.g., someone's tortured and murdered, they can't learn and grow from that, and I don't think it can be justified as being something that other people can learn from, because I don't think it's justified to sacrifice someone to help others. Besides the problem of evil, I also think the idea of "irreducible complexity", which is often suggested by theists as support for their position, is actually an argument against it. i.e. Evolution can only happen in small steps, each of which provides an advantage, and theists often argue that some organ or feature of an organism couldn't have developed in small steps, that it only functions at all to provide an advantage in its current form. I don't think we can know that for sure. There could be some way that it developed that we just haven't thought of yet. And that might sound a bit lame, except the theist alternative explanation is often that a perfect god existed fully formed uncaused. i.e. Not only do they often not have an explanation for why a god, and one often suggested as perfect, would exist, they often preclude any possible explanation by stating the god is uncaused. It's not just some organ or feature of an organism that we don't currently have an explanation for, it's an entire, fully-formed, perfect god, for which any possible explanation is precluded. It just happened to exist. What are the chances?
@@jamesc3505, I would submit to you that if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent Deity existed, every SUFFERING would be pointless, because said Deity would of course be capable of having us achieve ANY result without the need for us to SUFFER. One time, I saw a believer here on RU-vid address this issue with a logical fallacy. He said that sometimes SUFFERING is needed, and the logically fallacious example he gave as comparison is that sometimes a Doctor or Dentist has to administer some anaesthetics to us which cause us to experience some SUFFERING for our own good. Said RU-vidr forgot that unlike the Doctor or Dentist, "God" is supposedly omnipotent, and therefore would NOT need for us to SUFFER. Another point I would make is that, at least to me, SUFFERING is always severe because when a discomfort becomes severe, we call it SUFFERING. The other things you said were insightful and sensible
@@newmankidman5763: Yes, I guess you're right. I would say that, while yes, suffering is more severe than discomfort, I think that suffering can encompass anything from a grazed knee to years of torture, and, as we are, suffering at the less severe end can help build sensible caution, resilience, and empathy. It strikes me that theists tend to focus on the less severe end in their arguments, as if to distract from what most needs explaining. I think any valid argument against the problem of evil would need to be able to credibly conclude with "and that's why God allows the torture and murder of innocent children". I haven't heard any that does it for me, and can't imagine one. However, yes, I guess an omnipotent being needn't have made us as we are. They could have made us with sensible caution, resilience, and empathy from the beginning. After all, they're often suggested to have been perfect from the beginning, which would mean such a thing is possible.
“I have more hope that there is a god” It’s strange to hope there’s a god, why would he hope that? Hope is pretty much the same as a wish, at least in some contexts, or perhaps in most instances.
It's a great point you make. My guess is that it has something to do with our "will to survive"...our instinct to always push forward and look ahead as a species, no matter the odds. I feel that this determined resolve we have often perpetuates "wishful thinking" and "belief in unseen forces somehow helping us along"...all unproven yet "just the right elixir" for those thinking it is needed. All the while, these "drinkers of the kool aid" fail to see that what has actually gotten us to our current place as a species (for all of its amazing accomplishments and astounding horrors) is our own two hands and the squishy thing between our ears. Hope (for all of its emptiness as a concept) seems to be a part of this wishful thinking and seems to be a well to draw upon for those that do not feel they are strong enough to "keep going". I suppose a belief in ones own self created "ghosts of well wishes", though delusional, aren't necessarily a bad thing, so long as it not being forced on others and isn't hurting anyone else. However, that in itself can also be a slippery slope...
@larschristianalm. The odd against every atom in the universe existing without there being a creative mind, is quite frankly, impossible. Look into your physics and examine the power within every atom- not just on earth, or our solar system, but the whole universe. All from nowhere or nothing ??? And dare I add, we are part of that !
@@electricmanistIt's not impossible for our universe to come from nothing. It's just that many people simply don't want to believe it is possible and believe therefore that it MUST have come from something grander because our species has trouble thinking any other way outside of how we reproduce. Existence alone doesn't prove anything. In that vein, saying that a grand creative deity created everything in a way contradicts itself. Where did the deity come from, then? Nothing? Magic? Forces outside the laws of physics that don't follow the rules of physics? When humans lack evidence for events that occur, we unfortunately tend to invent our own explanations and you can just look at the myriad of religions created around the world throughout human history for proof of that. And unfortunately, every one of those religions believes they are the "right" one and everyone else is a blasphemer. Gotta love human tendencies...
@@zer0dave An interesting point, although I would challenge you to give an example of anything which exists, having "Nothing" as its progenitor. Such a concept flies in the face of all (any) reason or logic. For example, even stars (suns) exist as a result of billions of atoms (gas energy) combining to become one (the star), end eventually even the star changes its form (via perhaps a super nova etc) to become another form of energy. You cannot 'kill' or destroy energy, it merely changes its form of manifestation. (One could perhaps describe God as the supreme form of 'Being". Like many, it appears that you expect God (or creative force) to be a static intelligent entity (energy), itself , rather than a state of Being in a constant stage (state) of eternal growth. God (or the Initiator of all that is), itself is a Creative intelligence also in a state of eternal growth. Remember that ! Remember, even 'space' (or that we call space) itself is a created scenario in which all this (everything) takes place. (Happens) . It is not merely an empty nothingness. Without this (the) 'Intelligence' as the initiator of all that is, nothing (repeat Nothing) would exist. (Not even 'space' which is another word incorrectly used to describe this (that) particular state of being.
@@zer0dave Ha !! We even have difficulty believing that a rabbit can come out of a magician's hat, when we can see happen almost every day ! But it can can't it ? !! So , "pso so facto " why should we have difficulty in believing that the power of great creator (God) has sufficient power to create the universe ? But on a serious note, to imagine (there's no other word) that the universe (not forgetting all the billions of atoms involved) created itself, would require quite a stretch of the imagination. Oh and don't forget all the squillions of laws of dynamics required to not only make it happen, but to continue to do so, from one moment to the next. So think again; the creator of all that is, (including the laws of gravity, thermo dynamics, light, even time, CAN ! (Even if you have difficult in grasping that !)
'Why is there something rather than nothing?' How is that 'nothing' is to be taken as a primary? This presumed 'nothing', is it presumed to be natural or transcendent? The key is this; The universe is not just another thing in the universe. To speak of it as if it were....is mistake. 'What is a salt-shaker doing here?' and 'What is the universe doing here?'. If you can see a difference between those two questions, then there is hope for you in seeing through the farce. Existence exists, and nature is its character.
@Bklankarte That anything (and I mean everything) can exist at all without a creative force, goes against everything I learned in physics. The universe or even space itself for example.
Why are scientists that consider themselves agnostic, atheist, etc willing to completely okay to discount the collective of NDE reporters? What about little 8-year old artist Akiane Kremarik’s testimony of experience coupled with her inexplicable talent. I get the problem of evil. I understand the paradoxical nature of theistic beliefs that some propose as known truths, but… I just find that there’s a common trait of irrational passions of both sides that blind people from proper discussion. That’s why I like this channel. I think Robert’s openness and focus on open dialogue without critical condemnation is exactly what we need to bridge the gaps. We get to listen in, while our comments, our personal views are simple sidebars, not the message. Very much appreciate this channel.
When someone actually dies and rots for days, weeks and months and comes back to life in some miraculously way is when I would take what they have to say seriously. You don't seem to understand that NDE's have a lot to do with hallucinations and the brain trying it's best to project you with thoughts you may or may not like.
That is untrue. Several people returning with knowledge of surroundings they cannot possibly have. Actually interesting, a lot of doctors who study NDE's are themselves atheists, but admit they have no explanations for these experiences. Reincarnation is another interesting one where people have memories that are not their own yet have intimate knowledge of events they cannot possible be aware of and yet are. @@subnegro4946
"Meaning with a big M visa vis meanings with a lot of small Ms." That conveys a lot. 'Meanings with a lot of small Ms', that is science, that is ampliative truth. Not good enough. 'Meaning with a big M'. Absolute knowledge. Complete, unassailable truth. Right from the lips of THE ONE. One is truth by laborious method, the other truth from on high.
Interesting approach. I think it's fair to say that definitions of ''God'' are either contentless or self-contradictory. And I agree that doesn't mean there is no mystery to existence, and in particular meaningful existence which conscious/experiencing subjects like humans have. Which leaves revelation and faith as justifications for specific definitions of ''God''. And I don't think we need to look beyond human psychology for explanations of those. If we looked more towards our shared humanity, rather than tribal differences like religion in our globalised world, I think many conflicts would be more easily resolved.
If we invent a god in our mind then we can define it anyway we want, give it any characteristics we want. All these gods are mental, social and cultural constructs.
Whether there is a God or not is a question which must be investigated spiritually. The scientific method alone will not provide evidence to one who ignores the spiritual method.
Exactly. Just the very notion of the qualities one puts on God is enough for me not to believe. A book was created by man, with a set of instructions and fantastical stories to, I believe, keep the rest of man in line.
*"Atheists don’t need to prove anything. The burden is on believers."* ... Would you agree that your same standard should be applied to a belief in The Multiverse, Many Worlds, Big Bounce, and any arguments supporting the existence of life outside of planet Earth?
Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient perfection).
I just feel like letting you online, propagandists know, over in your second and third world countries, with your Chinese support against the west, it’s time you get your house in order. The USA has been feigning weakness. Our government has okey-doked you as we have decoupled from you. Now you just look pathetic to the rest of us who know what social media is all about. There is no world where you pose a threat to us. Sure, when the media hyper focuses on a few areas in the country, and when you look at the videos that are programmed to pop up in your feed, it sure does look like the USA is filled with a bunch of beta males, lesbians, and queers. Have you taken a look at Disney stock lately? Did you see what happened to target? What about Bud light? You haven’t paid attention to what happened in small communities and even big cities across the country, have you? But how could you? I’m sure from your vantage point as you scroll with your thumb, you feel like you are winning, there behind your anonymity, with all of your alternate accounts, and all of your propaganda. That’s the way you are supposed to feel. Please, please continue with your propaganda, maybe even step it up a bit. Try harder at attacking us through our devices with your lies. That way we will cherish your all out destruction even more. Remember, I warned you.
Transcendence; 'Something exists that accounts for things, but I can't explain what it is, and if you don't accept that, then you are insufferably rude.'
Understand what Consciousness is and you will have understanding of what God is. The Eastern view that what is manifest is not real but a dream by a Dreamer is the most realistic view. In discussions no one brings up duality in talking about tragedy. If there was Unity there would be no tragedy but neither would anything be manifest. In our nightly dreams a lot happens but we can still eat breakfast without worrying about it because it is not real. The same could apply to the daily life we perceive as real.
@@tgenov I think the term "explanation" means a reduction of seemingly complex phenomena to as few basic rules as possible. But this reduction cannot be infinite. These last basic rules, which we may be able to recognize one day, remain mysterious.
@@karlschmied6218 Reductionism doesn't work as an explanation for complex systems/phenomena. You can't explain a heart in terms of basic rules. You can explain it just fine using teleological language: it pumps blood.
Conversation between two recalcitrant minds.... Two seekers who do not want to give up on reason and materialism. Both are stuck but Robert lets his heart beat alongside reason and always seems tempted to re-connect with the mystery of life the only way he can: via a belief in something more than reason and materialism . It's the only way to find some meaning in the mystery of life and it is the only path which creates meaning even if we're fooling ourselves. We are in the dark and the only light we have comes from within. Surrendering to the mystery gets you closer to truth?
@catherinemoore9534. Extracts from your EMail:- 'fooling ouselves' -only if we decide to rely upon our intellect rather than experience the very fact of our very being. The creation of all that is (and maintains its existence) is that we call 'everlasting'. (or God). You might do well to examine the hundreds of NDE (Near Death Experience) (You Tube) accounts to learn more .
So, let us analyse ourselves and our lives and our desires and fears and start clearing up some mysteries. Hmmm. I am an atheïst myself, but I dont see that as a fruitful way to solve mysteries. But, these are all good things to pursue, no doubt.
So materialism is supposed to mean that there is no mystery in life? Oh, I see what he is getting at. Materialism means that there is no anthropomorphic character behind the scenes of life. Materialism is mechanism, is impersonal, is natural. The transcendent is the all powerful, mysteriously personal that must MUSTexist.
Nope. It means that there are natural explanations to problems. We may not know those explanations, there is still mystery. But we set supernatural explanations aside, since they are impossible to duplicate and test for and offer no predictive power.
I'm not sure I could defend my atheism, I just cannot believe in a god that goes for the abrahamic god I'm on the cusp of becoming a deist, I find the abrahamic god to be an accretion of characteristics.
Much talk but very little said in Mr Tallis's so called "arguments for atheism." I heard not one compelling idea in support of atheism. I did hear a scattered word salad criticizing religion. The speakers statement that any definition of God is either filled with contradictions or empty of content is a fallacy based on an untenable premise. That premise is accepting the idea that a "definition" of God is possible. It's not. How is it logically possible to offer a definition to something that lies beyond the ken of normal perceptual experience. How can you define something that can't be measured, weighed or observed? To say that God cannot exist because the narrow parameters of empirical inquiry haven't found him in the same way that a new comet is discovered is to make a sweeping generalization about something that has been and will remain ultimate mystery. Let's take his criticisms one at a time. 1. At 2:10 he says he can only base his criticism on what religions say on the subject, especially the Abrahamic traditions of Judaism." Really? Well guess what, Religion has very little to do with the science based assertion that God is a reality. Religion has far more to do with power, worldly influence and most of all dogma. Religion is an easy target for atheism because it's based on silly biblical fables. Mr Tallis's argument is actually against religion, not the intellectually credible assertion of God's existence. Atheists who reflexively fall back on this "straw man" argument consistently ignore the persuasive evidence of science that doesn't prove though strongly infers the existence of a transcendent agent as the source of all existent reality. Railing against the backward and intellectually stifling doctrines found in religions around the world says nothing about the existence of God. 2. The speaker makes the comment that it's inherently self contradictory to describe God as eternal and yet also having the ability to interject himself into the linear flow of time. How can he or anyone possibly know this? He's voicing only his opinion and it's an opinion that was likely fitted into his prior accepted belief in atheism. First of all, our understanding of what time is is incomplete and bound up with our partial understanding of how our universe came into existence. If time is no more than a sequential representation of matter changing states and conditions, then it can only exist in parallel with a physically existent and evolving universe. If this is true, did time exist before the Big Bang? The law of cause and effect suggests something must have existed prior to the original singularity that exploded into our expanding cosmos. Whatever it was, it had to exist beyond the realm of linear time. Anything existing beyond and separate from time can only be described as eternal. Eternity contains time. Time doesn't contain eternity and since time is an outgrowth and adjunct of eternity it's far easier to imagine that which exists outside of time being able to inject itself (if it has the power) into the sequential flow of linear time. 3. At 3:39 the speaker makes the add on point that humans need "consolation" from a "superior deity." This facile and frequently heard explanation for belief is a very convenient back door explanation that lacks any serious credibility. Here's why; To say that we believe in the existence of God because we feel threatened and alone in the universe is making a broad assumption about the emotional and psychological temperament of all humans. Humans are not afraid, and our history vividly shows the contrary. It's the Genus Homo that left the security of the trees to slowly walk upright and exposed on the open plains of Africa. It's the same creature who claimed every habitable part of the globe to dominate the physical spaces of our planet and beyond, eventually planting his footsteps on the moon. Fear is not native to the Genus Homo. He will in time prevail over all. Some are indeed driven to find "consolation" in religious belief but it's not and never was the primary driver of this belief. 4. His use of the phrase "God of the gaps" is unfortunate. It's a term used by Richard Dawkins and refers to the stalwart reluctance of believers to accept evolution. Those who refuse to accept the notion that all of us evolved from simpler forms use this silly phrase as a criticism of evolution because there are natural gaps in the archeological record of life on earth. Religious fundamentalist seize on this flimsy idea and offer it as proof that evolution is a fallacy. Because fundamentalists are desperate to disprove evolution they over stress these "gaps' in the evolutionary record to a point where Richard Dawkins describes them as "worshiping" these gaps. Atheists who use this term to describe the anti evolution crowd are really just poking fun at them, and not making a credible argument supporting atheism. 5. At 5:20 he says when asked "I don't have an explanation for that mystery." Hmm, that statement is tantamount to saying I don't really know.
I just finished listening to a ridiculous podcast interview between Jordan Peterson and John Lennox -- 'sophisticated' nonsense. Both of them! And neither actually agrees with the other, but neither cares. They're both euphoric about their own metaphysical nonsense. I love that Ray Tallis doesn't hide behind sophistry and bullsh*t. More people need to read him. He takes seriously what we don't know and refuses to 'insert God-of-the-gaps here'. Thanks for posting the interview. Restores my sanity after listening to village idiots.
In everything the thought and insight of the living natural elements never came up. Great. And, unpacking and packing oneself without the existence of the supreme intelligence of the natural elements cant efficiently meet the ideal nature of growth and the double exposure of patience in one's self.
God does not need to be disproven, and that is certainly not anything that an Atheist is concerned with. In claiming the opposite, Kuhn is merely flaunting his complete ignorance while also feigning that the God hypothesis somehow would default as the natural state, which it certainly isn't.
@missh1774, interestingly, your comment is such that the Atheist such as myself, the agnostic, the believer, the undecided, and the oblivious would all agree with you in regards to their own subjective idea of what truth is. By the way, to me truth is that which conforms to Reality, and given the fact that SUFFERING exists, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent Deity cannot exist, and therefore "God" does NOT exist
@@missh1774, I did agree with your original comment, and I said that others would as well. Please, read my first comment again, in which I stated "the Atheist such as myself, ..., would agree with you"
@@newmankidman5763 kudos to your missus. But what if it was necessary to make an unprovable statement? To someone else it's a lie because your head television is not the same as mine even though we are both human beings.
How about arguments for neutrality meaning not interested in religion or labeling yourself as against religion as an atheist implies . if one is truly not religious then it's not necessary to think or comment further about it. Arguing with the religious simply means you still have some residual identity with and and you need to reiterate your rejection by informing others of who you think you have become by not being religious . people that are free from the influence of religion don't need to tell others about it .
@@andydee1304 Explanation Cosmic Constants Gravitational force constant (large scale attractive force, holds people on planets, and holds planets, stars, and galaxies together) - too weak, and planets and stars cannot form; too strong, and stars burn up too quickly. Electromagnetic force constant (small scale attractive and repulsive force, holds atoms electrons and atomic nuclei together) - If it were much stronger or weaker, we wouldn’t have stable chemical bonds.
@@razoredge6130 No problem. You just need to explain HOW God did it. You don't even need to convince me it's true, you only need to convince me that you know what you're talking about.
Peoples desire to be a part of a movement or community of like thinkers will override their doubt centers of the brain. You have to ask people: "What are the advantages of being a religous person vs an athiest?" IMO atheism is endless curiosity unobstructed by dogmatic thinking. It's a gateway to a more fundamental reality. But is there an advantage in thinking that way in life, or is it a life of hopelessness?
Atheism is simply a position. It is not an ideology, set of values, or any proclamation as to anything concerning reality. Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Do you agree?
God is concept, which belongs to religion. We can study the concept of God in science, but the speculation about the existence of the God is more entertainment than searching new questions. The name of this channel has the word ”truth”, which is also concept, which belongs to religion. Religion is the same phenomenon as herd phenomenon, which is studied by group psychology(Bion). God is the patriotic element of it. We need a leader, who has the link to the leader(God).
Yes there is a passion in the search. Not to know the truth but to control the narrative. The truth of it doesn't really matter. How it can be used to justify their control is the only consideration. Where even the rules change depending on your position in society.
you need to start thinking outside the limitations of religion and science and start thinking in terms of a reality/ other world that runs parallel with our so called reality one of Ignorance, wars, poverty, murder, suicide, child, animal abuse and that this life is just a ride and that there is evidence that this other reality exists here and now.
Atheists have a God-complex, you have very entitled attitudes that demand a sort of childish catering and submission to your frame. YOU prove why God doesn’t exist. You cannot possibly believe you have a leaflet of intelligence if you believe there is not a creator of this world and of the existence we exist in.
@@vgrof2315 Well, yes and no. The statement you propose also encompasses agnosticism, so it is probably too wide a definition. The crux is what you do with the lack of evidence. While the Agnostic refuses to express any truth claim in the matter, the Atheist will say "Until I am convinced otherwise, all claims that God exists are bullshit."
Your choice to scoff is why you can BE such an ardent atheist,.. Belief in God is Spiritual and will remain this way, we live under the Covenant of Faith from which we CAN choose to believe, or in your case, to scoff, there's something different that only God see's in one who Believes, thus has Faith, which His Book says only through Faith can we PLEASE God, and those who scoff reject His Covenant, thus reject Him, as Romans 1 explains WHY no one has any excuse to NOT Believe, We are given the ability to choose because of the covenant of Faith, because obviously, IF He were to make Himself known without question then EVERYONE would choose Him automatically which would be no choice at all,.. Peace to you John 3:16
Why can't, the gods are infinitesimally smallest entities (like strings, quarks, bosons, etc.) that give rise to the emergent bigger universe that is even more dependent than we ever are? Here god does infact interfere with everything and everytime but the god is too small for us to even notice or sense its interference.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Perhaps some intelligent entities might be able to deduce the fact in some exotic manners and with exotic research tools or perhaps humans may gain such intelligence in future.
@sudipadhikari491 Maybe so. But I was referring to current day. If this god is not currently observable, then how does one ascertain information about it?
The Holy Quran puts a simple solution for the question of God that people have been debating for thousands of years without reaching a conclusion.People have physical needs,they need to eat,drink and reproduce,.... everything around them helps them to meet these needs,for example to fulfill their needs they have to travel,the Earth is easy to navigate,after a long day of work you need to rest,night is quite and dark,people need a source of power,animals like oxen,donkeys,camels are domesticable ,...and it's also clear that Humans have spiritual needs otherwise the question of God wouldn't even exist,so if God really exists then these spiritual needs must be met, if God really exists then he must have provided the Human soul with the capability of knowing Him,the solution is to invest in these spiritual capabilities, the majority of people are busy in investing in physical capabilities.
The fiction of "God" is unnecessary. Those who insist on the irrelevant construct are merely holding on closely to their secret buddies, ha, ha. Failure to reconstruct the history of the fiction of "God" and absorb that understanding is sophomoric. ** Plus, the notion of purpose is illogical.
Robert I'm surprised that you didn't make the case that human existence is contradictory in the formal sense of, for example, the law of excluded middle. There are many contradictions between the contradictions between quantum mechanics and relatively. The lists are endless. So the argument that God is contradictory is actually appropriate to our nature including our own conscience existence. 3017 Metaphysician
Kuhn appears to ignore the explanatory power of experiencing own existence. It is the source of human transcendence and the motivating force of religion. Meditation seeks to quiet the ceaseless ideation process of the mind, but experiencing own existence is to revel in the limitless emotive power offered by own existence.
there are humans that claim to know what happens after we die, but come on. Nobody really knows, no matter how smart we are. Yhe same could be said for the beginning of everything. We are simply not intelligent enough to know. It hurts our pride but that's life.
I know that chickens come from eggs and eggs come from chickens. But where did the very first chicken come from, hmmmm ? Based on the evidence, I guess it came from an egg.
@@drzaius844 That’s the point. He rejects the god concept because all variations of it are internally inconsistent. I could say the same for the supernatural, so why not reject that equally?
When discussing the questions that have stayed open for millenia, I typically don't expect to gain much ground in a 10 minute discussion. I think the talks are worth having though, if only to get better understanding of others views.
Hello Robert, I see you have a lot of content on free will. Have you considered a RU-vid episode with Robert Sapolsky? He really seals the deal as far as being truth, not even closest to truth, just straight truth - we have no free will.
People like you, who worship what a person who is human and could be wrong as anyone else, are not capable of thinking for themselves. You're no different than a religious fanatic.
@Ana-cc5jb. Do you mean you have no choice as to whether you lie or tell the truth ? Love or hate? Give or take ? Really ? The you must be a robot without any mind of your own ! (But if then as a robot, you must have been created (by something) without any options !!!) So sad when all the rest of us have choices.
@@electricmanistfree will is an illusion. We think we make choices when in fact all decisions were the only decision we could have made at that moment in time with all things considered. We are biology and environment that’s all, and yes in a sense robots. There’s always a cause for everything we do and say and another cause before that all the way back to the beginning of time. Turtles all the way down as Sapolsky says or dominos. Please check out a few Robert Sapolsky videos on the subject of free will to gain a better understanding of it. Also Nick Vale has written a good book on it and he has a RU-vid interview too, please search Nick Vale - TV Interview
Belief in god is just the human ego wanting a purpose. There's no such thing as evil or good, love or hate. There is no purpose, no afterlife. Ego is an illusion. Work with what you have and don't cry because the universe doesn't conform to your wishes.
@@Ekam-Sat Thank you and may God bless you on your journey, no matter which form it takes. (To paraphrase your sentiment, 'May the wind be always at your back;.
You might do well to look into the phenomena of NDE (Near Death Experiences). Not fables or 'fairy stories' , but actual (verified medically) experiences. It is one thing to to be critical of ancient fables or 'hand me down' religious stories, but quite another to take account of thousands (yes, thousands) of actual accounts of the dying process.
@@vladtheemailer3223 Since we are creations of God, the 'human mind' is also a part of God. Therefore all things are part of God. Some realized, some not yet realized. The 'demonstration' you ask for is is within consciousness itself.
@electricmanist The answer to my question is "No." The mind and body are not separate. From everything we can tell, consciousness is just an illusion. Now, don't let the stop you from making up and spreading nonsense.
i highly doubt that without religion the outcome would be somewhat the same: there goes very much energy into believing stuff that doesnt exist that could spend for real stuff, real work . real whatever and as you know there are Chimpanzees and Bonobos and they are 99.9% identical, the latter make love all day the first are...
"I'm skewered on fundamental reality". This guy is the smartest idiot I've listened to on youtube. I thought he was going to say he'd been throughout the entire universe and can positively assert "There is no god." I'm no genius but Robert also seemed perplexed as to why Tallis doesn't call himself an agnostic.
Infinity (God is infinite!) can be understood or define in a coherent and complete way by a finite being. Why? Because infinity also mean UNBOUNDED. And unbounded means also not bounded by logic.... In case of infinity, using classical logic (yes/no only) can end up in paradoxes (veridical ones!). Using 4 value logic alleviate this, still is far from what infinity mean. Things are very rare black and white only in life. In life there are only nuances. Infinity means infinite nuances.
I thought he was a nice thinker, but his analysis of time is very superficial Also: institutionalised religion was the most succesful iteration of a maffia venture
@@Robinson8491 And yet, they managed to terrorize, torture, assassinate and brutally kill hundreds of thousands of people in less time. Wouldn't they be a better inheritor of the mafia - I think the CIA even worked with the mafia
Take the Qur’an, specifically the original Arabic version, as it was revealed, and I will give you a period of 20 years to research it and learn about it. After the specified period expires, come and tell me whose book is this or whose words are this. I put the challenge between you and me if there is one person who says that this book is not the book of God. A rational, conscious person does not speak about something that he does not know. I am a follower of your program and I respect your respected person, but unfortunately most of the guests speak about God from their personal perspective, not with reason or knowledge, and I pose a challenge between me and anyone in the world. Go and research the Qur’an well. After that, when you finish research come and tell me who right this bock .
Just replace the word God with God Science. For example for a 3rd grade student, 10th grade science lab experiment will look like a mystery or a magic or a miracle because he/she doesn't know that science. Similarly God may be a infinite grade student where his science experiments are mystery or miracles to even the greatest scientist of human kind existed or will be existing.
It's amazing that Robert is on this endless search for the answers to questions that never get solved yet doesn't realize that his belief in God and the fact that he created the universe is the sole reason he never gets answers. Why does it make sense to Robert that the universe was created? What do the laws of physics tell him he should believe? Maybe that the universe was already here? The universe will go on for eternity yet why think it doesn't go back for eternity? One thing he doesn't realize is that the creation of the universe only started with quark gluon plasma. It cooled to hydrogen and that was about it. This means that the energy that created us had to be created with nothing but the hydrogen so what other choice was there but to use gravity to fuse the hydrogen? Doesn't he realize that it is not quantum physics that determined that fusion inevitably works but merely a religious theory? There are 70 years of empirical testing and observations that have proved that fusion is wrong but everyone in astrophysics and physics is forced to believe the creation of the universe. What kind of science is that? Where are the laws of physics? Where are all the answers Robert seeks if his theory ignores all the laws of physics right off the bat? It is just staggering how science let Georges Lamaître determine all of physics and astrophysics for the rest of human existence. The scientific method has completely disappeared because the inevitable conclusion is the universe was created when it easily, and by law, could have already been here when the Big Bang happened. In other words, Georges Lamaître made all of science completely stupid.
@@Jun_kid I'm just wondering what he thinks he needs to do to understand dark matter, dark energy, black holes, quantum gravity, the solar corona heat, the muon wobble problem, the W boson heaviness problem, fusion, and all the rest? Maybe stop believing that the universe was created? Maybe coming to the conclusion that the first law of thermodynamics makes that impossible? All he needs to do is what I did. Realize that the lawful, empirical, testable event that happened 13.8 billion years ago was that our universe took two of the many masses floating around aimlessly and collided them to create a massive particle collider in space. That's how I came up with the Theory of Everything. Maybe he should try it and stop asking people that are unable to think for themselves.
@@infiniteuniverse123 Why support the first law of thermodynamics, when that law (or theory) is a man made concoction, created in order to make some sort of (limited) sense of life and the universe. Supporting the theory (repeat theory) that the universe was created (or created itself) 13.8 billion years ago, doesn't really help (you) understand all that is either, even though its sounds very clever-- but that doesn't help much does it ?. You have to accept that the universe, even life itself (you included of course) is something beyond human understanding, although scientists (who are never short of a clever explanation, would have you believe otherwise. They know it all don't they ?. (So they think). Maybe it's time to accept that we (and you of course). as well as the universe. are part of the Divine Creation. The purpose remains a mystery perhaps. Best summed up by the Latin words .QED. 'Quad Erat Demonstrandum,' (In simple English 'That which proves itself'.
