The Mystery of Existence: Why is there something rather than nothing? Part 2

49 Comments

1. What if it's all a lie and we are making complex arguments just to justify the lie??

2. I'm sure it's pointless to even ask this, but what definitions of "complex" and "simple" is Dawkins using here? If you can explain the existence and properties of every thing and every category of thing in the world, by appeal to just a single thing that has no extension or parts or contingent particulars to explain… how is that not a HUGE advantage in simplicity??

3. How existance came into being…rather how beign became existance..from one came all..one source

4. These guys are regular fart 💨 smellas

5. Humanity can not be more deceived because God exists and the intelligent creator of the universe is not the idea of perfection for religious people. The debate is bloody stagnated and after atheism has been exposed as a logical fallacy it doesn't make sense to keep pretending. To understand only to want to understand is required. Ateism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Is it necessary to explain the importance and urgency? Future generations would understand, so why don't you? Everyone can understand the truth and God being honest using common sense and emotional intelligence. I want to end the war in Ukraine, so what's wrong with that? Knowledge is useful. If you want to know who is a bad person ask "do you want to abolish all armies at the same time to end poverty and threat?". Eternal hell and heaven is justly for bad and good people as bad and good as we have been ourselves with God.

6. We have to have a theory that is balanced with both howness and whyness at the same time. Limiting knowledge to one of them is not enough for knowing reality. 
   Describing how biology is made through evolution and suggesting that it does not need a designer is like describing how a computer is made of components and suggesting that it does not need a designer. The final outcome of biology shows its designer as the final outcome of computer shows its designer.
   Graham Oppy attributes this inferrence from computer to our background knowledge but the point is that, if we face a new computer as opposed to the one that we had attributed design previously, we will attribute design to this new computer too. Similarly we can attribute it to biology too. Because we seem to have found a basic similarity between computer and biology which is complexity. In other words we seem to have extracted the following formula:
   Intelligent design= degree of initial simplicity × degree of final complexity

7. Not the best conversation of its type that I have watched.
   One thing I'd like to mention though, is how incapable are theists to justify the matter of suffering, especially in nature. All their arguments sound totally insensitive, as if suffering is just a cruel necessity in the (supposedly all-mighty) god's plan for the world.

8. The universe is at rest. No thing within the universe is at rest. All things within the universe are drawn to rest. A poetic dance with furious uncertainty.

9. It not complex it's just not yet to be revealed Maybe the next life could tell ya who knows

10. Enter Swinburns integrated Tomistic position and Dawkins' scientific fundamentalism was on full display in both sessions

11. Really enjoying Richard Dawkins' heavy nasal inhalations and exhalations in these videos. Kudos to the sound people for giving us this little detail.

12. The host here was terrible. Should have been justin…

13. Do these people get paid for all this 🐂 💩 !?

14. The discussion has been from different studies or beliefs contrary to the statement about two ideas fighting. Also dismissing the idea of God is not exploring all the possibilities.

15. she is a jew and she isn't sure she gonna survive death? wuuut?

16. Dawkins' 'simplicity' argument just will not fly. The reductive materialist argument is in fact more complex in some level.

17. Why is Dawkins insisting on a simple explanation for the universe? Surely what we need is the best explanation. If I find a mars bar wrapper on the moon I can conclude an intelligent being must have put it there. I don't have to explain the explanation for it to be the best explanation.

18. Their all relying on their faith ,believe , I'll go with a creator ,God . HE'S MY FAITH.

19. Dawkins showing how rude and intolerant he is of christian opinions by playing with his watch and looking away with disdain. He would do well to listen and be open minded.

20. I share Dawkins' atheism, but this was like watching a kid from the local boxing club going up against the heavy weight world champion.

21. Why not invite a real philosopher to speak for atheism? Dawkins is definitely not a philosopher.

22. Science is becoming more and more meta-physical and "wierd". The materialist paradigm is breaking down rapidly.

23. I know I put this on the Part 1 episode, but I'll put it here again: This was like Richard Swinburne with three school children (with Dawkins being the bratty dunce at the back of the room). No offense to the ladies, but let's be clear, there are better philosophers and less good ones. When you have Swinburne up there, if you want to challenge the Christian worldview, you better put up some bigger guns than these here. Jonas has potential, and she may be struggling with English as a native German speaker, but she has a long way to go still.

24. I REFUSE TO BARE DAWKINS ONE MORE MINUTE.

25. Annoying pen clicking!

26. This Debate is really unsatisfying.

    if everyone here believes evolution purely by natural selection and random mutation without any challenge to it, then the entire argument is arleady in Richard Dawkins favour. A creator using a purely blind process is illogical. I really think john lennox would make for a better Christian representative. Sir Richard (Christian) only worsend the case for Christianity, there's nothing biblical in his entire speech (with all due respect).
    And Everyone here is kind of flowing with Richard Dawkins with no challenge at all.

    It's really painful to watch 😒

27. Religious believes though will provide some self comfort of a 2nd life.
    The purpose of life is self propagation/maintenance. We are all the product of some thing called sex with a serm fertilizing an ovum.
    Moral goodness has nothing to with God. What was good hunderds of years and applicable , are not necessarily acceptable now. Religious people should keep their believe for them self.
    All of us are the product of sexual pleassure and who ever decided that God or Nature , no body will know until he or she dies but then there is no way so far to let the livings know

28. Orthodox Christians like Swinburne always take God right into the Bible. Once you give them a little concession, they will try to convert you to orthodox Christianity. That makes people like Swinburne not credible in my opinion.
    16:45 "A hundred years is a very short time compared to an everlasting time." Professor Swinburne clearly has a big problem with the concept of evil.
    58:00 Richrad Dawkins: Wrong. What is comforting is also true.

29. I thought Jessica was the most interesting, but it turned into a "God did it." vs. "Atheism" debate. Christians really don't like atheism even though it's such a small percentage of the people they claim are going to hell. It's a weird obsession..

30. God has visited me all my life & shows me my future every day & it all comes true even though it's things which have never happened before & which I could never imagine happening. God took me to His realm & I watched as He created universes from His auric light. He then took me to walk on the new earths to show me they are real. Then God showed me how time & space are created by the wavelength of the light & He adjusted my wavelength many times to show me parallel earths & universes which all had entirely different measurements of time & space, which were all on their own separate wavelength in the spectrum of God's light. And so fully controllable time is only inside the universes God creates & not outside of them where God lives.

    God has an ocean teeming with life & God shows me many of the creatures living there. Some of the life forms are able to live in the earth's oceans & so God places them there & they evolve into all the life forms on earth. The entire creation & evolution process takes only a few moments for God because God is outside of time. Many atheists & others have also been taken by God & shown how creation happens. Unfortunately religions do not listen to all the people who are visited by God & taken to see these things. So religions cannot grow & are stuck with only very little information about God. Science also has its mind closed to God in that respect & so cannot learn anything about God either.

31. The Hindu scholar, Jessica Frazier, talks like the YouTuber Alex O'Connor 😛 And Im not just referring to the British accent.

32. Christians want to be right about the 'reality' of their belief, and depending on how closely they align themselves to literalism, dogma, convention, the more they will be resistant to challenge and critique. Being 'spiritual but not religious' is an infinitely more honest position to take in my view.. This doesn't take away from the value and hope I get from religion and spirituality… the comment from the last questioner – absolutely on the money, SO TRUE – I am so bored by the reductionism of this 'is there/isn't there god' – it is so boring and so limiting. We have to look beyond theism and anti-theism when looking at the mystery of existence.

33. If you are bringing someone to represent Hinduism, make sure that he or she is a practising Hindu, particularly from India, and not someone who just studies Hinduism for intellectual pleasure. Nothing wrong about Jessica, but she wouldn't do more justice in representing the Hindu position than an actual Hindu of Indian origin would do.

34. What does Dawkins tell cancer sufferers? That's evolution in motion?

35. John Lennox is missing here. The big rival of Dawkins.

36. Seems like it would have been better to have an actual Christian debating and holding the Christian position. Swinburne is maybe atheist but he is definitely not a Christian if he doesn't believe in heaven or hell and doesn't believe that people would be infinitely happier serving God as they were designed and created to do. His supposition that serving God would become tiresome and people would want to serve themselves instead is like saying that someone would rather stop doing what is good for them in order to do something that is harmful to them. And heaven it will be quite obvious that serving God is the purpose for which humanity was created

37. These people are in the least position to comment.

38. I feel like a lot of the Christian apologists that come on for these debates or conversations are not the best Christianity has to offer. The Christian apologist today gave some pretty poor answers and rambled on in ways that didn't even address the point of the question. Dawkins is an atheist all-star. You can't put the junior varsity bench warmer up against him and expect the conversation to go favorably from a Christian perspective.

39. A weakness to Dawkin's point of view regarding the brain and death would have been "Spontaneous remission of dementia before death." There are cases of people with terminal dementia becoming completely lucid before dying. How can this happen if our consciousness is strictly in the brain? Too bad these "educated" minds didn't rebuttal with this fact!

40. I miss Justin

41. Dawkins asks for simple explanation to the existence of everything which I view as a humble question. If you cannot explain something in it's simplest form to anyone then you don't understand the subject well enough to claim authority

42. The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can create the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something [One (1)] exists before Nothing [Zero (0)] can exist. In the beginning, there was Singularity (1).

43. Dawkins makes claims that he cannot substantiate. He reduces the mind to the brain but neuroscience has been incapable of explaining a single conscious experience in terms of brain function. The panel ought to have challenged him about that.

44. It’s not Richard who is deluded it’s everyone else🤣🤣Ignorance is bliss!

45. I don’t know why Richard Dawkins is there , he one sided and prejudice against God he’s diss respectful . And he’s not very bright, except for biology. On the other hand Mr Swindburn is well versed in biology as well as theology. If you want an atheist get Graham Oppy or Michael Shermer . There are more , but you get my drift . Dawkins still won’t debate William Lane Craig because he’s afraid of him because drCraig is very well read and knows what he’s talking about.

46. Please search for SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS (Part 1 -Gods of Science!? Part 2 -The Issue of Existence). These are two articles in Researchgate related to this discussion.

47. two hours to go popcorn ready

48. Maybe it’s impossible for there to be nothing: even if there were no things, there’s still the fact that there are no things.

49. "Saint" George CARLIN's #1 favorite question.
    N.B. Just by being here makes us "living proof" of RE-in-CAR-nation.

Comments are closed.