Ugh, why is it such a pain to listen to this disingenuous Subboor. His only aim seems to be to obfuscate, confuse and grandstand while people like Phil have to wade through his word bullshit. He's not coming into this with good faith or an open mind.

You’re just begging the question here. This data does not necessarily stem from religiosity per se. 🤙

Does anyone know of a technical paper that presents the refutations in this video? I have searched on the archive and I can't find one. This the only place I've seen this, and I've searched everywhere for a technical discussion.

The grim reaper thing sounds like a reverse "the tortoise and the hare", a 2500 year old fable... Presumably it has a similar flaw as that fable.

Davis Sandra Smith Brenda Gonzalez Betty

lol, you dweebs debunked absolutely nothing

Definitely earned a sub from me for this well edited and vastly informative video.

I think part of the reason for religious rejecting climate change is the fact that for 20 year, Richard Dawkins his friends have insisted on insulting and ridiculing religious people. To paraphrase, the religious are, according to Dawkins, "stupid, ignorant or wicked", and he says people must choose between religion or science. The two statements are easy shown to be false be existence of my prominent scientists who also are religious. However, some religious people do make this choice, some choosing atheism and some choosing religion. And those that choose to reject science will reject climate change. Solving climate change requires all parties to cooperate and this will only happen if modern-atheist stop belittling/bully others to boost their own illusory sense of intellectual superiority.

So,poor Corrie thought that the horrors that she underwent were a necessary part of god’s plan,justifying the holocaust and rendering void any judgment about it. Ok 👍

a professional apologist argues against himself

The so called "black hole" is contingent upon matter being attracted to huge densities and pressures. Why then does this matter not undergo fission and turn to pure radiating enetgy{photons} long before this so called "singularity" state? It would seem logical that the density and subsequent pressure would cause ALL of the matter it radiate away after a particular extreme density is met.(a,k,a a nuclear explosition}. No explanation has been given as to why this does not happen therefore the idea of a "black hole singularity" is a mathematically consistnt illusion that cannot exist in any place but within a theorum on paper written by a mathematician. Putting it another way "black holes" do exist in the Penrose paper but nowhere else. Roger created an entirely consistent illusion in the same way Esher did with his staircases but these consistencies exist and are true only on paper and not in reality. So he recieved a Nobel Prize for an elaborate dream fantasy that makes sense.

*Biggest FTA problem?* The biggest FTA problem to me is that it implies an infinite regression of ever-greater creators: If our seemingly mildly tuned universe requires a creator, - creator(0) - wouldn’t creator(0) have to be more “finely-tuned” than the universe? And since fine-tuning “requires” a creator, then creator(0) implies creator(-1), etc _ad infinitum_

Brilliant, cheers.

So i guess now i am the last human to not have got the COVID 19 and i did everything like normal people going to work and normal commute and still til now I've been lucky to not get it

I now see why shut up and calculate is a thing. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 people just don't shut up in general, when it's proclamations or stories from Bologna, which I don't know about since he got cut off by the moderator who couldn't shut up. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Just a joke. Great interview. Loved hearing from both these lovely folks.

All of the discussions there assume this mathematical object can exist and that the maths are correct. However the maths are speculations without empirical proof so the assumptions are not proven.Therefore the black hole cannot exist until it is observed and studied. There is no explanation that shows why masses at the hugley dense state and pressure do not simply go "nuclear fission" and simply evaporate into energy long before this socalled comic book object called a "black hole" forms. I think matter would turn to pure energy long before a so called "singularity" formed . Theories about it forming are done by people capable of tinkering with Einstein's work to make themselves believe they are on his level.

This is an excellent and instructive video. But it would be much easier to follow if the transcript was edited. This is straightforward to do, if a little time consuming. Many Thanks! 👍👍👍

Please more videos with Malpass and Linford🙈🙈🙈

Hey, it's Eric Clapton at 6:40. 😅

99.9999etc.. of the universe would kill you in seconds, let alone most places here on Earth.

Martin Amy Martinez Linda Lee Jose

multiverse is rubbish. an indirect confirmation of prediction will never necessitate the existence of multiverses it will always require a leap of faith... We are making science philosophy again and we are putting more data then we get more out so just overfitting data......Also Alun guth said that its a speculative extension but now he says its necessary?

Anderson Richard Anderson Thomas Gonzalez Linda

As a Buddhist, we recognise that existence has no bedrock. In Buddhism, our existence is interconnected and impermanent. Emptiness or Sunyata, a key concept in Buddhism, is the idea that all phenomena lack inherent existence. This concept is an extension of the Buddha's teaching on Non-Self, asserting the subject has no essence. Nagarjuna asked what about objects? Do they have essences? He reached a similar conclusion and realised that fixed essences don't exist in objects. This is found in the Heart Sutra, where it says, 'Form is emptiness, Emptiness is Form.' When people look for a grounding to their knowledge or existence, it always follows Munchausen's Trilemma. It ends up most often in the axiomatic truth. This can be questioned and refuted by asking why that particular axiom was chosen or how they know it is true. All these apologists seemingly make sweeping statements about non-believers but never take the time to explore what they believe.

Wow, do I ever love this channel.

How is it so difficult for you people to understand such a simple argument? This so ignorant its almost fascinating. Do you understand that there's no triangles that exist in reality? Its literally incoherent to say that triangles exist. Thus is bc the "straightest" lines such a x-rays, gamma rays are literally made up of wave lengths that arent remotely straight. However, though not existing, triangles work perfectly well conceptually, in geometry and in the abstract. Getting a bunch of people to explain what "infinity" means, in concept, does absolutely nothing to address the main pint of the argument, and how that just can't fit into physical reality. Dr Craig explains all of this in detail. You aren't even scratching the surface of the argument. Do you understand the difference between saying "because of the nature of physical reality, its logically incoherent to say theres true triangles that exist in reality" and "the concept of a triangle is logically incoherent"? Im not going to go on and on and show the abject ignorance of this entire video but you don't remotely understand any of this... Its hilarious how suddenly using pure mathematics you can now believe that an infinite number of things exist (with zero emperocal evidence, whatsoever), but when the greatest logicians in history such as Kurt Godel literally prove that one God exists with modal logic, you respond "theres just no empirical evidence".

The God of the New Testament is the same. Read the book of Revelation

We are in the part of the cycle in which what we experience as consciousness can exist...and time is articulated...this is a limited time...entropy brought us here...after a period this point of articulated time we dissappear...until entropy is at that point in which it can exist as conscious thought.

As far as I can tell this is the essence of the Penrose model...to cycle through entropy you begin at the eternal point...Once all entropy has been cycled through and the last form of matter goes poof...all that remains is the energy of the universe...without matter to drive space time and entropy space time and entropy end...and simultaneously begin.

Lewis Barbara Thompson Deborah Brown Jessica

Clark Eric Thompson Joseph Clark Maria

Justin Brierley gives me the same uncomfortable feeling as that silly smiling, artificially sympathetic priest you met in your childhood Sunday school, and his thoughts are just as vague, treacherous, and childish as that priest's teachings.

I feel like Joe is trying his best here to talk at 0.5x speed.

Walker Karen Martinez Barbara Anderson Nancy

50:33 Alex killed me here, and he's right. Imagine how many people got burned at the stake in past times for saying things we consider to be trivial.

Anderson Jose White Patricia Wilson Michael

You guys find a way to have a good productive and insightful conversation, even when the material you're responding to is as bad as Justin's BS. I really appreciate that.

Jones Jeffrey White Shirley Allen David

I'm not arguing for or against loop quantum gravity or any other model, but hasn't Lee Smolin, one of the creators of loop quantum gravity, said he no longer thinks it's the right way to go?

I'm unpersuaded that youve (a) effectively countered WLC; or (b) effectively established the valididity of Darwinian evolution as explained by Dawkins. Also, is there evidence that there is life in other universes or that other universes even exists? And what of micro vs macro evolution? Is macro evolution actually established? Thank you for your consideration and this podcast.

Perez Sandra Anderson Cynthia Jones Carol

3:00 to 6:34 - Semantics objection. 30:49 to 31:49 - Objection against self-authentication.

You can only deny something that exists! It is a philological principle of language.

Seems these atheists are getting worried 😆 don't be afraid in accepting there is a Creator there is nothing to fear.

31:10 to 32:28 - This seems to be a weak argument.

So, you’re saying he was smart?

“How a ping pong ball can prove God” - > “here’s another cosmological argument, with some ungrounded assumptions about it being a “who”, and strawmanning naturalism as “popped out of nothing” while holding a ping pong ball”

While it is understood that Justin Brierly's analogy of a tower sitting on a table was supposed to be symbolic, it's possibly worth pointing out that for each brick of the tower, you could consider the brick and <everything else>. They are gravitationally linked. Everything above and at the same distance from the centre of the greatest mass in the region (the Earth) as the brick cancels out. Everything within the sphere around the centre of the mass of the Earth which intersects with the centre of mass of the brick contributes to a gravitational pull (ie attractive force) experienced by the brick. The only thing that stops the brick being pulled inwards (and thus down) is the brick below it that is in the way. So far so obvious. But what Justin probably doesn't want us to take away from his analogy is that, to a very small degree, <everything else> is also being pulled towards the brick and the only thing that stops it from happening is all the stuff in the way (including the other bricks and the table). So it's just a matter of perspective that the "ground" is fundamental. We could say that what's fundamental is one of the other bricks. Or the table. Or the top brick. And with godbotherers, that last option is probably right. The nature of their god exists, to the extent that it exists, solely inside the mind of that specific godbotherer (with all godbotherers having slightly different conceptions across a broad spectrum from deists to ultraorthodox interferists [who think their god intervenes and cares deeply about what people do with and to each other, especially other people]).

and this is a professor in math?

Dawkins never said evolution was chance.. he's a upright lying here.