50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Link for Part 2: • Another 50 Renowned Ac...
Link for Part 3: • A Further 50 Renowned ...
I do not claim that this video demonstrates there is no God. It is not an argument against God in itself, so there is no argument from popularity or authority. I claim that the more scientifically and philosophically literate a person, the less likely they are to believe in a deity. If you think the concept of a God has nothing to do with the universe, logic, metaphysics, epistemology, human beings, etc., then this video is not for you. If you think it does have something to do with such subjects, then you might want to consider why the best experts on those subjects usually fail to see reason to believe in a deity.
The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively sceptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god. These films are part of a compilation of some of the best examples of such individuals, and their thoughts on the divine. All the speakers featured are elite academics and professors at top institutions, some of whom are also Nobel Laureates.
Speakers in order of appearance:
1. Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
2. Robert Coleman Richardson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
3. Richard Feynman, World-Renowned Physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics
4. Simon Blackburn, Cambridge Professor of Philosophy
5. Colin Blakemore, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Neuroscience
6. Steven Pinker, World-Renowned Harvard Professor of Psychology
7. Alan Guth, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Physics
8. Noam Chomsky, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Linguistics
9. Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate in Physics
10. Peter Atkins, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Chemistry
11. Oliver Sacks, World-Renowned Neurologist, Columbia University
12. Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
13. Sir John Gurdon, Pioneering Developmental Biologist, Cambridge
14. Sir Bertrand Russell, World-Renowned Philosopher, Nobel Laureate
15. Stephen Hawking, World-Renowned Cambridge Theoretical Physicist
16. Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics
17. Ned Block, NYU Professor of Philosophy
18. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics
19. Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
20. James Watson, Co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate
21. Colin McGinn, Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
22. Sir Patrick Bateson, Cambridge Professor of Ethology
23. Sir David Attenborough, World-Renowned Broadcaster and Naturalist
24. Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
25. Pascal Boyer, Professor of Anthropology
26. Partha Dasgupta, Cambridge Professor of Economics
27. AC Grayling, Birkbeck Professor of Philosophy
28. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
29. John Searle, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
30. Brian Cox, Particle Physicist (Large Hadron Collider, CERN)
31. Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Laureate in Physics
32. Rebecca Goldstein, Professor of Philosophy
33. Michael Tooley, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado
34. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
35. Leonard Susskind, Stanford Professor of Theoretical Physics
36. Quentin Skinner, Professor of History (Cambridge)
37. Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate in Physics
38. Mark Balaguer, CSU Professor of Philosophy
39. Richard Ernst, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
40. Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
41. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, Princeton Research Scientist
42. Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate in Physics
43. Hubert Dreyfus, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
44. Lord Colin Renfrew, World-Renowned Archaeologist, Cambridge
45. Carl Sagan, World-Renowned Astronomer
46. Peter Singer, World-Renowned Bioethicist, Princeton
47. Rudolph Marcus, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
48. Robert Foley, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution
49. Daniel Dennett, Tufts Professor of Philosophy
50. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics
FEATURED MUSIC:
Mozart - Requiem Mass In D Minor K 626 - 1. Introitus 00:03
Massive Attack - Two Rocks And A Cup Of Water 02:28, 19:14
Max Richter - Embers 05:13
Ludovico Einaudi - Andare 09:27, 24:30, 26:31
Ludovico Einaudi - Nuvole Bianche 13:13
Max Richter - Vladimir's Blues 29:21
Ludovico Einaudi - Eni 30 Percento (The Earth Prelude) 33:16
CLIP SOURCES:
The vast majority of the clips have been taken from the following sources:
Professor Alan Macfarlane: www.alanmacfarl...
Closer To Truth (Dr Robert Lawrence Kuhn): www.closertotru...
The Science Network (Roger Bingham): thesciencenetwo...
The Vega Science Trust (Sir Harold Kroto): vega.org.uk
Copyright disclaimer--"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

[@PhilipMcAdam]

This I feel should be played in every school in the world. I have to show our children that they cannot make the same mistakes that we and our forefathers made when we believed in religion. And tell them it is time to move on and create a better world that we have left them.

[@IIICASEIII]

Did you make sure you wiped after spilling out that diarrhea of a comment?

[@FeistyJackball]

IIICASEIII Please explain why you viewed what he said as diarrhea.

[@PhilipMcAdam]

Scott Winney As a former religious follower myself you have to understand that their base position form the indoctrination is that they have the truth and every other point of view is very wrong if it does not include god. If it does carry god they are open for discussion. But if you throw it out straight away. There is nothing there that they understand or able to discuss. This is unsettling to them as they are taught to express their belief as much as they can but if you pull away the carpet there is nothing left.

[@IIICASEIII]

Philip Mc Adam That's because there is TRUTH and there are LIES. There is ONLY 1 TRUTH. Talking of anything other than the existence of GOD is for the FOOLS who think the world revolves around them.

[@PhilipMcAdam]

Thank you for your kind words

[@saganworshipper6062]

If you could have only one of these great minds be your lone professor, who would it be? It would be a very difficult choice, but for me, it would have to be Richard Feynman. From my experience, which includes having read pretty much all his books and listened to almost all of his lectures, and in my own personal opinion, he is one of, if not THE, greatest problem solver to have ever lived in my own lifetime. And although I never got to personally meet him, he has given me a gift that I am eternally grateful for. It is because of Feynman, and others, that I have learned how to view the world from not just one, but many, many, other points of view. I now know that without a solid application of the Scientific method in my everyday life, my understanding of the Universe had been extremely limited. However, now that I am able to "stand on the shoulders of giants", my view of reality is so much greater than I could have ever previously imagined. So much in fact, that in a single lifetime, I would never be able to thank these men enough! Thank you for this inspiring video! Unlike another viewer who claimed this video ruined his night, it actually "MADE" my night. Please keep up the fantastic work in spreading the wisdom of all the great men and women in this video. Can you even imagine Willie Craig trying to match wits with Feynman? How about Dinesh? Ken Hambone? Cardinal Pell? LOL! ahahahahah!

[@scientificpatriot7607]

This is a great video. Thank you so much for putting it together. let's hope that reason and logic spreads all over the Earth and mankind can move past supernatural beliefs.

[@JPararajasingham]

Thank you

[@mertonhirsch4734]

I consider myself to be a scientist and would not provide rational support for any man made "religion" but "Belief" is supernatural. We either 1) believe because of material determinism in which case we have no reason to trust that our beliefs are rational and not a deterministic delusion of physics on one level and evolution on another, and also in which case, calling our beliefs rational, or presupposing that they line up with an underlying reality is a logically superfluous, faith-based claim that can not be justified by any materialistic scientific or logical process, or 3) come to our beliefs because we have freedom to do so, in which case we have to appeal to a super natural mechanism that enables true not-deterministic free will.

[@Dorkus89Malorkus]

Carl Sagan died far too young. Such an amazing man. May your name live forever.

[@saganworshipper6062]

"The values of science and the values of democracy are concordant, in many cases indistinguishable. Science and democracy began - in their civilized incarnations - in the same time and place, Greece in the seventh and sixth centuries BC. Science confers power on anyone who takes the trouble to learn it (although too many have been systematically prevented from doing so). Science thrives on, indeed requires, the free exchange of ideas; its values are antithetical to secrecy. Science holds to no special vantage points or privileged positions. Both science and democracy encourage unconventional opinions and vigorous debate. Both demand adequate reason, coherent argument, rigorous standards of evidence and honesty. Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge. It is a bulwark against mysticism, against superstition, against religion misapplied to where it has no business being. If we're true to its values, it can tell us when we're being lied to. It provides a mid-course correction to our mistakes. The more widespread its language, rules and methods, the better chance we have of preserving what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues had in mind. But democracy can also be subverted more thoroughly through the products of science than any pre-industrial demagogue ever dreamed." ~CS

[@saganworshipper6062]

Even a casual scrutiny of history reveals that we humans have a sad tendency to make the same mistakes again and again. We're afraid of strangers or anybody who's a little different from us. When we get scared, we start pushing people around. We have readily accessible buttons that release powerful emotions when pressed. We can be manipulated into utter senselessness by clever politicians. Give us the right kind of leader and, like the most suggestible subjects of the hypnotherapists, we'll gladly do just about anything he wants - even things we know to be wrong. The framers of the Constitution were students of history. In recognition of the human condition, they sought to invent a means that would keep us free in spite of ourselves. Some of the opponents of the US Constitution insisted that it would never work; that a republican form of government spanning a land with 'such dissimilar climates, economies, morals, politics, and peoples,' as Governor George Clinton of New York said, was impossible; that such a government and such a Constitution, as Patrick Henry of Virginia declared, 'contradicts all the experience of the world'. The experiment was tried anyway. Scientific findings and attitudes were common in those who invented the United States. The supreme authority, outranking any personal opinion, any book, any revelation, was - as the Declaration of Independence puts it - 'the laws of nature and of nature's GOD'. Dr Benjamin Franklin was revered in Europe and America as the founder of the new field of electrical physics. At the Constitutional Convention of 1789 John Adams repeatedly appealed to the analogy of mechanical balance in machines; others to William Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood. Late in life Adams wrote, 'All mankind are chemists from their cradles to their graves . . . The Material Universe is a chemical experiment.' James Madison used chemical and biological metaphors in The Federalist Papers. The American revolutionaries were creatures of the European Enlightenment which provides an essential background for understanding the origins and purpose of the United States.

[@saganworshipper6062]

Thomas Jefferson was a scientist. That's how he described himself. When you visit his home at Monticello, Virginia, the moment you enter its portals you find ample evidence of his scientific interests - not just in his immense and varied library, but in copying machines, automatic doors, telescopes and other instruments, some at the cutting edge of early nineteenth-century technology. Some he invented, some he copied, some he purchased. He compared the plants and animals in America with Europe's, uncovered fossils, used the calculus in the design of a new plough. He mastered Newtonian physics. Nature destined him, he said, to be a scientist, but there were no opportunities for scientists in prerevolutionary Virginia. Other, more urgent, needs took precedence. He threw himself into the historic events that were transpiring around him. Once independence was won, he said, later generations could devote themselves to science and scholarship. Jefferson was an early hero of mine, not because of his scientific interests (although they very much helped to mould his political philosophy), but because he, almost more than anyone else, was responsible for the spread of democracy throughout the world. The idea - breathtaking, radical and revolutionary at the time (in many places in the world, it still is) is that not kings, not priests, not big city bosses, not dictators, not a military cabal, not a de facto conspiracy of the wealthy, but ordinary people, working together, are to rule the nations. Not only was Jefferson a leading theoretician of this cause; he was also involved in the most practical way, helping to bring about the great American political experiment that has, all over the world, been admired and emulated since. He died at Monticello on 4 July 1826, fifty years to the day after the colonies issued that stirring document, written by Jefferson, called the Declaration of Independence. It was denounced by conservatives worldwide. Monarchy, aristocracy and state-supported religion - that's what conservatives were defending then. In a letter composed a few days before his death, he wrote that it was the 'light of science' that had demonstrated that 'the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs', nor were a favoured few born 'booted and spurred'. He had written in the Declaration of Independence that we all must have the same opportunities, the same 'unalienable' rights. And if the definition of 'all' was disgracefully incomplete in 1776, the spirit of the Declaration was generous enough that today 'all' is far more inclusive.

[@Electronite1978]

Simply an awesome video! Going to favourites!

[@andrschiller]

Utterly beautiful compilation! Creates what some might call a spiritual experience.

[@arainaz10]

This is beautiful! I absolutely loved every second of this video. Thank you!

[@stevejames5863]

i see zero beauty in this

[@velislavastaneva6825]

So beautifully put together! I get goosebumps only by listening to them ...

[@shookshort4193]

Thank you for putting all important info together

[@guysovereign]

Thanks for compiling this. I watch it regularly.

[@glenngould7299]

Pararajasingham, people come here to hear scientists say interesting stuff about religion and God, not by definition positive stuff but, all kind of stuff because that is what the title suggests . Instead of that one gets a cold shower of negativity which is very unpleasant. Scientists telling how stupid religion is and that God does not exists. What is wrong with you dude? It is Obvious that you have hatred in your heart. You probably come from a muslim world, i kind of understand, still it is not ok what you are doing here, it is quite discusting. Take your hatred elsewere, go see a shrink would my suggestion be. Lots of us in the west grew up with milds forms of christianity in the partly atheist liberal democratic states. Most of us have no reason to be full of hate. We do not have such problems like you have. If you want to hurt people go post this stuff in arabic and leave us alone.

[@JPararajasingham]

“people come here to hear scientists say interesting stuff about religion and God” The thousands of likes and positive comments is plain evidence against your unfounded assumption. Good start. “that is what the title suggests” There is no “rule” for titles that you can point to, so I can title my video how I wish. This is youtube, not the news. I used the title to emphasise the point that if you ask elite academics about god, you’re likely to hear expressions of disbelief. Now if you couldn’t cope with that, the introduction itself would stop people like yourself, too weak and frail to hear the unpleasantness of a point of view contrary to your own, from watching the actual video content. But you chose to carry on despite the warning. I can only assume the reason that happened was because you’re a tad thick? “Instead of that one gets a cold shower of negativity which is very unpleasant. Scientists telling how stupid religion is and that God does not exists.“ That’s your perception, again thousands are finding this positive and pleasant. “It is Obvious that you have hatred in your heart. You probably come from a muslim world” Lol, wonderful racial profiling! You’ve won first prize for the most ignorant, ill-informed comment on my channel. Congrats! “Lots of us in the west grew up with milds forms of christianity in the partly atheist liberal democratic states. Most of us have no reason to be full of hate. We do not have such problems like you have. If you want to hurt people go post this stuff in arabic and leave us alone.” So if I were to now tell you that I am British and born into a Christian household, where does that leave your idiotic, rambling, moronic argument? Secondly, why would you be so thick as to suggest what I should or shouldn’t post on my own channel, which you have decided to visit? This is open social media you moron, if you want content that only reinforces what you already think, jog on.

[@glenngould7299]

You are just narrow minded person who brainwashed himself with al sorts of nonsense. Go see a shrink that would do you good.

[@JPararajasingham]

Glenn Gould Your broken English is hilariously ironic after preaching about how you think I should've posted in Arabic. Are you sure you can even understand what is being said here or in the video, simpleton? Given your comment here last week where you claim god is "irrational", I have no idea what your point is, other than perhaps being a really rubbish troll?

[@glenngould7299]

I like the word simpleton so at least i've got some tiny amount of positivity out of the Parajasingham experience. So there is still hope for you my friend..

[@JPararajasingham]

Glenn Gould Ah, I do like the sound of an uncomplicated, arrogant racist whose just had the wind taken out of his sails. Almost as soothing as listening to the real Glenn Gould :)

[@namesameasu]

This video teaches us that academics may be very dull-minded when they speak of subjects beyond their field of expertise, such as religion.

[@LAlba9]

Religion, (if it can even be considered an academic subject conferring expertise from its alleged mastery), is the one subject of which no man can legitimately claim superior knowledge.

[@infinitus.]

+Lawrence E. Alba seriously, you sound like a dumbass. "conferring expertise from its alleged mastery" ...A. how about you stick to simple words before you choke trying to sound more intelligent than you actually are? And B. you can in fact be highly knowledgeable and an expert in religion as the study of world religions is an academic pursuit for many. What you mean to say is no one can claim to be an expert in the subject of God.

[@LAlba9]

Cher Ree Nobody's choking on anything here. I'm a retired editor with more education than I care to admit and 50 years experience in copy editing and even some teaching in journalism. Do you mind if I use the words and style that I like? Or would you prefer that I write especially for you? Send me a check and I will. Otherwise, relax. You're reacting like a rube.

[@infinitus.]

+Lawrence E. Alba You're an editor but made the error using an incorrect relative clause. You may want to use the following relative clauses: of which, in which, from which, or by which. There is no relative clause like about which. So, there's that. And do you understand why I say what I said in my first comment? Because it makes no sense. If I have to explain why then why bother. Good luck.

[@LAlba9]

You're right. I edited it...that's what editors do; they aren't perfect. Still...writing is my trade.

[@locarserrto1081]

If we have an idea, the idea of God, it makes it already real. God works because it helps us to have a point of reference from which we all can work together. It helps us to transform the abstract into something tangible, it give us the possibility to have not become to not relay only on ourselves or on other humans but in an idea, this give us freedom without becoming self righteous. I could try to explain theses points better and I will in time, but I will end up saying, why all these people arguing against God don't try to find what works, what is useful and develop those aspects instead of discarding all of it. Most of the arguments against religion can by make about any institution, country, organisation, or group of people... why? because we are constantly evolving, transforming, changing and discovering new things. You don't dismantle the whole of the UK state just because has done terrible things around the world through history, you just try to learn form the past, try to better the present and make the future of the decisions the UK make more humane and considerate of other groups of people.

[@larrycarter3765]

One can't speak about god because there are none. God delusions, yes.

[@JackyBRyant25]

I heard it said that we only need laws, but we could not have a God who set all of this in motion with purpose? Why not? Our own genetic coding is programmed information or I would not be who and what I am right now. God gave the laws. Below are scientific facts that were in scripture long before man figured it out and I am not even listing all of the ones I could. Jeremiah 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. Jeremiah 33:25 This is what Jehovah says: ‘Just as surely as I have established my covenant regarding the day and the night, the laws of heaven and earth Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He STRETCHES OUT THE HEAVEN LIKE A CANOPY, AND SPREADS THEM OUT LIKE A TENT TO LIVE IN. Hebrews 11:1-3 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Job 26:7 He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing job 38: 1-41 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy? 8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’? 12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. 15 The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken. 16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness? 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. 19 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? 20 Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! 22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, 26 to water a land where no one lives, an uninhabited desert, 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? 28 Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? 29 From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 30 when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen? 31 “Can you bind the chains[b] of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? 32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c] or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs? 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth? 34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water? 35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’? 36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f] or gives the rooster understanding?[g] 37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 38 when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together? 39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions 40 when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? 41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food? Amos 9:6 The one who builds his stairs in the heavens And establishes his structure over the earth; The one who summons the waters of the sea, To pour them out on the surface of the earth Jehovah is his name john 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. Now, for scripture regarding unbelievers: Psalm 69: 4-5 More in number than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without cause; mighty are those who would destroy me, those who attack me with lies. What I did not steal must I now restore? O God, you know my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you. Proverbs 3: 5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Proverbs 9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Jude 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Romans 1:29-32 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Some quotes from this video: "I try not to have faith." "Grappling with phantoms." "I cling to rationale." "They invent all sorts of questions, that they then taunt humanity with." "the absence of evidence is not a reason to inductively infer that the hypothesis false" EXACTLY! You cannot disprove God. If you go this far to destroy a belief, then your atheism has become as bad as organized religion. WE ARE NOT OMNISCIENT, THEREFORE WE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND AN OMNISCIENT BEING OR IT'S EXISTENCE. Please take a deeper look at the word of God. Jesus is real and he loves us.

[@glutinousmaximus]

JackyBRyant25 To think that people waste their lives with cock like this...;

[@glutinousmaximus]

Oh dear...MORE cock...

[@deathguppie]

@Justin Amis, how and why are not mutually exclusive. By explaining "how" the universe works, you are also explaining why. I understand that for some people that explanation may not live up to thier grand vision, but perhaps it's not the facts that need to change but the vision. Maybe it's time to see beyond our personal beliefs and move toward something greater.

[@Jexyxd56]

Of course all these scientists which have made great contributions don't know how to respond to a question about God because just like many of them say, there is no need of a God in our lives, but if you ask them questions regarding their area of expertise they will absolutely give you an answer. Criticizing them just proves even more what one of them said, believers think they know everything just by saying there is a God. Would your answer be any different if they asked you anything about their subject of study? Of course, many of us don't have their knowledge, and my final question, did you hear from any of them, I like to preach from door to door about my disbelief, no, only your book full of immorality tells you to do that, they care about making our understanding of our visible universe better that's all. So, only thing I would love people to do is show them respect because if it weren't for them we wouldn't even be using stuff like the internet for example. It's sad how this world has allowed religion and adopt it and just pray instead of standing up and doing something to solve problems.

[@kasparov9]

I've never heard of the universe starting as an 'expansion', it was always referred to as a giant explosion that then expanded and cooled into the universe we see today. I suppose it doesn't matter how you term it, it was a pretty significant event.

[@gerb1lmage]

this is so beautiful.... such wonderful minds put together in a simple, elegant manner. Thanks a lot for this.

[@locarserrto1081]

For such a clever gay, these scientists seam to reduce the idea of God to very simplistic terms and they seam to luck the imagination and the acknowledgement of the many reasons of why the idea of God it exist, is important and is not in contradictions with science.

[@Moonfreeze]

I love these videos of yours, just a tip: You can add a compressor and limiter to the audio (the speaking) and it'll "even out" the volume throughout the videos different clips.

[@jjharvathh]

These guys are all speaking about, it seems, a very simple, almost childish concept of God.

[@dk6024]

"I had no need of that hypothesis." -- Pierre Simone Marquis de Laplace

[@IIICASEIII]

The Wheat & The Tares... Here ladies and gentlemen we have the TARES. Those without FAITH.

[@JPararajasingham]

Scientific literacy and disbelief are correlated, according to the best surveys/studies we have.

[@PSNkilo52]

"Religious wars only came about because someone thought they had the best imaginary friend" ~PSNkilo52~

[@mikel9056]

How big is consciousness? Do you measure thought by the size of your head? It seems that these poor souls don't believe in God because they can't measure Him with a yardstick or see Him through a telescope.

[@sethyellin8336]

Creator(s)* Not limited to the Bible but I suppose you mean to, as well as many others do, buttttt: Elah/Elohim is plural, ♂, and ♀. Allah (though seen usually as one male and that is it) means ♂, ♀, plural. Http://Near-Death.com

[@cskipper65]

I believe that Guth does believe in god but he does not pretend to invoke god into his scientific exploration as this video claims. The same maybe true for other scientist in this video. I find that religion is more than just believing in God it is a fight for the minds of others to conform and yes that includes atheism. This to me is the irony of these atheist that feel this overwhelming desire to spout about their non belief. Kind of sounds like a religious movement.

[@RainbowEagleSerpent]

Yes, a religious movement, complete with priests (scientists, professors, teachers) unending secular institutes, political and military power magic (big bang, dark matter, dark energy) sheepish followers and massive funding.

[@IronAnimation]

I could make a stronger argument for Hogwarts then I could for God

[@snowviolet508]

You are making a claim that the bible is vague about sexual immorality? What scripture specifically leads you to believe like this? We have clear instruction that homosexuality is completely out, that sex outside of a marriage covenant is out, and that it has always been God's design for one man and one woman in marriage. Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because there are examples of men with multiple wife's or incest within the pages of the bible, that that is God giving his blessing to those things. Also- for record, I'm not blind- I do notice your rude way of speaking to me in each response. I'm not sure if you are so accustomed to hostility that you naturally interact in that paradigm- but I have been polite to you, while firmly stating my position. I do not agree that you have made cogent statement, although you seem to be of the opinion that only you are capable of making a well reasoned position. That's a weak platform, in my opinion, and your manner of speaking to me has tuned me out to what you have to say. At least yay is consistent with the atheist world view that humans are nothing more than highly evolved bags of protoplasm and treating them with dignity is a superficial waste of energy.

[@JPararajasingham]

It is the lack of scripture that makes it vague. Nowhere does the Bible actually define what sexual immorality is. Again, I have written responses to this other guy extensively, please have a look rather than making me copy and paste the same responses. I don't know what you think I have said that is any "ruder" than your responses. I'm not blind either, just because you added a "sorry" to one previous post doesn't mean you can now claim some higher moral ground over me in terms of how you treat people. You were strongly worded to begin with in telling me how wrong I am. But I don't mind, I'm just interested in what your actual arguments are. I don't think you really have any.

[@JPararajasingham]

Also, you may want to look at your fellow Christian here, whose thread you have interrupted, and how he began this by insulting atheists as an entire group. But interestingly now you have just done the same thing, suggesting atheists do not have a basis for morality therefore are consistent to be immoral. I don't know what your definition of treating people with dignity is, but I don't share it. I wouldn't even say it is Christian, the Christians I know wouldn't make such sweeping generalisations about a whole group in that way.

[@loredelamore]

God is made of energy, therefore there is no problem with God being the origin point of the big bang center. Design doesn't imply that there is a magical old man in the sky, it states that the universe has structure to it, thought, which is clear as day to anyone that observes the world around them. Constants, laws, principles. It would be a tragedy, not a "happy accident" for this to be a godless universe, as there would be no point in existing, no future. Existence would be all for not.

[@bgoodfella7413]

"God is made of energy" says who? you? any proof to this assumption? "would be a tragedy for this to be a godless universe, as there would be no point in existing, no future. Existence would be all for not." Says who? you? any proof to this assumption? BTW Constants, laws, principles and design are discoveries and implements of mankind. Just because E=mc2 doesn't mean God exists, nor because their is a law of gravity nor because we have morals such as Do not kill nor because a tree appears as it does in nature. Existence For YOU would be pointless if God was not real because you cling to your superstition like a child to his belief in Santa. Get over it. God is invisible anyways so it wouldn't really change anything if his invisibility was due to his non-existence in the first place. Nothing changes with the fact that God is not real. Look around, what has changed? Not a damn thing.

[@glutinousmaximus]

loredelamore I think you may mean "The Big Bag"..?

[@mclaarson]

i love marcus de sautoy he did awesome documentaries on math

[@Freethinker1958]

Thank you for putting this video together. It has become my favorite. I like it even better than the ten minute video of Sam Harris totally exposing the silliness of the Catholic religion during a debate with William Craig.

[@MichaelWolf940]

I believe in science not fairytales.

[@LegitPlays777]

God is real! Jesus is historically proven, the bible talk about things that are happening today! DO you really think an universe as complicating as ours is made from a big bang? NO! DO YOU REALLY THINK OUR BRAIN WAS RANDOMLY MADE? NO! GOD MADE US ABOVE ANIMALS, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE FREE WILL.

[@SOULRELIEF22]

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." St John:16! ❤️ "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God." KJV

[@JJones7307]

there is other life outside of our little bubble. If scientist were aloud to visit space and see they would believe in god very quickly. They were interview economists what does that even have to do with people that may know something about science or god. Interview an astronomer who studies the planets for a living or maybe a person who has vast knowledge in more than one subject or field not just science. knowledge is not acquired in one field it is acquired in more than one.

[@Marxist2]

+JJones7307 Did you watch & listen & processes what these men of all fields said? They are scientists, astronomers, physics, philosophers, mathematicians, etc., One thing that I can tell you about your god theory BIG BANG.

[@JJones7307]

Prove to me that their isn't a God since you think you know so much and if you cant don't feed the bears.

[@Marxist2]

Darwin, Richard Dawkins, etc., Study science moron. Oh you need to believe in a deity, how cute. Even bears aren't that stupid. Go hug a unicorn or better yet a fairy. Believe what you have to, whatever makes you happy.

[@JJones7307]

small minds discuss people.

[@KevZen2000]

It is very difficult to know what people mean about God(s). It isn't a complete hypothesis, and various God theories tend to contradict each other. This is a major reason why it isn't a good theory to explain the questions it tries to answer.

[@jimsears8350]

More to a better and more profound point, as Singer/Songwriter (And Social Psychologist) Chris Aable correctly notes, and I'm quoting directly from his Facebook page: "By definition, an "all-creator" god who thus "creates" childhood diseases, viruses, cancers, parasites and millions of still-borns would not only be a cruel god and the biggest abortionist of all time, but such a god's cruelest act would be to "create" millions of irreplaceable loved-ones and have them and their families suffer deeply and all-too-soon from disease and war because long ago and far away someone had "sinned" against the alleged "God's" insecure vanity. As my song notes: "If I were a god, and the world were mine, I would build a much better design There would still be mountains if you wanted to climb but no child would fall behind." In other words, I don't think most sensible people are asking for a perfect world, but no child deserves to die slow and painful deaths when they have done nothing to earn it. If there really was such an "all-creator" truly thoughtful and moral people would *not* want anything to do with such a monster god, even if it were real. Thank goodness there is no proof or evidence of such a sadistic monster."

[@RainbowEagleSerpent]

Reasons for the religious failure - Equating religion with GOD is erroneous. Equating the concept of GOD, Theos, Deus, LORD etc. with a supreme being is erroneous. Reasons for the new priesthood of science's failure; Equating the inability to measure the immeasurable to the non-existence of the immeasurable is prejudiced. Equating the inability to apprehend universal natural phenomenal is forgotten when pretense is made to correctly interpret scripture To experiment experientially with the essentials of existence is not an academic pursuit. It is participatory, and severely lacking in the acquisition of inarguable truth.

[@glenngould7299]

It makes very little sense to ask people who tend to be over rationalizing extremists about irrational stuff like God.

[@FeistyJackball]

As a life long outdoorsy type, I remember Sir David Attenborough's bit at 13:12 being a compelling moment for me when I first found this compilation. Word to the wise: Only risk researching the eye worm he's talking about on an empty stomach. It's nasty. Otherwise, this became a "must know these people's work" list. I can't begin to recall all the ah-ha research moments I've had with everyone showcased here because of this video.

[@mertonhirsch4734]

I consider myself to be a scientist and would not provide rational support for any man made "religion" but "Belief" is supernatural. We either 1) believe because of material determinism in which case we have no reason to trust that our beliefs are rational and not a deterministic delusion of physics on one level and evolution on another, and also in which case, calling our beliefs rational, or presupposing that they line up with an underlying reality is a logically superfluous (Russel's teapot), and faith-based claim that can not be justified by any materialistic scientific or logical process, or 2) come to our beliefs because we have freedom to do so, in which case we have to appeal to a super natural mechanism that enables true not-deterministic free will.

[@johnromberg]

This video series has great value in that it shows it's not just Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dannett and the like against the innumerable clergy and media hosts who have the bewildered masses at their disposal. It shows that there are many more people, respectable people, on this side of the argument. It certainly doesn't matter in the sense of the ultimate truth, as it would be considered an argument from authority, but it's just nice to see that atheism is not just a passing fad, a crusade, if you will, of a handful of people. It's just human nature to be more comfortable if you know you're not alone. Of course, atheism has not been just a fringe idea for quite some time, but there is a whole generation coming of age for whom if it's not on YT or WP it didn't happen. I also love how it starts with Krauss assessing that most scientists are so far away from religious nonsense that they don't find it worthy of their time to stop and seriously consider it. They are atheists practically by default. As you would expect from an intelligent person. And the whole tone of calm and to the point reasoning most of these people give seems to support that assessment perfectly. It gives hope that this debate will also change tone very soon. From a loud and angry all out brawl to a quiet discussion for those interested in the workings of the mind, history and sociology. To why and how was this a topic of conversation anyway.

[@avieus]

“Existence” is a man made concept... just think about that. There are extra dimensions that are beyond our reach and understanding. How does this relate to this video’s theme? Everything (another man made concept)

[@doodelay]

Exceptional collection you've got here. Wonderful upload that more people should see, I wish I'd have though of doing this lol

[@athenaminerva8954]

When somebody tries to make people believe something because- in his opinion- this is the view of "top" academics at "top" institutions who have won prizes, switch your mind off. The best presentation is one that invites you to think- not tell you what you ought to think- and relies solely on the intelligence of the argument, without paying attention to who expressed it.

[@Marxist2]

Well, this video must be shown in every classroom, in every school & in every public place, including those churches that don't pay their fair share of taxes. Perhaps it will enlighten those believers out of their ignorance.

[@baneofmalleabus4935]

Interesting ideas here. Great video! A more straight forward approach can be viewed also by maximo mindofgod check out "Who Is God?"

[@beforebefore]

Words spoken in belief on one side of the fence or the other do not prove or disprove ones existence... they are just words of mere men, no matter how "renown" they are among men. As has already been said, I would not ask a Medical Doctor for advice on the best oil for my car… I’d ask someone who has done the field-appropriate study and research... so why ask Scientists for their opinions on religion? If someone comes to me and states that he personally met a man in the wilderness outside of Kathmandu who had 7 fingers on each hand and 7 toes on each foot, and I said to him "I don't believe such a man exists", does my disbelief prove that man doesn't exist? On the other hand, if I were then to say to him that "I believe a whole tribe of those people exists"... does that make it real? Facts are required to substantiate any claim… or “belief”, and God did not leave us to simply "believe by faith alone" without giving us evidence to support our beliefs. Search, and you will find vast & numerous proofs, both historical and archaeological, that support the Biblical stories that were once thought to be nothing more than "fabricated stories" that were handed down through generations... but many of which have over the past two centuries been proven as truth... evidence that the Word of God will always be shown as true. As a Research & Development Design Engineer, I’m well-versed in the requirement for facts to support claims. Back 20-odd years ago, I took it upon myself to prove or disprove what some of my colleagues were claiming about their 'God', so I began my research in earnest. Upon completion of my open-minded research (so as to be honest with myself), I was dumbfounded with the amount of evidence discovered supporting the Biblical claims, and began my next quest... my search for this "personal God" who supposedly wants to know me... and me Him... personally. This "next step" for me eventually resulted in my transition from non-believer to believer, aka: "my conversion". God provided numerous personal experiences that were far too numerous and clear to discount as "coincidence". I have indeed found God... who was actually never far from me. The problem is that "man" does not want to believe that he is inferior to anything or anyone... he refutes the possibility that he is responsible to any kind of a "higher being" for the things he does... for if God >is< real, then there must be a huge price to pay for the bad things we have done throughout our life. No...... "man" wants to be in the position of "none higher", so that we can do what we want, ignoring God’s commands and precepts, and not be held responsible for it. Fear causes us to "run away and hide" from an all-knowing God... like a little child, running to hide after doing something he knew was wrong... hoping to escape punishment from his earthly father. But here's the problem with that kind of a view of God... it's a "human perspective"... based upon "broken" humanity, and how fathers often ... instead of ... the two are from completely polar opposite perspectives... punishment out of anger due to disobedience; or discipline out of love, and concern for the child. Punishment teaches children nothing other than fear of an angry parent. Discipline teaches a child love of a concerned parent. Because of love, a concerned parent will try to protect their child from the consequences of "wrong-doing"... aka "sin". So, a disciplinary action is given after the parent discusses the wrong, and why it's "wrong"... and what it can lead to if left un-checked. The "disciplinary action" is to act as a reminder, and the child will know that it was done in love and concern. God is not "angry" at people who have chosen to not believe in Him... His anger is directed to the one who is the author of disbelief... Satan... the originator of the "no-one higher than me", and "I'll decide for myself what's right and wrong" concepts. God isn't "out for revenge for your wrongs"... the price for your sins has already been taken care of... paid in full at the cross... all that's "required" of us - is to accept this payment on your behalf, and believe. As true believers, we accepted that "payment" for our own personal failures, and know that God cares so much for us that He sent his one and only Son to pay the price for our failures... our sins. It’s the most amazing trade of all time… He paid the penalty for my sins, and gives me his legal perfection before the almighty God. Belief in God isn't "for the weak person"... for what weak person would have the strength and courage to say "I believe" in today's society? No.... "disbelief" is best for the weak... because it's easier to just fall-in with the crowd. As a believer, I can’t/don't consider myself any better than anyone else… because I’m simply not… I know me. But I am forgiven, and as an “adopted” child of God, I can lay rightful claim to all of God’s promises.

[@boxerpop82]

+beforebefore Search for something you are looking for and you will convince yourself one way or another that it is found, whether it exist or not. We are human beings, but we're still animals with inherent animal characteristics in our brain development.

[@jesseadebayo4746]

Everything came from nothing is the alternative to believing in God. If that is wisdom, then I prefer to be a fool.

[@stevejames5863]

the thing is the laws are in place and as a zillion mistakes in which brings a man w a mind to think of science. yet it is the laws , and awesome universe itself that needs to explained. and a human being of which has happened over zillions of mistakes. in which they are speaking and they know there is no god. i find that absurd..i find these people incred arrogant

[@adocampo1]

Bread & butter of these great minds is reason, so how do you expect to learn more from something beyond reason, something that can only be experienced that is needed for a pure heart. & pure heart is the other side of pure consciousness, the AI consciousnes which frightens everyone.

[@RobsRemixes]

Humans believe in God for one reason only, Fear. The fear death so they believe in an almighty that will give them new life, When your laying on your deathbed praying for god to come and lift you to the heavens its not because you have faith, its because your scared you will be no more. ''In the time of need i look to the skies, but all i see are clouds''

[@stevejames5863]

i find the first statement absurd, and arrogant...i m a skeptic, therefore i m right. or other comments i find arrogant...{like , i have no interest in faith in god, therefore he doesn t exist.} i find this video , a video in arrogance if there is no god, and if you have no need for it. i don t need you scientists either, you are noting to me.you are dust, and mistakes, and you will soon be gone.

[@spaveevo]

thumbs up all the way.

[@deepaktripathi4417]

Knowing just small percentage of the universe, to claim that just the natural world all there is and there is nothing like something supernatural is completely irrational to me.

[@immaaaxx]

There seems to be an inherent assumption that by including "world-renowned" an assertion incurs more credibility and force...

[@davidschroeder21]

None human animals? Hmm. As suppose to human animals who's suffering is valid. I bet that guy has an account on silkroad.

[@golden-63]

*Cool video. However IMO it would have been even more interesting to feature academics that had a variety of opinions on the subject.*

[@anonymousR7]

Can't really argue about gods with people whom often see themselves (subconsciously or not) as gods, or as higher than others.

[@WildwoodClaire1]

Nice series. One of my viewers recommended that I give you a shoutout in a little show I produce each Sunday, called "Coffee with Claire." I shall be happy to so.

[@RoseSantos-mp3nj]

I cannot watch it. It says, Not available in your country. Please remove the restrictions! I am so interested to watch it. Thank you!

[@EggsEngineering]

26:40 that guy is an alarmist who spends most of his time talking about dooms day theories on TV. i respect most of the other opinions in this video.

[@JPararajasingham]

By the way, look at the wording of your comment: though THESE MEN may be great scientist and worthy of respect, ANY of them would be slain in a debate with a real philosopher on the matter. Indeed, MANY of them don't even accept the rational conclusions of their atheism" There was no indication that you were referring to specific people as you later corrected, nor that you even appreciated that the video did not solely include scientists. So there was nothing wrong at all with my response.

[@JPararajasingham]

Looks like the comment boxes did allow you to address the point you needed to make in the end. Anyway, I see nothing wrong in concluding disbelief because there is no evidence of him from examining the nature of reality. 99% of believers come to the conclusion that God exists because of evidence (design, experience, cosmogeny, goodness, etc.). Explain to me the mistake of disbelieving for the opposite reasons (no design, no experience, natural cosmogeny, evil, etc.).

[@JPararajasingham]

Yet another person commenting without actually watching it. There are many philosophy professors throughout this series of videos. Indeed, most professional philosophers are non-believers. Plus Einstein was not someone who believed in a personal God, so are you just picking the Einstein quote which suits you? Overall, I think you need to rethink your entire comment, to say the least.

[@JPararajasingham]

I've never run into an atheist who has spoken with absolute certainty. So if you've never heard lack of certainty, does that mean you haven't even read/heard Dawkins explaining his lack of absolute certainty? I don't find anything wrong with people speaking out on their opinions from both sides of the debate. If people were not exposed to different opinions, we would never progress.

[@JPararajasingham]

If you watch part 3 of the series, it becomes very apparent that many of the Oxbridge dons also have a reluctance to use the term atheist, believing it to be too strong/militant, and therefore default to the term agnostic when pressed to give themselves a label. Like Tyson, they'd prefer to have no label, so that they don't cause disrespect or invite criticism based on the term's baggage. It's frustrating, as you say, that the definitional accuracy of the term isn't enough.

[@JPararajasingham]

"I wager you could find 50 scientist who do believe in God" I've already made a video of 20 of the some of most respected Christian academics. Why don't you go and find eminent theists, if you think it's so simple? I genuinely found it a struggle to find any. But if you think there are so many (and remember I chose to restrict myself to actual clips to avoid charges of misquotation) then we're all waiting to see what you can produce. Talk is cheap.

[@JPararajasingham]

"go through great lengths to find these clips" It's not that difficult. 130 so far, and compiling another 50 as we speak. And every single one a very eminent thinker or academic, but they're still easy to find. "most scientist actually believe in God." Statistics say otherwise, with respect to modern scientists. "in an attempt to sway public faith" People are misinformed (as you have ironically just shown) about the views of eminent thinkers. I am informing them of the truth.

[@JPararajasingham]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" - Albert Einstein Einstein speaking from the grave about you, I fear?

[@JPararajasingham]

"Interesting that we only have cognitive biases when they invoke the possibility of a Creator." Erm, I believe I have already given examples of things about nature which our cognitive limitations could not lead us to, such as spacetime and quantum strangeness, which have nothing to do with a creator. The conversation is pointless if you are going to talk past what I'm saying. And you've turned this into a multi-post back and forth which isn't appropriate for this format.

[@JPararajasingham]

"So where do you think the genetic data in DNA originated from?" A prime example of your brain failing. You have a bias of analogy. Can you give an example of something in existence which doesn't contain "data" or "design"? These terms came about to describe human-constructions, in contrast to natural constructions. But you are using them to describe natural constructions. The way you're using the term data, everything has data, because everything has some level of complexity and pattern.

[@JPararajasingham]

"Whether evolution occurred or not does not mitigate a Creator." The God hypothesis for many was (and still is) based on the idea of design, and the most powerful argument put forward was the design of biological creatures, especially humans. Indeed, it wasn't even argued, it was simply taken as obvious fact that humans were intelligently created. So evolution is a huge mitigating factor for many people. Your comment about microbiology isn't an accepted scientific view at all.

[@JPararajasingham]

"If you REALLY think about it, what could make a 'big bang' other than an intelligent, transcendent entity?" If you REALLY think about it, could the same particle exists in two places simultaneously? You have faith in your cognitive abilities which doesn't fit with the evidence that it is totally unreliable. I listed the things which sound intuitive about nature which turn out not to be already. You irrationally believe you have the amazing ability to work out THE ultimate answer to everything.

[@JPararajasingham]

"not so easily dismissed by those who truly understand the logic" So again, if the more intelligent, the more educated, the more philosophically literate and the more scientifically literate do not "truly" understand the logic, who does? That's the problem you have with suggesting it's "atheist bloggers" who have it all wrong. This comes back to my video. Watch it again, it sort of counters your point. I can assure you the speakers are more than atheist bloggers.

[@JPararajasingham]

"pride in their intelligence" - So you believe everyone or even most who are intelligent are proud? "logical arguments" - most philosophers do not find these plausible, and are nonbelievers. "a rich tradition" - doesn't have anything to do with the hypothesis "history" - testimony of others is the lowest form of evidence "a strong anthropic principle...personal..expereinces" - evidence of cognitive failings counter such evidence as I mentioned.

[@JPararajasingham]

"Pascal and Boyle didn't either." I believe I already addressed the point that you and I have more scientific knowledge than Pascal and Boyle, whose knowledge was limited to that of the 1600s. Are you aware that science really began at that time? Evolution, genetics, neuroscience, big bang cosmology all massively impact one's view of the role of a deity and the plausibility/necessity its existence.

[@JPararajasingham]

"To say God doesn't exist because we can't 'observe' him is just poor logic." There are a multitude of things that you cannot find evidence for that you do believe in because you do not observe them PLUS you have no reason to suppose their existence. If I simultaneously find no reason to suppose a deity exists, plus there is no evidence of its existence, it is utterly logical to disbelieve such a being exists.

[@JPararajasingham]

"So tell me, by what 'empirical evidence' does empiricism stand out as the only true way to acquire knowledge?" The empirical evidence that it works and genuinely yields useful knowledge and products. What philosophy do you think yields knowledge, and can you give an example? I agree we all have faith in our senses. We all accept certain axioms, no getting away from that. But the faith diminishes with empiricism, which involves REPEAT testing, MULTIPLE lines of evidence, etc.

[@JPararajasingham]

Could we have deduced that time is a variable dimension? Could we have deduced the vast cosmological scales? Could we have deduced the bizarre behaviour of subatomic particles? Could we have deduced that we have immense cognitive biases? Brain failures are evident from even simple tests like optical illusions. Yet theism forms an answer to the ultimate complex question purely on intuition. I think it's clear that is highly irrational.

[@JPararajasingham]

I didn't claim to speak for "all" scientists, I don't even claim to speak for anyone but myself for that matter. A bizarre thing to say to someone who has made a video allowing scientists to speak for themselves to avoid that very accusation. But anyway... I agree with inference to the best explanation, but it can only be based on empirical evidence (Darwin made his inference based on gathered empirical data). Theism on the other hand is an inference based on intuition and no evidence.

[@JPararajasingham]

"any conclusions appear to be based on some kind of flawed logic" The "logic" is that beliefs about reality require evidence to rationally justify them. The basis for this is lack of evidence for any intervening superintelligence beyond nature, alongside the body of neuroscientific evidence suggesting no mind beyond matter and complete unreliability of human intuition. I'd like to hear why you think that is flawed logic. PS. Wanton suffering is a bit of a theistic hurdle too.

[@JPararajasingham]

If you are up to speed on modern day science, then even you have more scientific knowledge than those in your list. You need to pay more attention to the era of science. None of those you mention other than Planck could have been aware of evolution for example. And none of them would have known anything about genetics or neuroscience. Their beliefs by virtue of the era they were born into were less informed. As scientific knowledge and literacy progresses, theistic belief corrodes.

[@JPararajasingham]

"make a video of 50 nurses and doctors" Can you justify your claim that scientists are in too narrow fields to answer the god question, but doctors are not? Doctors practice medicine, in narrow and hugely varying specialties. So you could just as (if not more) easily argue that you cannot ask a "gynaecologist about geography". It is also odd to suggest that more exposure to suffering leads one to God. Rather paradoxical don't you think? Unless of course the God you worship is malevolent...

[@JPararajasingham]

Firstly I can only assume you don't know any scientists and haven't watched this video properly to make such a sweeping erroneous statement. Scientific literacy corrodes theistic belief, because scientists examine nature and find no plausible evidence for nature being created. It is a reasoned, honest, evidence-based nonbelief that emerges. If theism had no claims about nature's origins which scientists study in minute detail, then their opinions wouldn't matter. But it has, so they do.

[@JPararajasingham]

"Atheists believe in science as their authority." You use science like it's a bad word. Science is evidence and reason. Evidence and reason are the best tools for establishing truth, as shown by their demonstrable effectiveness. Comparing this to the authority of scripture is laughable, given scripture has added zero comparable knowledge about reality. It pretends to have grand answers, but none which can can be demonstrated as real or true.

[@JPararajasingham]

"Are there any deists speaking? If so, forgive me - u should've pointed it out." I pointed it out to you, but you claimed it didn't matter. Thank you for finally realising it does. You look less stupid now. Gives hope that you'll realise you're also wrong about pantheism. If the definition of atheism was disbelief ONLY in a PERSONAL god, then the last sentence would be "key". Dawkins referred to pantheism as sexed-up atheism precisely because it isn't ACTUALLY atheism, as you've been arguing.

[@JPararajasingham]

Here, let me help you: Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Pantheism: doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. And "supreme being" is under the definition of God as you know. So deism and pantheism ARE in definitive conflict with atheism based on these full OED definitions.

[@JPararajasingham]

I know what you meant by personal God. My point is atheism is rejecting of deities, and doesn't specify about personal or impersonal. That is where your mistake lies. Some reject being called atheists because they believe have impersonal deity beliefs for example. Rather than telling me Dawkins definition or what deism is not, why don't you post the definitions for pantheism and deism and you'll answer your own question.

[@JPararajasingham]

I can't change the video, the captions are embedded so I would have to redo the whole thing. Forgive me but I didn't think it was important as you do. Look, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. As an atheist I would like to call the speakers all atheists, but the fact is they are not. Atheism doesn't fit all the speakers if I am going to be accurate. Sorry if you disagree, not much more I can say to convince you unfortunately.

[@JPararajasingham]

The fact that you're bringing up my mistake with Russell's title is telling that you at least on some subconscious level realise the total idiocy you're displaying by claiming to be able to say I'm wrong for using standard definitions rather than your own personal definitions. You want to gain a point? Well done, Russell isn't a sir lol. Why you insist on plastering my video with embarrassing comments I have no idea. I know you can't admit you're wrong, but maybe just walk away at least?

[@JPararajasingham]

Oh I see, so you're the authority on definitions? Sorry, I should've consulted you. I understand that your simple-mindedness leads you to define the word in that way, but the fact of the matter is it IS NOT defined that way. If you have an issue with that, write to OUP. Until then the definition is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" rather than the drivel you just wrote. And again your theism definition is wrong, it does not necessitate belief in "religion".

[@JPararajasingham]

I've watched that entire series. Did you watch the whole thing? Susskind explains that there is evidence of the multiverse from string theory in providing possibilities mathematically for many universes to evolve. So the theory has basis, it is not just pulled from thin air. So while still a hypothesis, it is a far better hypothesis than the unseen, invisible, magical, all-powerful sky monster that you believe in.

[@JPararajasingham]

Ultimate questions are the deepest complex questions anyone can ask about existence. These include: where did the universe come from, what is the purpose of life, what is moral, is there an afterlife, etc. Religion claims certain knowledge on ALL these ultimate questions. I say that is as intellectually arrogant as you can possibly get. Science doesn't claim certainty on ANY questions, it claims plausibility, levels of evidence and probability.

[@JPararajasingham]

"I would like to talk to you as an intellectual person, would you be happy to chat with e-mails?" You haven't disrespected me. But you have said too many things which are simply wrong, and you can correct them if you just looked them up first before saying them. I suggest you first look into correcting the mistakes I've pointed out, then maybe it is worth chatting. But otherwise I will be wasting my time. Sorry.

[@JPararajasingham]

"accusing of not being able to think just proves many things" I have shown it by pointing out your numerous factual mistakes. If you didn't believe in irrational things (like theism) your mental processing might be more effective. At the moment is isn't working properly. "if you believe in multiverse why not believe in the creator?" Yet another mistake. Firstly, I don't believe in it, I say it might be true. The theory comes out of mathematics, so it has more weight than a magical being.

[@JPararajasingham]

You can point to many aspects of biological life which show poor design from a human engineering perspective. In some cases you can argue that this has alternative benefits, but in many others only negative effects occur. Why have bodies prone to infection? Why have bodies which are weak and break? Why have brains which require a huge blood supply? Why do we need to eat 3 times a day? Why can we only survive in a narrow temperature range? No intelligent design, that's for sure.

[@JPararajasingham]

"fine tune the universe to this much forces me to believe there is a creator behind it" You should look into the evidence a bit more. Fine tuning could be explained by the multiverse, by carbon chauvinism, by inflation theory, by variation in the constants, etc. You accept the theory not because you are objective, but because you began as a Muslim, and cling on to anything which might support your theism without investigating it. I invite you to read unbiased books, and not Islamic websites.